Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 absoloutelyMy specific problem with injin is his pathalogical avoidence of the reason why 60 million think a tenner is worth something He is forced to argue that people view money as having an intrinsic value in and of itself because to admit that its value is extrinsic (based on what it can be exchanged for) would be to admit that such value was entirely state-enforced. Given his argument that state-issued "legal tender" is "real" money when compared to institutional-lender-issed "credit", this in turn requires him to defend that state enforcement. Given his stated antipathy to all things state derived, he is forced to be a hypocrite. and if there is one thing I can't stand...... It's called casuistry. Catholics are particular good at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 a promise to pay in food, tools, services etc etc etc (subject to any territorial limitations on the use of that money)A promise to pay in all things that are not money by definition Your definition has now become . . Money,by definition, is a promise to pay in all things that are not money, by definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) Your definition has now become . .Money,by definition, is a promise to pay in all things that are not money, by definition. If something is money, it is a promise to pay (explicity so in relation to FIAT with some potential blurring of the edges with commodity based money) Money = a record of a promise to pay. The one is synonymous with the other. The one is the other. A promise to pay is what money is. If it wasnt, it wouldn't be money, It would be one of those things that we exchange for money I really could not put it any simpler than that The above definition, so far as I am aware, has remained completely constant thoughout my posts. However, if you would point out specifically where this definition has changed, I am happy to read it Which specific part of the arguments I have set would you disagree with? What would be the logical/emphirical basis of that disagreement? Better yet, provide a definition of money that differs from the one I have provided. I will be happy to read it Edited September 30, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 This really is pathetic. Deal with the specifics of the argument. Or are you only really only capable of sad little ad hominims. I already have. As you;'ve basically completely mistated my position and then attacked me for the new version which isn't actually anything to do with me, I think it's worth mocking you a little. And as for a teacher saying they are against violence - ho ******ing ho. Kids there voluntarily are they? Being paid voluntarily are we? Wages as low as possibel due to a free market in teachers are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 If it were used as money alone, then it would, by definition by only a promise. However, as I have said, when we enter the realm of commodity based money, we are bound to find a blurring of the distinction between the extrinsic value embodied within it (a promise to pay in a commoduty that is actually wanted for it's intrinsic value), and the potental intrisic value in the commodity based monetary medium in question (salt).Which is why directly-unbacked (though indirectly backed), usury generated fiat (which is explicitly nothing more than a promise based on confidence) might be seen as the purest monetary form of all. However, in order for it to not end up in tears one of two things must pertain. either you let it rise and fall in supply via the process of usury based lending (on the upside) and debt default/debt repayment/redeuced borrowings (on the down side) or you print when during the downside in the expectation that future economic growth will soack all of the newly created money up. We have used the latter strategy for the most part over the last century or so. Sometimes to spectacularly disasterous effect (Wiemar). Though, sometimes, I am prepared to concede, to good effect in that it has smoothed out the downsides. However, this approach rests implicitly on the foundational assumption that future economic growth (being based on futuer access to resources) is perpetual and inevitable. That we can borrow from that future in order to mitigate against the downside today. It's not and we cant. Steve, we know you fluffed it on the money only being a promise thing, theres no need to carry on to the point of absurdity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Steve, we know you fluffed it on the money only being a promise thing, theres no need to carry on to the point of absurdity. This really is pathetic. Deal with the specifics of the argument. Or are you only really only capable of sad little ad hominims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 absoloutelyMy specific problem with injin is his pathalogical avoidence of the reason why 60 million think a tenner is worth something I don't avoid it at all. I've even got a blog where I outline the variosu reasons why they do - habit, unthinking acceptance, force, tax yadda yadda. He is forced to argue that people view money as having an intrinsic value in and of itself because to admit that its value is extrinsic (based on what it can be exchanged for) would be to admit that such value was entirely state-enforced. Given his argument that state-issued "legal tender" is "real" money when compared to institutional-lender-issed "credit", this in turn requires him to defend that state enforcement. Fiat money has no value in and of itself. All money has to have value in and of itself, the value (and demand) in paper money comes from the force behind it. That's why it's fiat money. People want fiat money, but the demand isn't internally generated (I like to smoke) it's imposed from outside (I'm afraid of the taxman but these pieces of paper get them to ****** off.) Given his stated antipathy to all things state derived, he is forced to be a hypocrite.and if there is one thing I can't stand...... Yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatnose Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Actually it is only M42 that you need to comprehend, then you will have reached perfect karma. Hahaha this tickled me...however the M25 would be more expressive of karma as it is circular. Also does your karma run over your neighbours dogma? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 If something is money, it is a promise to pay (explicity so in relation to FIAT with some potential blurring of the edges with commodity based money)Money = a record of a promise to pay I really could not put it any simpler than that The above definition, so far as I am aware, has remained completely constant thoughout my posts. However, if you would point out specifically where this definition has changed, I am happy to read it Which specific part of the arguments I have set would you disagree with? What would be the logical/emphirical basis of that disagreement? You claimed a number of pages back that money was a promise to pay, by definition. I was curious about your claim on the definition. Whether you considered that claimed definition to be communal, legal,personal etc Your explanation seemed to make it a personal definition. Then, when asked about what was promised you said "all things that are not money". Hence my observation that your (personal) definition of money was . . Money,by definition, is a promise to pay in all things that are not money, by definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 It's called casuistry. Catholics are particular good at it. Aren't we all ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 That's right. You've never shown th slightest interest in truth though. Says the kettle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) People want fiat money, but the demand isn't internally generated (I like to smoke) it's imposed from outside (I'm afraid of the taxman but these pieces of paper get them to ****** off.) Most tax doesn't come due until after the money has been earned or spent. Your argument that State money sustains itself through parking fines and fishing licences is frankly ridiculous. Edited September 30, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Most tax doesn't come due until after the money has been earned or spent. Behave. Your argument that State money sustains itself through parking fines and fishing licences is frankly ridiculous. Which is why you've factually refuted it here, rather than just dismissing it in a one liner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Aren't we all ? No, you need an agenda to inddulge in it. If your agenda is truth, however, you are mutually excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 No, you need an agenda to inddulge in it.If your agenda is truth, however, you are mutually excluded. That's right. You've never shown th slightest interest in truth though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) You claimed a number of pages back that money was a promise to pay, by definition.I was curious about your claim on the definition. Whether you considered that claimed definition to be communal, legal,personal etc Your explanation seemed to make it a personal definition. Then, when asked about what was promised you said "all things that are not money". Hence my observation that your (personal) definition of money was . . Money,by definition, is a promise to pay in all things that are not money, by definition. Imagine a primitive economy that has not yet developed significant economic activity such that money is not yet required to act as a stand in for things. I catch rabbits and process rabbit skins for clothing. My neighbour makes arrow heads.I need arrow heads to catch the rabbits. Ordinarily, my neighbour needs rabbit skins for his clothes. However, at the moment he has no need for rabbit skins. I still need some new arrow heads, though. It turns out my neighbour does need a new set of tools that he uses to make his arrow heads (knife, string, etc). I also happen to have another neighbour who does not need arrow heads but does need rabbit skins. My second neighbour also sells string and knives. I have no need for string and knives in and of themselves. Nevertheless, I go to my second neighbour and exchange my rabbit skins for his knife and string. I then take these to my first neighbour and exchange them for arrow heads. While I was holding onto that knife and string, they held no intrinsic value to me. Their value was entirely extrinsic in terms of their arrow-head exchange-value. That knife and string were, for so long as I held them, money. They embodied a promise to pay in arrow heads. The above is an example of the most primitive type of commodity-based money that could exist. It will almost certainly be how money as a concept came into being. Eventually, though, commodity based money of the type described above would still have tended to have a rather limited universality of exchange with a limited class of goods/services. Eventually, through a process of trade, certain commodities would have turned out to have the widest possible exchangeability. This is where the precious metals came in. Eventually, the precious metals were partially or fully replaced with promises to pay in precious metals. Ultimately, even this link was broken and so now we have little more than a promise to pay with more promises. This is fine as long as, ultimately (how ever indirect and tortuous the link), these promises eventually link back to rabbit skins and arrow head (or their equivalent). Usury allows that link to extend to promises to pay rabbit skins and arrow head that are yet to exist. Again, fine as long as the future can honour that promise. Not fine if it can't. It now can't Rather than engaging in rhetoric, take the time and effort to actually critically point out specifically where you do or do not agree with any or all of the above If you do not dispute the definition provided, do you dispute my futher argument that it is now unsustainable due to resource contraints? In other words, do you or do you not consider resource contraints to exist as an obstacle against which usury based money creation cannot pass? If you do not dispute the above constraints, do you accept the ineviable logic of the above means that QE cannot pull us out of this crisis becase of one of two things. Either, the money will have to be sucked back out of the economy via reduced public services/increased taxes, leading to a deflationary recession/depression. Or, it will not be sucked back out, meaning there will be more money in the system than the system requires, leading to an inflationary recession/depression. Either way, If you accept the existence of a usury based money system based on promises to pay in resources at some indeterminate point in the future in the context of growing resource contraints, QE cannot work. One way or another, the majority get to be a lot poorer. Either as a consequence of empty pockets or as a consequence of pockets bulging with pieces of worthless paper. (See my sig) What, specifically do you dispute from the above and why? Edited September 30, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Says the kettle. Meh, my last comment was out of order to be honest. I retract and apologise. On some stuff you've seemed seeking, just not the bankstery stuff - where you take non factual defend the banker positions all the time. Some great ways of doing it to - the licences and fines one was great - love the drawing fire to one easily defendable spot methodology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Meh, my last comment was out of order to be honest.I retract and apologise. On some stuff you've seemed seeking, just not the bankstery stuff - where you take non factual defend the banker positions all the time. Some great ways of doing it to - the licences and fines one was great - love the drawing fire to one easily defendable spot methodology. I don't defend banksters. I defend the principle of banking which can join a capital seeker with a capital holder. History bears testament to the benefits possible for mankind of such a system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I don't defend banksters. I defend the principle of banking which can join a capital seeker with a capital holder. History bears testament to the benefits possible for mankind of such a system. I agree completely with this statement. And am totaly mystified why you argue with me about it - the current system has no capital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) Edit: Misread Edited September 30, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) Irrelevant if they do or don't. We live in a real physical universe with hard unbreakable rules. It's relevent, in fact it's vital. They believe they do. And they are wrong. leaping off a cliff believing you will fly is death by misadventure, but it's still death. Results from actions are not optional, the actions are optional. Jumping you can do, flying you cannot. Capital is an unused pool of real things that yourself and others will want in the future. You can try economic activity without it, but it won't work. It's this belief that gets things done. The wrong things. Our society is cliff jumping and believing it will fly. It won't. One of the beliefs is the beliefs that beliefs mean anything in the face of physics. System is going to go splat. The end justifies the means - as evidenced by the games console under your tele. I have neither, and nothing ends - there are only means. Edited September 30, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) I agree completely with this statement.And am totaly mystified why you argue with me about it - the current system has no capital. Whether the system has capital or not is irrelevant. It's what people believe is capital, or what they think others believe is capital. 1. My money is my capital. 2. I can easily trade my money onwards. If you evaluate both of these statements to false - you will not indulge in the fiat game. If one is true it is likely you will. Most people believe one or the other or both. When the belief leaves popular culture the capital will die. Not until. Edited September 30, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Whether the system has capital or not is irrelevant. no, it really isn't. It's what people believe is capital, or what they think others believe is capital.1. My money is my capital. 2. I can easily trade my money onwards. And if you believe you can eat rocks and live it'll work will it? If you evaluate both of these statements to false - you will not indulge in the fiat game. The only prerequisite for playing the fiat game is if the state can terrorise you. If one is true it is likely you will.Most people believe one or the other or both. When the belief leaves popular culture the capital will die. Not until. You must have missed the bit where I said that capital is real world things that you or other people will want in future. No one wants fiat money now, they won't want it in future either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 no, it really isn't. Yes, it can be. And if you believe you can eat rocks and live it'll work will it? When you are in faced with the prospect - you stop believing. The only prerequisite for playing the fiat game is if the state can terrorise you. I've been around a long time. Not once has a state tax been placed on me that required me to work to pay it off. They are happy to leave me to me own devices. Most people share this experience. You must have missed the bit where I said that capital is real world things that you or other people will want in future.No one wants fiat money now, they won't want it in future either. I've been around a long time. Not once has a state tax been placed on me that required me to work to pay it off. They are happy to leave me to me own devices. Most people share this experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Yes, it can be. Capital is real stuff that people and yourself with want in the future. When you are in faced with the prospect - you stop believing. So what? It wouldn't work all the way while you believed - therefore your belief isn't important or relevent to what's going to happen. (Except of course that it's going to kill you because you aren't growing crops/hunting/whatever to get actual food.) I've been around a long time. Not once has a state tax been placed on me that required me to work to pay it off. They are happy to leave me to me own devices. Most people share this experience. Compliance with the violent means no actual violence ensues. This is not the same as being free from threat. And you are wrong - you've worked extra your whole life to pay them. Most people are in denial. I've been around a long time. Not once has a state tax been placed on me that required me to work to pay it off. They are happy to leave me to me own devices. Most people share this experience. They are happy as long as you do exactly what you are told. Which is why you do what you are told. This is not the same as being free from them. Your experience of them is the same as almost everone elses - you do what they say as soon as they say it and nothing further unpleasant happens. You work half the year to pay them. You are cattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.