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

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

This is not true. For example, I value my computer. I couldn't care less about its caloric content. It has no bearing on any loss of calories. And it's not useful for security. I could find thousands of other examples that refute your objective theory of value. Seriously, read through Menger's Principles of Economics, available here: http://mises.org/books/mengerprinciples.pdf.

I'll check it out. Your computer is a bad example though: You value it subjectively but there is very little inherent objective value in it. A mouse could sleep in it I suppose.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I didn't say the market could influence the amount of "calories" in a piece of paper, or anything else for that matter.

You said that the value of a dollar could and should be set by the market. I'm conflating the two because I think that that's the correct definition.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Like I said before, just because Item X has Y amount of calories and Item A has B amount of calories, that does not mean Item X (which, let's say, has more calories than Item A) is more valuable. That is a completely ridiculous notion.

No it is not. It is pretty much the definition of value that is in currency throughout all forms of life. I would say (again) that it is incredibly anthrocentric to assert that we can somehow magically violate that rule.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If being homeless is so taboo, why are there homeless people? Don't you think people take jobs at McDonald's because they prefer having shelter, a source of income, and food? I think you're just grasping at straws here to formulate an argument.

If fucking goats is taboo than why do people fuck goats? Most people don't look homeless people in the eyes, don't talk to them and generally don't behave towards them as if they are a member of their own species. There are exceptions to be sure but the general attitude is that homeless people are inferior to others. I would say that this, while not meeting the literal definition, qualifies in essence as a taboo (kapu here in hawaii).

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Comparing apples to oranges...

In what way? I'm comparing animals to animals. A little closer to home, a chimpanzee doesn't claim two nests and no self respecting hunter-gatherer claims to huts.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Focus on my statement and leave out the unnecessary crap.

For you to imply that storing unused volumes of crap in otherwise unused space constitutes legitimate use of that space warrants the response.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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

What?

The fundamental role of the state is to have poor people pay taxes to protect the possessions of the rich from being appropriated by the poor people. It is a feudal system because nobody really owns land but pays rent to the government (which is largely in the pocket of the banks) and/or the banks. You then go to work for a company that the bank is invested in and generate profit for them. You then go to the store (that the bank is invested in) and spend some percentage of the money that you don't give to the bank on food (produced by other wage slaves). You then drive your car (purchased or rented from a company that the bank is invested in) to the gas station (that the bank is invested in) and purchase gasoline (manufactured by a company that the bank is invested in) and hope that your car doesn't break down so that you don't have to take it to be repaired by a company that the bank is invested in. etc. etc. Doesn't it just sound simpler to live on their land and slave in their fields directly? I really don't see what the progress is. I'm disagreeing with Marx here, I know. He thought that capitalism represented progress and was a necessary first step away from feudalism and towards communism. Stalin banned that part of his writing of course.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So basically, you're willing to accept long-refuted objective theory claims. What's the point in debating with you anymore?

There was a lot more to the statement than that. Specifically, I reiterated my statement, which you still have not responded to, that economics can only be sanely understood as a subbranch of ecology. Trying to understand a field without even knowing what it is leads to confusion.

1) What is this obsession with national debt? We both agree that it's largely imaginary money. What about a "reality debt?" That is, how much of the money in circulation is real (in the sense that it represents an actual unit of energy) and how much if it is just imaginary?

2) What percentage (if any) of imaginary energy will cause an ecological subsystem to collapse?


seem to be two particularly burning questions for a legitimate theory of economics to address. So that leaves the question. If you are going to completely disregard one of my two main points, then what's the point of debating with you?