Relativity In Money

[JustYield]

Living/dying

Eating/shitting

Inhaling/exhaling

Making love/giving birth

Saving/spending?

Interesting, thank you.

A hierarchy of needs perhaps?

We could discuss dualism. Although we'd still have the problem of the Trinity, introduced above by methinkshe (a screen-name alluding to the preference in certain African cultures for daughters...)

This thread could go anywhere, it might even become a classic.

Could you scope and bound the discussion a bit Injin?

[Injin]

Because they are designed in such a way that we are given little choice.

We need shelter and we need food/water. The squirrel in my garden has them for free (ok, there is some personal risk to him but he appears to get by). Man's dominion over man has created an illusion where what ought to be free - land, shelter, food and water - have been stolen and are sold back to us in exchange for our sweat on behalf of others.

We are all enslaved by those more powerful than us as you know Injin. It has become the socially acceptable norm. Rebel against it and you will be either jailed or killed.

While this is true, it is the result of freely chosen actions on the part of some of us.

Chosen actions can be unchosen.

The other thing to say is that money is a very old idea, one that spontaneously develops wherver humans are (even in prisons or concentration camps) so I find it hard to make the jump to saying that money is relative to power.

[Injin]

A hierarchy of needs perhaps?

Aye. The thing is - whose needs and whose hierarchy?

We could discuss dualism. Although we'd still have the problem of the Trinity, introduced above by methinkshe (a screen-name alluding to the preference in certain African cultures for daughters...)

This thread could go anywhere, it might even become a classic.

Could you scope and bound the discussion a bit Injin?

Oh good lord no!

I will add this duality -

Asset/liability

[R K]

While this is true, it is the result of freely chosen actions on the part of some of us.

Chosen actions can be unchosen.

The other thing to say is that money is a very old idea, one that spontaneously develops wherver humans are (even in prisons or concentration camps) so I find it hard to make the jump to saying that money is relative to power.

There's no power dynamics or game theory in prisons or concentration camps???

[Injin]

There's no power dynamics or game theory in prisons or concentration camps???

There are plenty.

But money isn't created by the power dynamics. It's created by the powerless.

ooh, theres a clue.....

[aliveandkicking]

What I am looking for is the point which those decisions are made from internally.

I dont have a car. I have a bicycle.

I dont have a house where i am living. I am renting.

I dont have much furniture or stuff where i am living and not much elsewhere either.

But i desire these things where i am living.

A small Part of my desire is because of what the other guy has which is in my face and reminds me what i dont have that i desire.

Part of my desire comes from being annoyed i have to be quiet in a shared building where people move around me and disturb me as i attempt to not disturb them.

I am assuming the main part of my desire comes from the knowledge i am much happier and relaxed in my own space that is only controlled by me and is not impacted by other people lives.

Maslows hierarchy of needs must come into this too.

Money is useless to me though unless i can buy what i want. Just having money in the bank is not such a good feeling - particularly today.

Even a devaluing asset would make me happier i think than as i am living today. The relative part is then how much devalued does it have to get for me to be less happy than i am now with money unspent. And there is no easy answer available right now.

Edited May 24, 2009 by aliveandkicking

[Guest Steve Cook]

They should jail the fvckers who overpaid for properties and are the cause of high rents. :angry: :angry: :angry:

That'll be almost everyone then.....

[Methinkshe]

.......... Although we'd still have the problem of the Trinity, introduced above by methinkshe (a screen-name alluding to the preference in certain African cultures for daughters...)..........................................

You what??!!

[Methinkshe]

Aye. The thing is - whose needs and whose hierarchy?

Oh good lord no!

I will add this duality -

Asset/liability

This fits neatly into my thesis of two opposing forces - creative and destructive - to which all nature, including and especially humanity, is consciously or sub-consciously subject. Assets epitomise, in a tangible form, the creative force and liabilities epitomise the destructive force.

And these are forces that actually determine desires, even against our better judgment, such that we become subject to our desires rather than masters of them. Which, imo, excludes all arguments that propose that desire equates to and/or is motivated by self-interest and survivial.

[JustYield]

You what??!!

Wasn't it you who posted the question, which is preferred in [African country], girl or a boy? I then attributed your screen name to the [correct] answer.

Sorry.

[Injin]

This fits neatly into my thesis of two opposing forces - creative and destructive - to which all nature, including and especially humanity, is consciously or sub-consciously subject. Assets epitomise, in a tangible form, the creative force and liabilities epitomise the destructive force.

And these are forces that actually determine desires, even against our better judgment, such that we become subject to our desires rather than masters of them. Which, imo, excludes all arguments that propose that desire equates to and/or is motivated by self-interest and survivial.

Well put.

The only reason to delay acting on a desire is to increase it's potency.

[Methinkshe]

Wasn't it you who posted the question, which is preferred in [African country], girl or a boy? I then attributed your screen name to the [correct] answer.

Sorry.

No need to apologise - I just couldn't work out what you were alluding to.

Yes, I did pose that question. I'd completely forgotten about it until you reminded me.

However, I took your allusion to mean that the name "Methinkshe" in some way equated to a preference in African countries for girls over boys rather than the question I posed which, incidentally was one that I posted to encourage people to examine preconceptions re whether boys or girls are more appreciated in Africa as my sister, who works in Malawi, had just disabused me of the preconception I had and which, I think, many share, i.e. that African women prefer to have boys - which turns out not to be the case.

Anyway, sorry for any confusion and thanks for clearing it up.

[Methinkshe]

Well put.

The only reason to delay acting on a desire is to increase it's potency.

That's quite a leap you've made but an interesting one, nevertheless. You have moved from discussing the root of desire to the manipulation of desire in just one sentence and without any explanation. Not to say I disagree, I just need to fill in a few missing steps. I'll come back to you on that one.

[Bloo Loo]

This fits neatly into my thesis of two opposing forces - creative and destructive - to which all nature, including and especially humanity, is consciously or sub-consciously subject. Assets epitomise, in a tangible form, the creative force and liabilities epitomise the destructive force.

And these are forces that actually determine desires, even against our better judgment, such that we become subject to our desires rather than masters of them. Which, imo, excludes all arguments that propose that desire equates to and/or is motivated by self-interest and survivial.

now I would have put the assets and liabilities the other way round.

people become their dimmest when they are comfortable, and their most inventive when they are up against it.

[D.C.]

Of course. I wouldn't deny something so obvious.

Am I?

I thought I was asking fairly generalised questions.

Sorry, it was late.

By 'you' I meant the some of the general comments on the thread, not your personal comment.

But I think ever trying to describe the actions of humans as rational most of the time leads to creating deeply flawed models of the world and money after all is nothing but a faith based system of exchange.

[Methinkshe]

now I would have put the assets and liabilities the other way round.

people become their dimmest when they are comfortable, and their most inventive when they are up against it.

That may be the case, but it doesn't detract from their underlying condition.

[Bloo Loo]

That may be the case, but it doesn't detract from their underlying condition.

well, i think its important we find which is which, otherwise we could go in entirely the wrong direction....debt is wealth being the most obvious wrong direction we hear about from government ministers.

[Methinkshe]

well, i think its important we find which is which, otherwise we could go in entirely the wrong direction....debt is wealth being the most obvious wrong direction we hear about from government ministers.

Exactly so; "debt is wealth" is an obvious lie when given some consideration, whether it makes the holders of debt ingenious or otherwise. I do not believe that there is any case for claiming that debt equates to wealth.

[Bloo Loo]

Exactly so; "debt is wealth" is an obvious lie when given some consideration, whether it makes the holders of debt ingenious or otherwise. I do not believe that there is any case for claiming that debt equates to wealth.

in response to a question about record debt levels Jacqui Smith said: debt levels are at record levels but this is only possible if the country can afford all this debt, so debt is a sign of the success and wealth of the country as a whole. (Paraphrased)

this was the party mantra for a couple of weeks a few months ago.

so there is an element of truth in the debt=wealth argument, one beholds the other.

the missing element is the sum of the two, and BTL is another case at the mo where the sum of the two is missed off.

so the argument that assets are a creative force is true in some respects, but the assets that are creating seem to have some impetus behind them, the liablity needed to support them

surely, without added value, a third component, the assets and liabilities just cancel out.

[Methinkshe]

That's quite a leap you've made but an interesting one, nevertheless. You have moved from discussing the root of desire to the manipulation of desire in just one sentence and without any explanation. Not to say I disagree, I just need to fill in a few missing steps. I'll come back to you on that one.

Okay, if we allow for the sake of argument that my proposal that we are subject to, and not masters of, our desires, then all that is left to us is to manipulate those desires.

Therefore, I agree with your statement that to delay desire is to increase its potency.

[Game_Over]

Exactly so; "debt is wealth" is an obvious lie when given some consideration, whether it makes the holders of debt ingenious or otherwise. I do not believe that there is any case for claiming that debt equates to wealth.

At the very start of the thread, I suggested that the relative value that a person placed on money or possession is driven their own feeling of self worth.

Other people have mentioned heirachies, but what makes people unhappy with their position in a heirachy?

What value would Buddah, or Jesus have placed on a bag of gold?

I don't think it is a coincidence that the great prophets of all religions have rid themselves of wealth and possessions and urged their followers to do the same.

If you are at one with yourself and nature/God then heirachies are unimportant as are wealth and possessions beyond what is necessary for survival.

BTW this is meant to be a psychological observation rather than a comment on religion

I myself am an atheist, but my own feeling of self worth makes it unnecessary for me to attack people who do believe in God.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Game_Over

[Methinkshe]

in response to a question about record debt levels Jacqui Smith said: debt levels are at record levels but this is only possible if the country can afford all this debt, so debt is a sign of the success and wealth of the country as a whole. (Paraphrased)

this was the party mantra for a couple of weeks a few months ago.

so there is an element of truth in the debt=wealth argument, one beholds the other.

the missing element is the sum of the two, and BTL is another case at the mo where the sum of the two is missed off.

so the argument that assets are a creative force is true in some respects, but the assets that are creating seem to have some impetus behind them, the liablity needed to support them

surely, without added value, a third component, the assets and liabilities just cancel out.

You have missed out that assets that are underpinned by debt are not actually assets.

Futhermore, a rise in value of assets that are NOT underpinned by debt but which nevertheless gain in value because of associated debt, are equally uncertain. We must therefore more carefully define what we mean by assets and I think that could even further remove this thread from its original intent.

[Methinkshe]

I myself am an atheist, but my own feeling of self worth makes it unnecessary for me to attack people who do believe in God.

I have noticed that, and have also noticed that others feel so insecure within their own beliefs that they feel compelled to attack rather than debate the beliefs of others. It is a strange compulsion..................................

[Game_Over]

I have noticed that, and have also noticed that others feel so insecure within their own beliefs that they feel compelled to attack rather than debate the beliefs of others. It is a strange compulsion..................................

What do you think of my observation?

Because it seems to me that certain types of people crave power and strive to be at the top of any heirachy

And unfortunately, these type of people are actually the last people you would want in power

This one fact probably expalins why there is so much corruption and misery in the world

Perhaps we should have a system where the people who LEAST want power and wealth are put in charge

[A.steve]

Oh it's flat because mainstream physics mistook the failed inferometer experiment.

They haven't realised yet that light IS ether.

I'm extremely distrustful of quantum physics - though I recognise (but am not particularly well informed about) practical discoveries in the field. I recognise that there's an atomic scale - and that the notion of 'solid' breaks down at this point... but I find it remarkably difficult to believe in wave-particle duality - partly because every explanation seems incoherent on detailed examination - and partly because I don't see any reason (other than human optimism/laziness) to assume that existing 2-D maths can be applied to generate sub-atomic models out of thin air - which, by fluke, happen to be "right". I don't believe that quantum uncertainty is a useful model - but I'm happy to say I don't have a model, which - I suppose - accepts ultimate uncertainty in this field.

Unless I've missed something clever, let me me explain with a picture:

Now, forgive me for being non-technical... but that looks flat-as-a-pancake... which I find remarkable. No, the irony of posting a 2D picture of a 3D phenomenon did not go over my head. Perhaps the real gem about light in this context is that earth has one vantage point - so we can't get meaningful stereoscopic empirical data from earth... and this picture is nothing more than an abstract artist's impression? An optical illusion without depth information? Possibly - but, if this is the case, I wonder if this is a big deal to astronomers - and what they've done to try and resolve this. As we send unmanned probes into space, have we ever launched one orthogonal to our solar system? How far from our orbital plane have we travelled?

I'd love to find that I'm not the first person to think about this (which seems far too improbable to be realistic) and would like to read a book that attempt to answer this specific question. In "Red Dwarf" parlance, I'd like to know more about the "swirly thing" anomaly... and why it's flat.

centrifugal force and gravity.

Ah-herm, a Menchen moment: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." While I accept the observation of centrifugal force and gravity as what they are, they do not explain the phenomenon I'm talking about. Consider Foucault's pendulum - here gravity is used to describe a 'flat' plane - but this only works because, from the observer's perspective, there are only two relevant centres of mass - the pendulum and the earth - all other influences are insignificant. The problem arises because I perceive more than two relevant centres of mass - and, with more than two centres of mass, there's no valid classical explanation for movement in only one plane. Our models all suggest chaotic irrational roses will be the outcome with three centres of mass in open space - and for something at least as complex with more.

You're not the first to suggest "CF & Gravity" - "Done!" - but I feel this is an insight assumes something I find difficult to accept... the initial assumption. CF & Gravity will maintain a planar orbit - but it won't set one up in the first place. You've might have explained why we should expect galaxies to retain their configurations - but you've not dealt with how they established those configurations in the first place. I feel your answer amounts to little more than "because they are" - which is observational not explanatory.

You could get in the Guinness Book of Records for the longest paragraph too. Think of that.

Darn!

Perhaps this is more relevant than one might think? Perhaps, if we all insist on short messages (a-la Twitter), we will never convey something that isn't already understood? Perhaps this is how to subvert communication such that information (i.e. that which is novel) is suppressed and drowned in a sea of data (i.e. that which conveys nothing new of importance)?

Perhaps I just need to bang "enter" more often?

I find it interesting, as a Christian, that you have arrived at the conclusion that "communication" fits every domain.

Christianity acknowledges an eternal triune Creator God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in constant and perfect internal communication (don't ask for an explanation of the Trinity, it would take too long, just allow it for the moment) with man created in His image to be in relationship/communication with God, i.e. to perpetuate or, rather, to imitate the perfect relationship within the Godhead.

I think this extremely interesting.

Disclaimer: I consider myself a confirmed, non-practising Christian. I consider "non-practising" to be critical as I reject Christian dogma - though I find the ideals I interpret from Christianity more acceptable than those I find in the other religions about which I've read - including Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Agnosticism and Atheism... though I do not presume to think Christianity is a superior framework for everyone. My Christian leanings might well be the consequence of indoctrination (and I don't use that word to convey something bad) as a child exposed to an almost exclusively Christain environment. Perhaps I was best able to mentally filter what I wanted to accept from Christian thought.

The most interesting thing about the Trinity (to my mind) is that so many people want it explained in terms they'll understand. Personally, I find the nomenclature used by the Christian Church to be manure... and suspect the choices were influenced by men who wished their message to be opaque in order to assure an elevated position in society. I don't reject the idea - I just consider its explanation to be so appalling that it isn't especially useful. Triples occur as fundamental orthogonal concepts all over the pace - (Up/Down;Left/Right;Forward/Backward being the most obvious) - but including everything from witchcraft to the Tripartite Agreement to subvert regulation of British Banking to cause the naughties housing boom. Three orthogonal and relevant concepts are what are required to undermine control and render forecasts impossible; it is what makes fluid-dyamnics a "hard" subject - and it is this same concept that creates political uncertainty and forces reliance on fundamental beliefs - no matter how bonkers they might be. Bipartisan politics, in this context, I think highly relevant.

Another interesting thing about Christianity, like all the Semitic faiths, is that great emphasis is placed on a book; on a supposed ultimate 'knowledge'. A major problem I have with all doctrines is that there appears to be a wish to adopt the book as a revealed truth... but... the book only conveys a sequence of words - and this can't be valuable even if we assume it has a divine origin (the actual origin being something about which I wish to convey no opinion at this time.) It seems blatantly obvious to me that scripture contains no information whatsoever without interpretation - without a common framework to facilitate communication from one person to another. Structurally complex scripture is the original weapon of mass destruction - it is the tool which a dominant person can claim to understand to gain an advantage over a weaker individual. As to whether this control is desirable depends, I believe, on context.

I propose that our desires are mostly sub-consciously, (although in some instances, consciously) informed by one of two opposing "forces" (for want of a better word) that are at the core of existence - both in the natural world and in humanity itself; the creative force and the destructive force, or to use and extrapolate on ASteve's terminology, communication/relationship/multiplication versus self-obsession/entropy/decimation/annihilation.

Wow, I must have made it - I'm being cited as establishing a nomenclature I don't recognise.

I recognise the terms "creative and destructive forces" in the context of capitalist doctrine - though I am not comfortable with them being called forces. I think these fit a 3-axis model:

• Monetary Debt v money

• Asset ownership v consumption

• Communication - i.e. accountability and real-world interactions involving the above two. "Creative destruction" - Alan Greenspan's religion (moreso than his Jewish heritage, I think.)

in response to a question about record debt levels Jacqui Smith said: debt levels are at record levels but this is only possible if the country can afford all this debt, so debt is a sign of the success and wealth of the country as a whole. (Paraphrased)

...

so there is an element of truth in the debt=wealth argument, one beholds the other.

the missing element is the sum of the two, and BTL is another case at the mo where the sum of the two is missed off.

No, the missing element is accountability and justice. It's not complicated - Ms Smith is a self-interested charlatan.

Edited May 24, 2009 by A.steve