Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
bogbrush

You Can Only Con A Greedy Man

Recommended Posts

no. a dog cant raise an IOU. its a state of mind, of honour.

And money, language, numbers,ious are tools we use to record information about such things (lest we forget)

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And money, language, numbers are tools we use to record information about such things (lest we forget)

And they are only valid if they refer to real things.

I wouldn't like to see contracts being enforced with the full weight of the law about unicorn trading.

Would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it would.

They don't so it doesn't.

But it's hardly confirmation, given that according to you they must by logical necessity have no money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And money, language, numbers,ious are tools we use to record information about such things (lest we forget)

OK, but you need understanding to make use of them.

a dog has no use of them as he cant (maybe cant) understand them

A dog understands a cup of coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things strike me about this thread

1/ All humans are greedy - it's fairly safe to assume a human who's been conned was greedy, but not all greedy humans get conned; the implied causal relationship seems tenuous

2/ Blaming the weak for their fall is unsporting at best and downright ugly at worst; who benefits, and how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two things strike me about this thread

1/ All humans are greedy - it's fairly safe to assume a human who's been conned was greedy, but not all greedy humans get conned; the implied causal relationship seems tenuous

2/ Blaming the weak for their fall is unsporting at best and downright ugly at worst; who benefits, and how?

Its Crime....it doesnt pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must say that one of the best things from this site is the crystallisation of this previously passively-understood fact. I have had countless funny times now explaining this to friends and the look on their faces as it dawns upon them that there never was the money is priceless.

I even did it with the Relationship Director of my companies banker, and it was amusing to see him just smile about it all and put his eyebrows up as if to say "fair cop".

EDIT: I esecially enjoy the one where you show how you might repay the loan by writing a large number on a piece of paper and hand it over, and wait for them to say "but you don't actually have the money to back that up".

Does this mean Trumps Triumph's are a figment of his and his 'money' lenders imagination > therefore he's trumped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's hardly confirmation, given that according to you they must by logical necessity have no money

Any reasonable person assumes things aren't proven until they are.

That makes the bansk claim to have money by default to be unproven.

Having asked them to show me the money many times I think it's a safe assumption, but tell you what - ask them yourself and let us know how you get on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they are only valid if they refer to real things.

Money refers to real agreements between people, its holding and transfer contains information (for instance) about the payment of debt. Its physical embodiment (notes, writing, numbers etc) is irrelevant because it only acts as a pointer / record of the agreements and what state the agreements are in . Any record of an agreement is only a useful tool if both parties agree that it reflects reality. But to attempt to say the record itself is (for some reason) not real is just playing silly buggers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Money refers to real agreements between people, its holding and transfer contains information (for instance) about the payment of debt. Its physical embodiment (notes, writing, numbers etc) is irrelevant because it only acts as a pointer / record of the agreements and what state the agreements are in . Any record of an agreement is only a useful tool if both parties agree that it reflects reality. But to attempt to say the record itself is (for some reason) not real is just playing silly buggers.

an agreement with a madman is no agreement, although you may THINK you have one, the madman just agreed with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Money refers to real agreements between people, its holding and transfer contains information (for instance) about the payment of debt. Its physical embodiment (notes, writing, numbers etc) is irrelevant because it only acts as a pointer / record of the agreements and what state the agreements are in . Any record of an agreement is only a useful tool if both parties agree that it reflects reality. But to attempt to say the record itself is (for some reason) not real is just playing silly buggers.

The agreements have to be about something external to both parties that can be clearly identified and exists, or they are meaningless to any rational and objective observer.

Records have to be, well records.

You want the concept of recording without any of the items or actions that go with it. Pure, unadulterated ********.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, but you need understanding to make use of them.

a dog has no use of them as he cant (maybe cant) understand them

Yes - it's a tool, for human stuff (trade, debts etc)

A dog understands a cup of coffee.

But will not share a human understanding of the implication of its presence; the coffee on the table means you have to pay for it because you are in a cafe (for instance)

Money is used to carry information of that nature only and so the dog doesn't have access to its reality, though it can see the representation.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but it is hard to make that argument work practically, because mostly banks first provide a service and wait for the payment agreed for it. You would need some breaking of the agreement that was equivalent to not paying the debt. For instance, if the bank made a loan but only gave you half the money while you still owed the full amount on the loan agreement. I would call that grounds lol.

Okay, but there are other financial services that leave an obligation from them to you, e.g. where an insured person paid premiums in good faith, believing they were covered, but the insurance company uses small print to get out of paying a claim. ISTM that paperwork > morality for the financial industry, and they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

Then (hoping I will be able to skirt around Godwin's Law) there's this:

The cases involve complex legal questions that seemed destined for long, costly, and contentious litigation. The confluence of various factors—including documents rescued from shredding by an employee of UBS and evidence that earlier searches by the Swiss banks for dormant Nazi-era accounts had not been thorough
Edited by huw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The agreements have to be about something external to both parties that can be clearly identified and exists, or they are meaningless to any rational and objective observer.

Records have to be, well records.

You want the concept of recording without any of the items or actions that go with it. Pure, unadulterated ********.

The recording happens naturally (to the extent needed by actors) by the transfer in trade of money

It is simpler than writing a big central list of events and trying to work out who still owes what to who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The recording happens naturally (to the extent needed by actors) by the transfer in trade of money

It is simpler than writing a big central list of events and trying to work out who still owes what to who.

What money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What money?

The money they trade

Goods n services go in one direction, and the buyer gives some of his ability to buy goods to the seller. We call the thing that acts to represent that ability money.

Imagine a fishmonger paying a carpenter with the ability to get services from a blacksmith (ability the fishmonger previously earned from the blacksmith) You can replicate that arrangement by the blacksmith giving ironworking tokens to the fishmonger who then uses them to pay the carpenter.

There is nothing fishy about and it's quite real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The money they trade

Goods n services go in one direction, and the buyer gives some of his ability to buy goods to the seller. We call the thing that acts to represent that ability money.

Imagine a fishmonger paying a carpenter with the ability to get services from a blacksmith (ability the fishmonger previously earned from the blacksmith) You can replicate that arrangement by the blacksmith giving ironworking tokens to the fishmonger who then uses them to pay the carpenter.

There is nothing fishy about and it's quite real.

The banks don't have any money.

They just say they do and people believe them.

They record this and call it a new type of money (or credit.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The banks don't have any money.

They just say they do and people believe them.

They record this and call it a new type of money (or credit.)

Just like the ironmonger in my example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The banks don't have any money.

They just say they do and people believe them.

They record this and call it a new type of money (or credit.)

They have my money. :huh:

I'm not a big fan of the "under the matress" approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have my money. :huh:

They also have the promises of their debtors, and the capital of their bondholders and shareholders.

Unbroken, the promises are money and the bank is solvent.

Broken, the bank must turn to its capital and eventually it's wiped out.

The act of a debtor breaking his promise because the bank has no money is what makes the bank have no money.

It's like me promising you a turkey if you cook me Christmas dinner, and saying, "Hang on, since you haven't got a turkey you can't possibly deliver on the promise, so I'll keep my turkey, thanks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like the ironmonger in my example

No, they don't have any tokens.

They have a reputation for having tokens and that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they don't have any tokens.

They have a reputation for having tokens and that's all.

The ironmonger in my example has no tokens either, he has given em all away for goods

He's a con man, i guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ironmonger in my example has no tokens either, he has given em all away for goods

He's a con man, i guess

He is if he keeps telling people that he has paid tokens on their behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   323 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.