Thread: a society changing idea...for the better?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

To be honest I still have no idea what your point is.

My point is that it's delusional to create value from nothing. There's only ever 100 dollars. Where does the extra 90 come from? It's incredibly dangerous to act as if you have more resources than you actually do and the only actual source of non-nuclear calories in the world is the sun. That's our asymptotic cap on long term growth growth.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well surely money exists. Gold exists, silver exists, and dollars exist.

I wasn't talking about gold and silver although their value is even more fictitious then that of money. Can I eat them? can I burn them for heat or make clothing out of them? At least I could shred up a hundred dollar bill and use it for insulation in clothing.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think your concern is that the value behind the dollar is arbitrary. And I would have to agree. It's called fiat money. It is a medium of exchange decreed by the government instead of the market.

No, the market has no business setting the value of a dollar. The value of a dollar is precisely the amount of calories that can be extracted from it or saved by using it as a source of heat or insulation.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What do you mean "manufactured scarcity?" And again, I'll agree with you. The value of money is purely subjective. If humans were not around, there would be no value in money (or anything, for that matter).

I mean that a hundred dollar bill is only more valuable then a one dollar bill because it is designated that less of them are made (or put into general circulation). Other than that, they have precisely the same inherent value.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The common definition of profit is similar to how you described it: revenue - expenses = profit (or loss). But it is a little more complicated than that. Profit is the positive benefit from any transaction, but it is also a signal used in the marketplace to show success or failure.

Positive for whom?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And profit is not necessarily appropriated by the rich. Anyone who engages in a voluntary transaction comes out profitably, rich or not. We mustn't assume that because Person A benefited from a transaction that someone was exploited or hung out to dry.

What about the people that engage in transactions involuntarily? Say somebody working at McDonald's to pay off that mortgage. Is it really voluntary? I say no. Given the stigma associated with being homeless and the powerful (and largely built in) drive to conform to ones culture, I would say that it's involuntary. Some rich banker is going to be making money off of their labor just because he bought a few shares. He will not stand over a fryer, will not be yelled at by rich fuck yuppie customers, will not work in the slaughterhouse that provides the meat or drive the truck the delivers that meat, will not work in the fields bent over all day picking lettuce and yet he will not only be "entitled" to a percentage of the profits which result from such labor but will actually be entitled to vote on decisions pertaining to the governance of the company. All this because 100 calories can, in the right hands, be turned into 190.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

As for "excessive wealth," how does one measure the correct level of wealth? For one, a comfortable level of wealth may be living out in the boonies in a mud hut. For another, it may be in a million dollar apartment in New York. Unless you possess magical powers, there is no way to measure the "correct level." Most attempts to find the correct level have ended up killing millions, or driving more people into poverty.

I'm not too concerned about million dollar apartments. Two houses is excessive though.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How do you know the person is not utilizing their "loot?" What is loot?

Loot is material possessions. When somebody has rooms in their house that they've never been in, then they are not utilizing it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And if your attitude is "best learn to share," there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But when you begin to force people to share, well, I refer to Milton Friedman: "Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us."

All of this is very nice including the quote by that thug Friedman but it all falls apart in the face of the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and there is no reason for this to be the case. Friedman was nothing more than a subservient toad of the ruling elite that was (and is) itself organizing society in precisely the manner that his quote advises against. He was a hypocrite. Society will be organized. The question is if we want to leave this organization to natural selection (which is not a kind master) and those bits of scum that seem to be able to naturally float to the top or if we want to take it into our own hands.

The thing about economists is that they don't even understand that they're nothing more than over specialized ecologists (who are tied to real energy) and so they fail to be able to write real equations that actually describe reality and instead work in some abstract theoretical land where 100 calories can just magically turn into 190 and nobody thinks twice about it. They are, as a class, incompetent hacks that have been scamming the world with a complete and utter snowjob to keep their 70,000 dollar a year jobs. In short, they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

My point is that it's delusional to create value from nothing. There's only ever 100 dollars. Where does the extra 90 come from? It's incredibly dangerous to act as if you have more resources than you actually do and the only actual source of non-nuclear calories in the world is the sun. That's our asymptotic cap on long term growth growth.

Then I think we agree...I think.

I wasn't talking about gold and silver although their value is even more fictitious then that of money. Can I eat them? can I burn them for heat or make clothing out of them? At least I could shred up a hundred dollar bill and use it for insulation in clothing.

You keep saying value is fictitious, but don't define what fictitious is. It leads me to assume that your definition means the value does not exist. Where does it not exist? Objectively it does not, but subjectively, in individuals, it does.

Value of money does not necessarily stem from whether you can eat it or use it to keep warm. Money that originates on the market (as it should) starts as a commodity. Let's use gold for example. It is used as jewelry, decoration, and for other practical uses. Eventually it became money because people thought it was easily divisible, easily recognizable, easy to carry around, and had other inherent value in the marketplace.

No, the market has no business setting the value of a dollar. The value of a dollar is precisely the amount of calories that can be extracted from it or saved by using it as a source of heat or insulation.

You're grasping for objective value here, which is impossible to attain. There are no objective values, and you're edging into a belief that has been around for four-hundred years, and has been refuted for about the same time. I suggest looking into Carl Menger's Principles of Economics, where he presents the subjective theory of value.

I mean that a hundred dollar bill is only more valuable then a one dollar bill because it is designated that less of them are made (or put into general circulation). Other than that, they have precisely the same inherent value.

You and I are in agreement here, so I'm not sure why you're pressing the issue (rather, non-issue). You're describing the arbitrary evaluations of government fiat money by the government itself. Just because they slap 99 more dollars onto a piece of paper doesn't mean the paper is any more valuable. But again, remember that values are subjective. To most people it does make the dollar more valuable because they could, say, buy more [insert item/serve here] with it.

Positive for whom?

Positive for all in voluntary transactions (which I advocate), positive for one in involuntary transactions (aka theft). But who what sane person would advocate theft?

What about the people that engage in transactions involuntarily? Say somebody working at McDonald's to pay off that mortgage. Is it really voluntary? I say no.

How is that not voluntary? Were they forced to work at McDonald's?

If a person ends up in an involuntary transaction, they're being stolen from or coerced.

Given the stigma associated with being homeless and the powerful (and largely built in) drive to conform to ones culture, I would say that it's involuntary. Some rich banker is going to be making money off of their labor just because he bought a few shares. He will not stand over a fryer, will not be yelled at by rich fuck yuppie customers, will not work in the slaughterhouse that provides the meat or drive the truck the delivers that meat, will not work in the fields bent over all day picking lettuce and yet he will not only be "entitled" to a percentage of the profits which result from such labor but will actually be entitled to vote on decisions pertaining to the governance of the company. All this because 100 calories can, in the right hands, be turned into 190.

Again, was he forced to do all of those things? If not, he is there voluntary.

I'm not too concerned about million dollar apartments. Two houses is excessive though.

Again, grasping for objective qualification.

Loot is material possessions. When somebody has rooms in their house that they've never been in, then they are not utilizing it.

How do you know they're not utilizing it? What if they're storing possessions in there for safe-keeping or storage?

All of this is very nice including the quote by that thug Friedman but it all falls apart in the face of the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and there is no reason for this to be the case. Friedman was nothing more than a subservient toad of the ruling elite that was (and is) itself organizing society in precisely the manner that his quote advises against. He was a hypocrite. Society will be organized. The question is if we want to leave this organization to natural selection (which is not a kind master) and those bits of scum that seem to be able to naturally float to the top or if we want to take it into our own hands.

Focus on the argument and not what Friedman was or was not. I'm not here to debate over Friedman.

I'm speaking of a sort of "gunboat altruism" where people are forced to share. To do it peacefully and, hell, efficiently, would require angels, more or less.

The thing about economists is that they don't even understand that they're nothing more than over specialized ecologists (who are tied to real energy) and so they fail to be able to write real equations that actually describe reality and instead work in some abstract theoretical land where 100 calories can just magically turn into 190 and nobody thinks twice about it. They are, as a class, incompetent hacks that have been scamming the world with a complete and utter snowjob to keep their 70,000 dollar a year jobs. In short, they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

I think you're using "economists" too broadly. Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Bob Murphy, Walter Block, and many, many others don't fit your definition(s) whatsoever.

In fact, I think you're describing Keynesians like Bernanke and Krugman.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Then I think we agree...I think.

I find that hard to belive

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You keep saying value is fictitious, but don't define what fictitious is. It leads me to assume that your definition means the value does not exist. Where does it not exist? Objectively it does not, but subjectively, in individuals, it does.

I've never said that value is fictitious. I've said that banks, 90 calories that popped out of thin air and the value of money, gold and silver are fictitious. (I know this because I did a ctrl-f 'fictitious' and those were the occurrences [totally OT: try switching out the caps-lock key with the control key in your keyboard bindings. Then you can just hit it with your pinky without scrunching up your hand. Unless you're an idiot that likes to yell a lot (hint: you're not) you probably use the control key more often]) And yes, I do take fictitious to have it's standard meaning of "does not exist."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Value of money does not necessarily stem from whether you can eat it or use it to keep warm. Money that originates on the market (as it should) starts as a commodity. Let's use gold for example. It is used as jewelry, decoration, and for other practical uses. Eventually it became money because people thought it was easily divisible, easily recognizable, easy to carry around, and had other inherent value in the marketplace.

The value of anything to any living organism objectively stems from either a) it's caloric content, b) its use to prevent the loss of calories or c) it's use for security. All three can either refer to its use for the organism itself or another organism to which it has an altruistic relationship. Which ever one the organism is more in need of will be the favored use. I think that we can explain pretty much any temporary (and believe me, it will be temporary) deviation from this objective measure in terms of run-away sexual selection: this is generally not a good sign for the long term survival of the species in question.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You're grasping for objective value here, which is impossible to attain. There are no objective values, and you're edging into a belief that has been around for four-hundred years, and has been refuted for about the same time. I suggest looking into Carl Menger's Principles of Economics, where he presents the subjective theory of value.

Is that book based on the same uninformed sense of anthrocentrism which, when dressed up with suitably big words, seems to be taken seriously in some liberal arts circles? For example, would a literal interpretation of it lead one to believe that value is assigned to things purely by humans as you claimed to?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You and I are in agreement here, so I'm not sure why you're pressing the issue (rather, non-issue). You're describing the arbitrary evaluations of government fiat money by the government itself. Just because they slap 99 more dollars onto a piece of paper doesn't mean the paper is any more valuable. But again, remember that values are subjective. To most people it does make the dollar more valuable because they could, say, buy more [insert item/serve here] with it.

It is precisely because you think that the value of a dollar is subjective that I am pressing the issue. While we both agree that government should not arbitrarily set, you (along with most economists) seem to think that market fluctuations can influence the amount of calories (i.e. the value) in a piece of paper: this is just not so.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Positive for all in voluntary transactions (which I advocate), positive for one in involuntary transactions (aka theft). But who what sane person would advocate theft?

How is that not voluntary? Were they forced to work at McDonald's?

Perhaps not as an individual but, statistically, yes. That's how genes operate, statistically. I would argue that we are genetically programmed to conform to our culture. As individuals, we still have free will of course (in the sense used by Dennet) but as a group, a certain percentage will be forced, if it is available, to seek employment at McDonald's as opposed to accepting homelessness because it is taboo to be homeless in this culture. Were it not taboo, I imagine that the economy would pretty much collapse because many more people would choose it over taking shit from rich yuppies all day and said yuppies would then have to cook their own damn food, fix their own damn houses, and wipe their own damn asses leaving them with less time to drive the economy with their yuppie ways.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If a person ends up in an involuntary transaction, they're being stolen from or coerced.

I think that that's something we can agree on.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Again, grasping for objective qualification.

No, not grasping. Holding it firmly in my hand. Available resources are appropriated by the ecosystem. This is a fact. Hermit crabs don't put no trespassing signs up on their summer shell and bears don't have two dens because they're busy using the first one for hibernation. That is the way things work. The bear is free to think that it has two dens all it wants but when it shows up, someone else is going to be using it. All available unused resources are exploited in the ecosystem. Why are we any exception?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How do you know they're not utilizing it? What if they're storing possessions in there for safe-keeping or storage?

That is a lulzy statement. I suppose they would have had their house slaves carry their stolen loot up into their unvisited room for safekeeping.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm speaking of a sort of "gunboat altruism" where people are forced to share. To do it peacefully and, hell, efficiently, would require angels, more or less.

And I'm speaking of the sort of "gunboat civility" where people for forced to live in a feudal system. To do it peacefully and hell, willingly, would require domesticated animals, more or less.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think you're using "economists" too broadly. Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Bob Murphy, Walter Block, and many, many others don't fit your definition(s) whatsoever.

In fact, I think you're describing Keynesians like Bernanke and Krugman.

My understanding was Keynesians believed that it was necessary for the government to counteract the short-sighted decisions of ruthless profiteers by spending public money, in some sense, direct the markets. That's not what I'm talking about at all.

My friend Google leads me to the conclusion that the names you list are mostly (first and only three I checked) associated with the Austrian School which was at its heyday when robber barons were massacring (or, more in character, paying their thugs to massacre) people for trying to demand fair pay.

What I'm referring to is the across the board assumption that economics is anything other than a subbranch of ecology and their acceptance of the confusion (value is subjective, 100 calories can turn into 190, etc) that this brings about. The technical term for this sort of thing is gobbledygook. If their are economists which carry out their calculations in calories, and are predicting the extinction of our species if it doesn't drop this mess which has resulted from divorcing our sense of value from reality, then I would love to read them. The ones that you listed are not among them and I can smell them coming (along with the rest of economics) from a mile away.