 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because, comrade, as I stated before, exchange value is not an inherent property of things. If you had all the turnips in the world and no one wanted them, you would not be wealthy. You'd be poor with a lot of turnips. On the other hand, if I created a chegitz credit, which was nothing more than a slip of paper and/or some cells in a ledger, and everyone wanted them, I'd be wealthy.
Stock equals wealth because people act as though it does. And if people act as if you are wealthy, you are. |
You are confusing personal wealth with the total sum of wealth in the economy. aneeshm said that wealth would be destroyed if the stock market went down. If he means people's personal wealth then he is correct. If he means the total wealth of the economy that depends on whether or not the same amount of work is done as before. If money is destroyed and the same amount of work is done then the existing money will be more valuable or more money can be printed. Again, it's very simple. Money is not wealth. It's value is only the things it can buy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Then we agree.
Except for the "ANYTHING" part.
Doesn't Usama have anything to do with attacks on soldiers in Iraq? Or even (with emphase that I doubt any links between him and Saddam) with the invasion?
|
Um, no, the attacks on soldiers in Iraq have been overwhelmingly the product of Baathist resisters. While AQ has infiltrated Iraq since the invasion and has undoubtedly been causing trouble, they aren't by any means the driving cause behing the violence.
And despite the attempts to link AQ and Iraq (which are bogus), the war was fought on the notion Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Spain certainly didn't join the war effort over any sort of link to AQ, but on the Bush Administration's claims about Iraq's weapons capability.
quote:
No. Voting on conservatives wouldn't be cowardice. |
You mean a conservative government that joined a war effort because of fearmongering over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Most amusing you'd think this. Of course, this also doesn't count the fearmongering Aznar's government engaged in by trying to pin the blame on ETA.
Conservatives rely on fear more than anything else to get elected - fear of social change, fear of foreigners, fear of gays, fear of equality, fear of other nations, fear of taxes, fear of regulation...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, no, the attacks on soldiers in Iraq have been overwhelmingly the product of Baathist resisters. While AQ has infiltrated Iraq since the invasion and has undoubtedly been causing trouble, they aren't by any means the driving cause behing the violence.
|
I didn't say they were responsible for all, or even most, of the attacks.
quote:
And despite the attempts to link AQ and Iraq (which are bogus),
|
With which I agree all of the time...
quote:
the war was fought on the notion Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
|
Without the WTC tragedy, there wouldn't have been invasion in Iraq, even if the alleged weapons existance of mass destructions present there was more important reason.
quote:
Spain certainly didn't join the war effort over any sort of link to AQ, but on the Bush Administration's claims about Iraq's weapons capability.
|
It's not "war effort".
quote:
You mean a conservative government that joined a war effort because of fearmongering over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Most amusing you'd think this. Of course, this also doesn't count the fearmongering Aznar's government engaged in by trying to pin the blame on ETA.
Conservatives rely on fear more than anything else to get elected - fear of social change, fear of foreigners, fear of gays, fear of equality, fear of other nations, fear of taxes, fear of regulation... |
Bah. Some fears are justified, and some terms You're using are not the same for everyone.
It's not about conservatives in general, anyway. It's about going out of Iraq. Imagine that every state participating in stabilisation mission left. Do You think it'd be good for Iraq? And I think that whatever the causes of victory of socialists were, the terrorists will claim the withdrawal from Iraq their success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You can't seperate the two. The economy includes paper wealth. |
Did you read the rest of my post?
Here's the equation of exchange
MV=PY
M=money supply
V=velocity of money (number of times it's used)
P=price level
Y=output
MV and PY both equal total income, but MV + PY /= income.
Similarly money wealth = production capability wealth.
Income is the return on wealth. Wealth is what produces that income. When you say that money wealth plus production wealth equals total wealth you're wrong because you are doubling your answer. It's just as bad as saying that MV + PY = income.
edit: This would be like saying that your income is equal to your paycheck plus all of the products that you bought with it. Your paycheck is only worth one or the other.
Last edited by Kidicious on 26-02-2005 at 03:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The money hasn't come from anywhere, yet. Money doesn't appear until someone pays for the stock. Like any other commodity, value is only realized when someone actually pays for the item or service. |
What I was trying to say is wealth/value gets created from thin air in the stock market. Yes, money does not appear until somebody else pays you for a share of a stock, but that just means the share is money equivalent.
The interesting thing here is a publicly traded company can issue new shares. Since these shares can be exchanged for money, it's just like printing money. Viola - wealth/value from thin air.
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Your money only has value when it is exchanged. Until you use it in the act of exchange, it is only potential wealth, just like the value bound up in any other commodity. If the government falls, your money loses its value. Inflation causes your money to lose its value. Where did the wealth go? The same place stock wealth disappears to when stock prices collapse. |
Nowhere 
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Both you and comrade kicidicous are fetishising the exchange value of tangible goods. |
Tangible goods - at least a subset of these - have intrinsic value. People will always need food, clean water, and air. It'd be good to have a shelter also. What about tools? They are good to have. Thus, some items will always have exchange value. While money, as you pointed out, becomes worthless when a government collapses.
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You are forgetting the wealth is not an inherent property of an object, but an assigned property and one which measures the relationships between human beings. The fact that these relationships are ephemeral, intangible, and subject to conscious change doesn't mean they aren't socially real. |
Wealth is not real because it is just an abstract concept. It's like human rights, freedom, and democracy. I gather we are probably just quibbling about definitions here.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm astonished that you can simultaneously insult me and attempt to apologize.
I haven't 'whined' about anything, just pointed out the deficiencies in your 'argument' and that insulting me in lieu of providing evidence to back up your assumptions about Spanish politics isn't a good tactic. |
Molly, I'm astonished by your lack of ability to look on things from someone else's perspective.
If You think that saying that someone's whining is insulting him, You should notice that then, I insulted myself as well (saying that we've both whined). But it is OK for You, that's the way it should be; the only thing You notice is your dear precious yourself.
You have spitted several lines of insults at me, call that "pointing out deficiencies in my >>arguments<<", while in fact it did not show or point anything but your disagreement and lack of culture.
Lets take a look at your posts:
quote:
Oh.
How many times did he vote in the Spanish election?
|
Sarcasm, malicy, lack of arguments.
I've called You silly then, which is a very mild description in fact. You've replied:
quote:
I do respect your ability to back up insults, bald assertions and unfounded speculation with not so much as a single fact.
You should go into Conservative politics, or the church.
|
Which was ment to insult me, conservative politicians, and the church at one time.
quote:
as you seem to be hugely unaware of, has had a serious terrorist problem with Basque Separatists
|
Assuming that I don't know such basics also insults me.
You continue to insult me in the latter part of the post:
quote:
Congratulations, you have yoked together 1 and 2 and come up with 8.
|
And then comes this:
quote:
Clearly somebody had to (enlighten me - H)
Your analysis of the Spanish electorate's intentions and previous voting history was so lacking in detail it could have been inscribed on a grain of paella rice using the blunt end of a tree trunk. (what a splendid example of fine insultless argument! - H)
(...)
Of the two, I'd say the latter, because the former would imply the use of some form of logic, which appears to be sadly lacking in your post (... - H).
Of course, you could have just been signed up as a roving European reporter for Fox News, in which case all falls into place (here, You want to insult both me and Fox tv - H).
|
Which is just a list of insults or things that ment to be insults.
When I replied to that that You're showing your primitiveness (which is the only - imho - probable insult on my side), You say:
quote:
Don't start insulting people to cover up the absence of your argument.
All it does is reveal its inherent ill-thought out shabbiness.
|
Seemingy completely missing your own sins and not noticing what caused my insult.
quote:
Doesn't seem that way.
Seems more like the grapes of wrath have expressed a thin sour whine....
|
This post accuses me of whining. If it's an insult to You, You surely are aware it insulted me as well.
I'm not completely innocent in this quarrel, and perhaps I've been wrong in general, but I don't behave more badly than You do, au contraire.
Perhaps I didn't act the best I could in this thread, but I've admitted that and said I'm sorry.
You, however...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-02-2005 23:14
|