Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Injin

New Members
  • Posts

    41,936
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Injin

  1. Ok, done that. No, I'm not. There is a contradiction, i've admitted it and the full reasoning has been put before you. Now you can either agree with the reasoning or point out how it is incorrect - however you just trying to ignore the purity of the price signal is poor form, shit thinking and crap debating. So, knock it the ****** off and either be honest in return for my honesty or stop engaging with me. ta.
  2. Women have a shorter time horizon to get kids into the world than men do. Might be why so few women are interested in waiting out the market for umpteen years, neh?
  3. You've already agreed that why something is bought is very important as information signalling - the price signal. Buying things for spurious reasons or to defend against the foolishness of others is a poor signal. It'd be much better if sound reasoning (actual demand) could be followed or that there were fewer fools about, wouldn't you agree?
  4. No, I'm being completely honest and open about a downside I perceive in pursuing irrational courses of action, even if they make sense in an irrational system. Have you considered the possibility that I am being open and honest with you?
  5. Already stated why - because at some point if TSHTF I'll be able to pass it onto someone else (who also doesn't want gold) it;s a big comedy circle jerk bubble. It's not actual, organic demand.
  6. And you are wrong. No, it doesn't. So you agree, it matters why people want something. Great, you agree that gold is a bubble. No, it's a fraud. Gold is worthless to people - even to those who are really into it because they've made a massive thinking error. Almost wveryone is passing it on to someone else who wants to pass it on. Very little organic demand. Whoever gets my gold in the end will almost certainly be under a series of stupid delusions about what they have got. I don't like it, but as I said if everyone else was rational i'd have the luxury of not needing to play defensively against nutters and fools. Hey ho, it is what it is. (I also pointed out the problem of ones financial self interest being in the opposite direction to rationality and common sense and the corrosive effect it has.)
  7. no, factually accurate. If you don't care why someone is doing something then you don't care if they are being coerced or if they are doing it off their own free will. Simple logic, you are suject to. If you are lumping demand into one big ball and leaving out reasons then why, yes I am. But only a ******ing idiot would do that. Completely and utterly wrong. The market ONLY cares why something is demanded. It's called a price signal. Freely chosen, rational price signals give market participants the best information and make for the best economies. Forced, fraudulent or mythological purchases give much faulty signals and ruin economies.
  8. The thing about bad choices of that nature is you ony find out afterwards. As moral culpability only occurs if you have foreknowledge, I find it tricky to start hefting blame around. Carefully neutral is my approach. In any event, bigkid was talking about who exactly they had marriied by type and so on. Bit of a jump. p.s. they weren't asking for a bailout either, just explaining why they were out of the game.
  9. No, I outlined why you not caring about why people want to do something means that rape is the same to you as making love. No, i am not. Whoever I pawn this wortless crap off to in the end is the demand. As already explained, it's not organic demand. I have no interest in gold at all. Gold is insurance against the fact that the rest of humanity isn't very rational. Bubble stuff, as already explained.
  10. I've already explained my reasoning and even admitted it goes against my personal philosophy. I've also explained why you are in favour of rape, which didn't bother you in the slightest. Bit crazy, ain't cha?
  11. Not just that, but he's wrong about gold anyway. If money is the most commonly used commodity in an economy, money has generally previously been silver or copper. but to go back to my printer ik example and flesh it out - monetary metals were so because people could take weights of the material and do things with it. Gold could become a ring, copper some pots and pans and so on. I don't see many people off down to the blacksmiths these days, do you On the other hand - printer ink is - Divisible. Expensive. In high demand. Storable for a long time. etc etc
  12. Can we have this weeks lottery numbers as well please, Mystic Meg?
  13. At no point did I say there was any organic demand for paper money. What money is is not a binary proposition - the "if not paper then must be gold" meme is one of the more worthless pieces of thinking in economics. Money could be quite literally anything. All that matters for a functioning economy is that it is freely chosen. And once, more, this is not some dovorced from reality mere theory, the definition of money I have used here is an observation of actual practice which has then been codified and put on paper by von mises. You can see money spontaneously appear wherever people congregate, it's an observable phenomenon. But, no, I understand, killerbee. You and max kaiser can make the buying decisions for 6 billion other humans because you are just that damn smart. They don't need to make their own decisions, you can do it for them. What time is your inauguration, mr president?
  14. http://puzzling.caret.cam.ac.uk/game.php?game=foodchain Foxes = sociopaths Rabbits = normal humans Or Foxes = the state Rabbits = taxpayers Too many sociopaths (predators) cull the human population (rabbits) leading to a reset. Of course what we could also be seeing is a lack of predators - maybe it has been the case that throughout history the sociopaths have been performing environmentally useful function of keeping human numbers in balance to the environment via their wars and genocides.
  15. Correct definitions of terms is solipsistic. Gotcha. What are you talking about? Co operation is the norm in living organisms. If you are pro life you have to be anti statist. My agenda is pro collaboration and anti coercion, but this is only a position derived from first principles - the very basics of interaction. Collaborative efforts can only have a proper feedback loop when all the parties within them have the option of refusal. Coercion in human affairs acts the same way diseases or cancers do to the body - diseases and cancers don't take no for an answer either, and death through inability to respond properly to the environment is the inevitable result. Another one for you - adulthood is when you get as large as you are going to and stop growing. Then (if fortunate and you don't get wiped out somehow) you slowly decline until death.
  16. I would have thought that if you were genuinely interested in thinking about the topic, me fixing a few simple errors in your thinking would be welcome. As it saves you a lot of time and effort overall. Ofc, if you want to ignore the fact you are mking basic errors, that's fine. But don't try and somehow make this my failing. I enjoy this and do it for the thing itself, so it's never a waste of my time, btw.
  17. But that's not an accurate definition of a state. A state is defined by it's special feature - the ability of it's members to use violence on non members with social sanction. Tescos manages to build a large cohesive group together without this feature (and indeed the state itself doesnt force people to join most of the time.) If you get your basic definitions wrong, everything you produce from that point must be suspect.
  18. Well sceppies contention is that human activity is bounded by the laws of thermodynamics (wel yeah, obviously) but that it's the real world which humans are making their decisions about. It isn't - people make decisions about (sometimes very dodgy) ideas they have about reality. Aight. The macro is the micro. Have another way of disproving sceppies basic thesis - is it possible for a small group of humans to just crack on and live without constantly increasing in size and economic activity? Well again, yes. Humans lived like that for millenia. All of the analysis of events that sceppy has ever produced misses that it's just some choices people make. By trying to turn free will into determinism something vital is being ignored.
  19. As the thermo is irrelvent, and we have proved that - why bother? We already know your basic assumptions are incorrect, so your theory is already gone. Move on?
  20. Like I said, the point of view you present considers fraud the same as honest trade, rape the same as making love and contends that kidnap is the same as a family day at the seaside. Doesn't matter why if the action is the same, right?
  21. No, he gave an objective, testable definition and it works.
  22. No, it isn't because it fails on several levels, which have already been pointed out to you.
  23. It's "someone elses" definition of money - it's the observational, real world accurate observation of what money is and how it is formed.
  24. If money is the most often used trading item, and gold is not the most often used trading item, gold is not money. Very simple logic. You can disagree all you like, this just makes you wrong. ****** buddha!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.