Remember me
▼ Content

Crypto investments



Page 6 of 10<<<45678>>>
25-05-2021 09:22
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1639)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:


Math errors. Gamblers fallacy. Attempt to convert randR to randN. Attempt to produce prediction based on odds.

My point was these are terrible odds to attempt a prediction from

Stock prices rise based on two major factors: corporate earnings, and price discovery.

Mindless Wall Street mantra.

A Bitcoin is not a random number. It is a series of numbers that satisfy the criteria of the blockchain. They are not randU, randR, nor randN. They are simply a series of numbers that satisfy the criteria of the blockchain.

Irrelevant to the argument.


25-05-2021 10:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Into the Night wrote:I have ALREADY described how Bitcoins are CREATED. No one has to purchase it for that Coin to exist. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You really need to address your reading problem ... or learn to read English for comprehension.

I suppose you are going to provide an example of a purchase in which nothing is sold?

Too funny.

25-05-2021 10:40
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1029)
Inherently worthless bitcoin


Spong, I do not agree that bitcoin is inherently worthless. The blockchain technology provides a perfect ledger - everything that has ever happened is recorded into the blockchain. Is not that also a perfect accounting program? Everything is always perfectly balanced, you can not cheat the system because it is simply not possible.
25-05-2021 10:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Hey gfm7175, I figured I'd give you a little reminder of some questions that you haven't answered that remain outstanding, the answers to which and are crucial to our conversation.

1. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference to verify the totally optional nature of balancing ledger entries?
2. What are my umpteen different definitions of wealth between which I regularly shift?
3. What attribute of wealth is not an attribute of money?
4. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference that permits Net Worth to be anything other than a currency value?

Into the Night, you can help me out with a separate point by answering for gfm7175 on this.

Thanks.

25-05-2021 18:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:


Into the Night wrote:I have ALREADY described how Bitcoins are CREATED. No one has to purchase it for that Coin to exist. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You really need to address your reading problem ... or learn to read English for comprehension.

I suppose you are going to provide an example of a purchase in which nothing is sold?

Too funny.



Insult fallacies. Denial of self argument. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 18:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Xadoman wrote:
Inherently worthless bitcoin


Spong, I do not agree that bitcoin is inherently worthless. The blockchain technology provides a perfect ledger - everything that has ever happened is recorded into the blockchain. Is not that also a perfect accounting program? Everything is always perfectly balanced, you can not cheat the system because it is simply not possible.


The cheats do not occur within the Bitcoin blockchain itself, it's with the exchanges. There are some creeps that will take your dollars and never deliver the bitcoin, or take the bitcoin and never deliver your dollars.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 18:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:

Hey gfm7175, I figured I'd give you a little reminder of some questions that you haven't answered that remain outstanding, the answers to which and are crucial to our conversation.

1. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference to verify the totally optional nature of balancing ledger entries?
2. What are my umpteen different definitions of wealth between which I regularly shift?
3. What attribute of wealth is not an attribute of money?
4. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference that permits Net Worth to be anything other than a currency value?

Into the Night, you can help me out with a separate point by answering for gfm7175 on this.

Thanks.

I have answered all of these questions already. RQAA. Stop asking them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 19:47
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey gfm7175, I figured I'd give you a little reminder of some questions that you haven't answered that remain outstanding, the answers to which and are crucial to our conversation.

1. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference to verify the totally optional nature of balancing ledger entries?

You can reference the specific logging and verification procedures themselves, of which I have already provided various practical examples of, showing you that those specific procedures can still be performed without any use of any currency.

IBdaMann wrote:
2. What are my umpteen different definitions of wealth between which I regularly shift?

I'm not interested in bickering about this. Let's just pick one of them (or "the only one you've ever used") and move forward. Wealth is ________.

IBdaMann wrote:
3. What attribute of wealth is not an attribute of money?

Money has the attribute of representing wealth. Wealth does not have that attribute, since it already IS wealth.

I'm sure you would agree that the SODC "turning on the printing presses" does not increase wealth, which leads us to my own little reminder of the formal logic that you haven't adequately addressed (and remains outstanding), the answer to which is crucial to our conversation:

[1] Money is wealth Since this is YOUR claim, I take it that you are accepting this premise as true
[2] Printing money increases the amount of money Since you have, in the past, made fun of keepit for rejecting this claim, I take it that you are also accepting this premise as true
[Conclusion] Increasing the amount of money (per #2) increases the amount of wealth (per #1). Since you have seemingly accepted BOTH of the above premises as true, it then logically follows that you would also accept the conclusion to be true (that "the SODC turning on the printing presses", for example, increases wealth)... Yet, you seem to be rejecting this conclusion, which would be irrational

You now have a few choices that you can make:

Reject the conclusion via rejection of premise #1 and join me (and ITN).
Reject the conclusion via rejection of premise #2 and join keepit.
Reject the conclusion via accepting both #1 AND #2, thus choosing to be irrational.
Accept the conclusion, thus adopting the position that a government's printing of money also increases wealth.

The choice is yours...

IBdaMann wrote:
4. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference that permits Net Worth to be anything other than a currency value?

See my answer to #1.

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night, you can help me out with a separate point by answering for gfm7175 on this.

Thanks.

He's already provided his answers to these questions, and now I have also done so.


25-05-2021 20:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Into the Night wrote:I have answered all of these questions already. RQAA. Stop asking them.

Thank you for providing gfm7175's official dishonesty. I'll stand by for him to parrot.

You have never answered any of those questions. You are a cowardly liar who knows nothing on the subject. You are totally dishonest and now you are trying to bully me into not drilling deeper into your incompetence. You should know by now that cowardly bullying tactics don't work on me.

Answer the questions before you claim to have answered them, liar.

But once again, I appreciate your assistance on this point. Anyone allowing you to do his thinking for him is in a world of hurt. It's no wonder gfm7175 was able to transform into super-moron so quickly. He had your help. He started channeling your ignorance and voila!, instant idiot.

When did lying become your go-to position anyway?

25-05-2021 21:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:1. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference to verify the totally optional nature of balancing ledger entries?
You can reference the specific logging and verification procedures themselves, of which I have already provided various practical examples of, showing you that those specific procedures can still be performed without any use of any currency.

It needs to be an authoritative source. You are not an authority, I'm sorry. I was looking for a source that covers the rules of accounting and shows the optional nature of balancing ledger entries.

I am familiar with some authoritative sources that more-or-less agree with your approach on inventory tracking, however, I'm looking at ledger entries under the rules of accounting. Totally different.

I presumed by the vehemence of your insistence that the rules of accounting do not require ledger entries to be balanced under any sort of currency that you learned that from some authority on the rules of accounting and that you were not simply making it up. All I'm requesting is for you to point me in the right direction, to some authoritative source that says what you say and I'll do all the legwork from there.

gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:2. What are my umpteen different definitions of wealth between which I regularly shift?

I'm not interested in bickering about this. Let's just pick one of them (or "the only one you've ever used") and move forward. Wealth is ________.

Would it really hurt to just admit that you jumped on Into the Night's lunatic ravings without putting any thought into it? ...that you had a moment of madness but that you are over it now?

The reason your statement is so absurd is that I never told you what my definition of wealth is. I told you that I have my own personal definition (i.e. I have a definition, I have defined it, I just haven't told you what it is yet) but that I have told you that per my definition, money is a proper subset of wealth. I'm not expecting you to be an expert in math or an expert in logic, but you can take me on my word that my statement implies that all attributes of wealth therefore pertain to money.

Into the Night sucks at formal logic and he isn't very good at math. He did not want to take the time to analyze what I was saying in order to understand it clearly. He simply rushed to "disagree" because he was in that mode he gets into and once he gets in that mode he becomes a total moron. It was at this point that he made an egregious logical error. Instead of just saying "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" ... he had to insist that I was incorrect. Well, that puts the onus on him to provide an example of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money. When he realized his mistake it was too late. He was already in full dishonest moron mode and his only option was to write "RQAA" and to pretend he had already provided an answer.

Your mistake was to blindly agree with him ... also without asking for any clarification. You embraced his error and his dishonesty and made it your own. When Into the Night became flustered and resorted to claiming that I was changing my definition of wealth (even though I had not said what it was) you parroted that with your infamous "You've changed it umpteen times." You've got to laugh at that. I'm sure you can see how absurd that is. Again, when you let someone do your thinking for you, you are allowing yourself to be dishonest for him.

Anyway ... can you think of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money? If you cannot, the rational answer is to assume for the time being that money is a proper subset of wealth ... which makes it wealth ... until such a time that you discover such an attribute of wealth that does not apply to money.

If you do, I really don't believe you will melt like the wicked witch of the west. Accounting will also make more sense during that time, and you'll even be able to see the huge chasm separating accounting and inventory tracking.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:3. What attribute of wealth is not an attribute of money?
Money has the attribute of representing wealth. Wealth does not have that attribute, since it already IS wealth.

This is a logical error. All wealth represents the wealth that it is. Money is wealth in liquid form so it represents wealth per the units of measure defined by the currency.

Free information: From time to time you are inclined to introduce the concept of printing money. A currency simply provides units of measure for wealth. When money is printed, those units of measure decrease and all the money loses some value. Printing money is effectively slicing the wealth pizza into more slices. Wealth is neither increased nor decreased; there are simply more slices.

When a government abuses the printing of money as a solution to address other economic woes, money rapidly plummets towards worthlessness. When Into the Night isn't being a total lying dumbazz, he correctly expresses concern over every time the government simply prints money to address the increasingly bloated debt into which Congress drops the country.

gfm7175 wrote:I'm sure you would agree that the SODC "turning on the printing presses" does not increase wealth, which leads us to my own little reminder of the formal logic that you haven't adequately addressed (and remains outstanding), the answer to which is crucial to our conversation:

[1] Money is wealth Since this is YOUR claim, I take it that you are accepting this premise as true
[2] Printing money increases the amount of money

Let me know if I have adequately addressed it above.

gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
4. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference that permits Net Worth to be anything other than a currency value?

See my answer to #1.

That doesn't work. Just give me an authoritative source and I'll be off to the races.

gfm7175 wrote:He's already provided his answers to these questions, and now I have also done so.

This is a lie. These questions have never been answered.

However, you have made a good faith effort to address them. There's still more to discuss but I feel much better that you didn't EVADE as Into the Night continues to do ... and you haven't assigned any bogus positions to me. Thank you. I admit that the surge in honesty is refreshing. I appreciate it.

25-05-2021 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I have answered all of these questions already. RQAA. Stop asking them.

Thank you for providing gfm7175's official dishonesty. I'll stand by for him to parrot.

You have never answered any of those questions. You are a cowardly liar who knows nothing on the subject. You are totally dishonest and now you are trying to bully me into not drilling deeper into your incompetence. You should know by now that cowardly bullying tactics don't work on me.

Answer the questions before you claim to have answered them, liar.

But once again, I appreciate your assistance on this point. Anyone allowing you to do his thinking for him is in a world of hurt. It's no wonder gfm7175 was able to transform into super-moron so quickly. He had your help. He started channeling your ignorance and voila!, instant idiot.

When did lying become your go-to position anyway?


It is YOU that is lying, dude. Inversion fallacy. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 22:13
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1639)
Xadoman wrote:
Inherently worthless bitcoin


Spong, I do not agree that bitcoin is inherently worthless. The blockchain technology provides a perfect ledger - everything that has ever happened is recorded into the blockchain. Is not that also a perfect accounting program? Everything is always perfectly balanced, you can not cheat the system because it is simply not possible.


All money has zero value. This is basically what The Parrot says, but he says, Money is not wealth.

Perhaps you can make an argument that money is useful for social engineering...

But it is not worth anything in the way goods and services are.

Stocks, bonds, and futures contacts are financial instruments and would fall into the same category as having zero value.


25-05-2021 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:1. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference to verify the totally optional nature of balancing ledger entries?
You can reference the specific logging and verification procedures themselves, of which I have already provided various practical examples of, showing you that those specific procedures can still be performed without any use of any currency.

It needs to be an authoritative source. You are not an authority, I'm sorry. I was looking for a source that covers the rules of accounting and shows the optional nature of balancing ledger entries.

I am familiar with some authoritative sources that more-or-less agree with your approach on inventory tracking, however, I'm looking at ledger entries under the rules of accounting. Totally different.

I presumed by the vehemence of your insistence that the rules of accounting do not require ledger entries to be balanced under any sort of currency that you learned that from some authority on the rules of accounting and that you were not simply making it up. All I'm requesting is for you to point me in the right direction, to some authoritative source that says what you say and I'll do all the legwork from there.

RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:2. What are my umpteen different definitions of wealth between which I regularly shift?

I'm not interested in bickering about this. Let's just pick one of them (or "the only one you've ever used") and move forward. Wealth is ________.

Would it really hurt to just admit that you jumped on Into the Night's lunatic ravings without putting any thought into it? ...that you had a moment of madness but that you are over it now?

He is not making a statement here. He is asking you direct question. You evaded.
IBdaMann wrote:
The reason your statement is so absurd is that I never told you what my definition of wealth is.

You have. You have already given several conflicting definitions of wealth, hence your paradox A. You are now locked in another paradox. I will call this paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
I told you that I have my own personal definition (i.e. I have a definition, I have defined it, I just haven't told you what it is yet) but that I have told you that per my definition, money is a proper subset of wealth. I'm not expecting you to be an expert in math or an expert in logic, but you can take me on my word that my statement implies that all attributes of wealth therefore pertain to money.

Paradox E. You have also created yet another paradox. You have counseled to take no one's word for a definition and to look it up himself, now you counsel absolute trust in your definition. I will call this paradox G.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night sucks at formal logic and he isn't very good at math. He did not want to take the time to analyze what I was saying in order to understand it clearly. He simply rushed to "disagree" because he was in that mode he gets into and once he gets in that mode he becomes a total moron. It was at this point that he made an egregious logical error. Instead of just saying "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" ... he had to insist that I was incorrect. Well, that puts the onus on him to provide an example of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money. When he realized his mistake it was too late. He was already in full dishonest moron mode and his only option was to write "RQAA" and to pretend he had already provided an answer.

RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
Your mistake was to blindly agree with him ...

Paradox G.
IBdaMann wrote:
also without asking for any clarification.

Paradox G.
IBdaMann wrote:
You embraced his error and his dishonesty and made it your own.

Paradox F.
IBdaMann wrote:
When Into the Night became flustered and resorted to claiming that I was changing my definition of wealth (even though I had not said what it was)

Paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
you parroted that with your infamous "You've changed it umpteen times."

Paradox F.
IBdaMann wrote:
You've got to laugh at that. I'm sure you can see how absurd that is. Again, when you let someone do your thinking for you, you are allowing yourself to be dishonest for him.

D.
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway ... can you think of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money?

RQAA. Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
If you cannot, the rational answer is to assume for the time being that money is a proper subset of wealth ... which makes it wealth ... until such a time that you discover such an attribute of wealth that does not apply to money.

RQAA. Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
If you do, I really don't believe you will melt like the wicked witch of the west. Accounting will also make more sense during that time, and you'll even be able to see the huge chasm separating accounting and inventory tracking.
Paradox B.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:3. What attribute of wealth is not an attribute of money?
Money has the attribute of representing wealth. Wealth does not have that attribute, since it already IS wealth.

This is a logical error.

Denial of logic. No fallacy occurred here.
IBdaMann wrote:
All wealth represents the wealth that it is.

Wealth does not represent wealth. Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
Money is wealth in liquid form so it represents wealth per the units of measure defined by the currency.

Money is not wealth. Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
Free information: From time to time you are inclined to introduce the concept of printing money. A currency simply provides units of measure for wealth. When money is printed, those units of measure decrease and all the money loses some value. Printing money is effectively slicing the wealth pizza into more slices.

Money is not printed by division. Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
Wealth is neither increased nor decreased; there are simply more slices.

Money is not printed by division. Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
When a government abuses the printing of money as a solution to address other economic woes, money rapidly plummets towards worthlessness.

Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
When Into the Night isn't being a total lying dumbazz,

Insult fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
he correctly expresses concern over every time the government simply prints money to address the increasingly bloated debt into which Congress drops the country.

Printed money IS a debt (on the Federal Reserve's books). Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I'm sure you would agree that the SODC "turning on the printing presses" does not increase wealth, which leads us to my own little reminder of the formal logic that you haven't adequately addressed (and remains outstanding), the answer to which is crucial to our conversation:
IBdaMann wrote:
[1] Money is wealth Since this is YOUR claim, I take it that you are accepting this premise as true
[2] Printing money increases the amount of money

Let me know if I have adequately addressed it above.

gfm7175 wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
4. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference that permits Net Worth to be anything other than a currency value?

See my answer to #1.

That doesn't work. Just give me an authoritative source and I'll be off to the races.

RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:He's already provided his answers to these questions, and now I have also done so.

This is a lie. These questions have never been answered.

Inversion fallacy. RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
However, you have made a good faith effort to address them.

Paradox D.
IBdaMann wrote:
There's still more to discuss but I feel much better that you didn't EVADE as Into the Night continues to do ...

Lie. RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
and you haven't assigned any bogus positions to me. Thank you.

Paradox F.
IBdaMann wrote:
I admit that the surge in honesty is refreshing. I appreciate it.

Paradox F.


You are being quite irrational, dude. You have many paradoxes formed. You refuse to address them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Inherently worthless bitcoin


Spong, I do not agree that bitcoin is inherently worthless. The blockchain technology provides a perfect ledger - everything that has ever happened is recorded into the blockchain. Is not that also a perfect accounting program? Everything is always perfectly balanced, you can not cheat the system because it is simply not possible.


All money has zero value. This is basically what The Parrot says, but he says, Money is not wealth.

To clarify:
Money has little to no inherent value. Some currencies do have some value, but not as much as represented by the currency. Paper money, for example, is worth the value of the paper as an inherent value (wealth). Bits have no inherent value. Arranging them to represent wealth is not wealth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Perhaps you can make an argument that money is useful for social engineering...

In interesting line of thought. Taxes are certainly used this way, but money itself?
Spongy Iris wrote:
But it is not worth anything in the way goods and services are.

Quite right.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Stocks, bonds, and futures contacts are financial instruments and would fall into the same category as having zero value.

This is also mostly correct. All of these represent wealth, but are not wealth themselves, just like money.
The value, however is not zero. The value of a stock is based on the assets and liabilities (the net worth of the company). It is literally a share of ownership in a company. It represents that wealth. It is not wealth in and of itself, but it does have value.

It is the same with money, commodities contracts, bonds, etc.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2021 00:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Into the Night wrote:It is YOU that is lying, dude. Inversion fallacy. RQAA.

Again, you are lying. You are locked in dishonest moron mode.

Hey, let me know when you snap out of it and return to your senses. Until then you are just a useless bandwidth-waster. Gibber-gibber-gibber.

Idiot.

26-05-2021 00:32
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1639)
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Xadoman wrote:
[quote]

Interesting line of thought. Taxes are certainly used this way, but money itself?

Perhaps an example would be banks giving loans just to businesses which they to see fit in a society. Does the final authority to create money provide the influence to mold societies? Or do the societies mold themselves?

This is also mostly correct. All of these represent wealth, but are not wealth themselves, just like money.
The value, however is not zero. The value of a stock is based on the assets and liabilities (the net worth of the company). It is literally a share of ownership in a company. It represents that wealth. It is not wealth in and of itself, but it does have value.

It is the same with money, commodities contracts, bonds, etc.

All of the stocks that started on the Dow Jones Industrial Average are now out of business (except for Proctor and Gamble). They now have zero value. Most of the shareholders who traded those stocks lost money. A minority gained money. But all the traders combined gained zero. This is what has happened to most stocks and probably will happen to all stocks. Zero value.

Doesn't mean the goods and services made by the companies disappeared. But the companies did. Similar for bonds and futures contracts. You might remember WTI oil traded briefly for negative $37. And European countries are already charging their bond holders negative interest rates




Edited on 26-05-2021 00:33
26-05-2021 01:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:1. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference to verify the totally optional nature of balancing ledger entries?
You can reference the specific logging and verification procedures themselves, of which I have already provided various practical examples of, showing you that those specific procedures can still be performed without any use of any currency.

It needs to be an authoritative source. You are not an authority, I'm sorry. I was looking for a source that covers the rules of accounting and shows the optional nature of balancing ledger entries.

I am familiar with some authoritative sources that more-or-less agree with your approach on inventory tracking, however, I'm looking at ledger entries under the rules of accounting. Totally different.

I presumed by the vehemence of your insistence that the rules of accounting do not require ledger entries to be balanced under any sort of currency that you learned that from some authority on the rules of accounting and that you were not simply making it up. All I'm requesting is for you to point me in the right direction, to some authoritative source that says what you say and I'll do all the legwork from there.

I'm not claiming to be an authority, as accounting has existed long before I ever existed.

You also keep making reference to something called "rules of accounting". Could you list these rules for me (or at least a couple of them) so that I know what you are making reference to? Have these "rules of accounting" ever been changed over time? If they have in fact been changed over time, would that mean that all of the accounting that was performed under the "prior rules of accounting" can no longer be considered accounting? Who gets to set the rules as to how accounting must be performed? Accounting existed long before GAAP was ever a thing, for example.

While certain accounting methods have largely replaced other accounting methods over time (such as 'double entry bookkeeping' replacing 'single entry bookkeeping'), 'single entry bookkeeping' is still a valid way to perform accounting, although at this point in time it would be considered to be a more primitive method of accounting.

Accounting, at its very core, is an information logging system (generally involving the recording and tracking of wealth transactions). Wealth can be bartered, and such barter transactions can be logged (thus accounted for) without the use of any currency. A very primitive ("Mesopotamia era" primitive) ledger entry could have possibly been recorded along the lines of:

[INSERT DATE HERE] In exchange for three chickens, which were delivered today, Woodworker Bob promised to build and deliver a storage container.

Here, Farmer Jim's records show that he has paid out three chickens, and has a storage container listed as a "receivable". In Woodworker Bob's records, he is showing that he has received three chickens as payment and has a storage container listed as a "payable".

These are still ledger entries, even though this isn't the format that ledger entries are recorded in today's world (due to technology advances, government dictates, desire for uniformity in record keeping, etc).

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:2. What are my umpteen different definitions of wealth between which I regularly shift?

I'm not interested in bickering about this. Let's just pick one of them (or "the only one you've ever used") and move forward. Wealth is ________.

Would it really hurt to just admit that you jumped on Into the Night's lunatic ravings without putting any thought into it? ...that you had a moment of madness but that you are over it now?

The reason your statement is so absurd is that I never told you what my definition of wealth is. I told you that I have my own personal definition (i.e. I have a definition, I have defined it, I just haven't told you what it is yet)

Ahhhh... Got it. I will now accept this as your position moving forward.

IBdaMann wrote:
but that I have told you that per my definition, money is a proper subset of wealth. I'm not expecting you to be an expert in math or an expert in logic, but you can take me on my word that my statement implies that all attributes of wealth therefore pertain to money.

I assume that you will now share your definition of 'wealth' so that I can verify for myself whether or not money is a proper subset of it?

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night sucks at formal logic and he isn't very good at math. He did not want to take the time to analyze what I was saying in order to understand it clearly. He simply rushed to "disagree" because he was in that mode he gets into and once he gets in that mode he becomes a total moron. It was at this point that he made an egregious logical error. Instead of just saying "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" ... he had to insist that I was incorrect. Well, that puts the onus on him to provide an example of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money. When he realized his mistake it was too late. He was already in full dishonest moron mode and his only option was to write "RQAA" and to pretend he had already provided an answer.

How can he say "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" when you, by your own admission, haven't even produced a definition for him to consider as of yet? Are you saying that he rushed to scream "WRONG" before you even provided him with a definition to consider?

If so, then it doesn't make sense for you to claim that the onus is on ITN to provide you with an attribute of wealth that isn't an attribute of money because, as you are saying here, you haven't even defined what wealth is. Given that, what ITN has done is provide you with what his definition of wealth is and answered your question according to his provided definition of both wealth and money.

IBdaMann wrote:
Your mistake was to blindly agree with him ... also without asking for any clarification. You embraced his error and his dishonesty and made it your own. When Into the Night became flustered and resorted to claiming that I was changing my definition of wealth (even though I had not said what it was) you parroted that with your infamous "You've changed it umpteen times." You've got to laugh at that. I'm sure you can see how absurd that is. Again, when you let someone do your thinking for you, you are allowing yourself to be dishonest for him.

You must have glossed over one of my very first posts then (after I joined into this discussion) which specifically asked you for it. Since you didn't provide it, I could only at that point draw from your responses making use of the word as to how you were defining it. Feel free to define it.

IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway ... can you think of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money?

Regarding your definitions, I cannot because you haven't provided them. Under ITN's definitions, which I have necessarily adopted because ITN does my thinking for me, I can think of one and I have already provided it to you.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you cannot, the rational answer is to assume for the time being that money is a proper subset of wealth ... which makes it wealth ... until such a time that you discover such an attribute of wealth that does not apply to money.

This answer would not be rational at all, actually. It would be making an appeal to ignorance.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you do, I really don't believe you will melt like the wicked witch of the west. Accounting will also make more sense during that time, and you'll even be able to see the huge chasm separating accounting and inventory tracking.

Accounting already makes perfect sense to me. I have already explained the differences between ledger entries, balance sheets, and inventory tracking, and how each of them can be done without any use of any currency.


I realize that this wasn't the whole post; I ran out of time for the time being.
26-05-2021 01:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It is YOU that is lying, dude. Inversion fallacy. RQAA.

Again, you are lying. You are locked in dishonest moron mode.

Hey, let me know when you snap out of it and return to your senses. Until then you are just a useless bandwidth-waster. Gibber-gibber-gibber.

Idiot.



Insult fallacies. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2021 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Xadoman wrote:
[quote]

Interesting line of thought. Taxes are certainly used this way, but money itself?

Perhaps an example would be banks giving loans just to businesses which they to see fit in a society. Does the final authority to create money provide the influence to mold societies? Or do the societies mold themselves?

This would be attempted social engineering through the use of loans, but there are too many banks to coordinate this reliably. Not all banks are in the States, you know. Kind of like the way the OPEC price fixing fell apart.
Spongy Iris wrote:
All of the stocks that started on the Dow Jones Industrial Average are now out of business (except for Proctor and Gamble). They now have zero value. Most of the shareholders who traded those stocks lost money. A minority gained money. But all the traders combined gained zero. This is what has happened to most stocks and probably will happen to all stocks. Zero value.

Doesn't mean the goods and services made by the companies disappeared. But the companies did.

Those goods and services were sold to other companies. Same stuff...just under a different name.
[b]Spongy Iris wrote:
Similar for bonds and futures contracts. You might remember WTI oil traded briefly for negative $37. And European countries are already charging their bond holders negative interest rates[/b]

These cases happen when surplus is so high that they can't even give the stuff away. They effectively pay you to take the stuff off their hands.

It costs money to store oil (or pretty much anything else).

Negative interest rates are simply an indication that the currency is so worthless they are paying people to take it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2021 02:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Into the Night wrote:Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

Gibberish. Ongoing EVASION. Ongoing cowardice. No value added. Bandwidth wasting.

26-05-2021 02:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:1. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference to verify the totally optional nature of balancing ledger entries?
You can reference the specific logging and verification procedures themselves, of which I have already provided various practical examples of, showing you that those specific procedures can still be performed without any use of any currency.

It needs to be an authoritative source. You are not an authority, I'm sorry. I was looking for a source that covers the rules of accounting and shows the optional nature of balancing ledger entries.

I am familiar with some authoritative sources that more-or-less agree with your approach on inventory tracking, however, I'm looking at ledger entries under the rules of accounting. Totally different.

I presumed by the vehemence of your insistence that the rules of accounting do not require ledger entries to be balanced under any sort of currency that you learned that from some authority on the rules of accounting and that you were not simply making it up. All I'm requesting is for you to point me in the right direction, to some authoritative source that says what you say and I'll do all the legwork from there.

I'm not claiming to be an authority, as accounting has existed long before I ever existed.

You also keep making reference to something called "rules of accounting". Could you list these rules for me (or at least a couple of them) so that I know what you are making reference to? Have these "rules of accounting" ever been changed over time? If they have in fact been changed over time, would that mean that all of the accounting that was performed under the "prior rules of accounting" can no longer be considered accounting? Who gets to set the rules as to how accounting must be performed? Accounting existed long before GAAP was ever a thing, for example.

IBD can't ask for a better opportunity to explain his definition of 'wealth'. Go ahead, IBD. The floor is yours.
gfm7175 wrote:
While certain accounting methods have largely replaced other accounting methods over time (such as 'double entry bookkeeping' replacing 'single entry bookkeeping'), 'single entry bookkeeping' is still a valid way to perform accounting, although at this point in time it would be considered to be a more primitive method of accounting.

An excellent point. Accounting procedures change over time. We have computers now, for example.
gfm7175 wrote:
Accounting, at its very core, is an information logging system (generally involving the recording and tracking of wealth transactions). Wealth can be bartered, and such barter transactions can be logged (thus accounted for) without the use of any currency. A very primitive ("Mesopotamia era" primitive) ledger entry could have possibly been recorded along the lines of:

[INSERT DATE HERE] In exchange for three chickens, which were delivered today, Woodworker Bob promised to build and deliver a storage container.

Here, Farmer Jim's records show that he has paid out three chickens, and has a storage container listed as a "receivable". In Woodworker Bob's records, he is showing that he has received three chickens as payment and has a storage container listed as a "payable".

These are still ledger entries, even though this isn't the format that ledger entries are recorded in today's world (due to technology advances, government dictates, desire for uniformity in record keeping, etc).


It actually can be. Nothing about the ledger format in today's world requires governments or currency.
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:2. What are my umpteen different definitions of wealth between which I regularly shift?

I'm not interested in bickering about this. Let's just pick one of them (or "the only one you've ever used") and move forward. Wealth is ________.

Would it really hurt to just admit that you jumped on Into the Night's lunatic ravings without putting any thought into it? ...that you had a moment of madness but that you are over it now?

The reason your statement is so absurd is that I never told you what my definition of wealth is. I told you that I have my own personal definition (i.e. I have a definition, I have defined it, I just haven't told you what it is yet)

Ahhhh... Got it. I will now accept this as your position moving forward.

He actually HAS defined it in conflicting ways in the past (paradoxes A and E), but let's just take the position that he has not defined them yet and this is his opportunity to define 'wealth' in a single consistent way.
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
but that I have told you that per my definition, money is a proper subset of wealth. I'm not expecting you to be an expert in math or an expert in logic, but you can take me on my word that my statement implies that all attributes of wealth therefore pertain to money.

I assume that you will now share your definition of 'wealth' so that I can verify for myself whether or not money is a proper subset of it?

A perfectly valid question. IBD is making what is known as a vacuous argument fallacy here. He needs to define 'wealth' before he can make any valid argument that money is 'wealth'.
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night sucks at formal logic and he isn't very good at math. He did not want to take the time to analyze what I was saying in order to understand it clearly. He simply rushed to "disagree" because he was in that mode he gets into and once he gets in that mode he becomes a total moron. It was at this point that he made an egregious logical error. Instead of just saying "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" ... he had to insist that I was incorrect. Well, that puts the onus on him to provide an example of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money. When he realized his mistake it was too late. He was already in full dishonest moron mode and his only option was to write "RQAA" and to pretend he had already provided an answer.

How can he say "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" when you, by your own admission, haven't even produced a definition for him to consider as of yet? Are you saying that he rushed to scream "WRONG" before you even provided him with a definition to consider?

If so, then it doesn't make sense for you to claim that the onus is on ITN to provide you with an attribute of wealth that isn't an attribute of money because, as you are saying here, you haven't even defined what wealth is. Given that, what ITN has done is provide you with what his definition of wealth is and answered your question according to his provided definition of both wealth and money.

That I have. So far, IBD keeps asking me the same questions over and over again, even though I have already answered them.
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Your mistake was to blindly agree with him ... also without asking for any clarification. You embraced his error and his dishonesty and made it your own. When Into the Night became flustered and resorted to claiming that I was changing my definition of wealth (even though I had not said what it was) you parroted that with your infamous "You've changed it umpteen times." You've got to laugh at that. I'm sure you can see how absurd that is. Again, when you let someone do your thinking for you, you are allowing yourself to be dishonest for him.

You must have glossed over one of my very first posts then (after I joined into this discussion) which specifically asked you for it. Since you didn't provide it, I could only at that point draw from your responses making use of the word as to how you were defining it. Feel free to define it.

Again, a perfectly reasonable question to ask. It is up to IBD to define 'wealth' in a consistent manner.
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway ... can you think of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money?

Regarding your definitions, I cannot because you haven't provided them. Under ITN's definitions, which I have necessarily adopted because ITN does my thinking for me, I can think of one and I have already provided it to you.

He has provided conflicting definitions of 'wealth' (hence paradox A). You even questioned him on that paradox when it happened.

At this point, asking IBD to define 'wealth' in a consistent way is probably the best path at the moment.

No, IBD. I did not tell him to do this or write anything else in this post.
IBdaMann wrote:
If you cannot, the rational answer is to assume for the time being that money is a proper subset of wealth ... which makes it wealth ... until such a time that you discover such an attribute of wealth that does not apply to money.

This answer would not be rational at all, actually. It would be making an appeal to ignorance.
[/quote]
This is actually not the case. It is a vacuous argument fallacy.
This is what happens when someone in the Church of Global Warming can't define 'climate change', for example, but then goes on to use it as an argument and a proof. It is why buzzwords as a subject are a fallacy. It creates a vacuous argument (one with no meaning).
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you do, I really don't believe you will melt like the wicked witch of the west. Accounting will also make more sense during that time, and you'll even be able to see the huge chasm separating accounting and inventory tracking.

Accounting already makes perfect sense to me. I have already explained the differences between ledger entries, balance sheets, and inventory tracking, and how each of them can be done without any use of any currency.

That you have...and well done by the way!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2021 02:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

Gibberish. Ongoing EVASION. Ongoing cowardice. No value added. Bandwidth wasting.



Insult fallacies. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2021 04:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


gfm7175 wrote:I'm not claiming to be an authority,

This is good. As such, you really should clarify whether you are willing to learn about the subject or whether you will take offense at people offering to help you. This will prevent misunderstandings.

As always, you should avoid letting others do your thinking for you. Avoiding this will prevent misunderstandings.

gfm7175 wrote: You also keep making reference to something called "rules of accounting".

Yes. The fact that you felt it necessary to put that in quotes should be your clue that you are not very well in touch with the subject matter.

Have you heard of CPAs? That initialism stands for Certified Public Accountant. The word Certified in this case refers to certification in the rules of accounting. Those rules of accounting form the body of knowledge (BOK) from which material is drawn for the rather grueling and exhaustive CPA exam which must be passed in order to become a CPA.

To deny the rules of accounting is to deny the existence of CPAs, CPA exams, CPA governing bodies and CPA licensing procedures.

To point you in the right direction, START HERE for the requirements in your area. I encourage you to contact your CPA licensing board for the authoritative BOK you must master to become a CPA. This would be your rules of accounting (not in quotation marks).

gfm7175 wrote:While certain accounting methods have largely replaced other accounting methods

Accounting is not a history course. What might have been in the past is irrelevant. The rules of accounting exist in the present. CPA's must adhere to today's standards. Into the Night will sloganeer that accounting is not a standard. He is mistaken. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I encourage you to research the accounting BOK for Wisconsin and appreciate it for the standard that it is.

gfm7175 wrote: 'single entry bookkeeping' is still a valid way to perform accounting,

Sure, but for cash, i.e. money ... because money is always a currency value and nothing but a currency value ... so merely performing "inventory" on it (tallying the count) is balancing it. Single-entry accounting is sometimes referred to as "cash accounting" although technically that's a misnomer.

gfm7175 wrote:although at this point in time it would be considered to be a more primitive method of accounting.

It's not primitive. It's totally mainstream and totally accepted. When the day comes that you have a small business and you need to track your cash and your cash transactions, single-entry accounting might very well be your best friend.

gfm7175 wrote:Accounting, at its very core, is an information logging system (generally involving the recording and tracking of wealth transactions).

Accounting, at its core, is a complete "financial picture" system intended to aid in decision-making. Any description you might encounter that deviates from the description I just gave you will be wrong to that extent.

gfm7175 wrote: Wealth can be bartered, and such barter transactions can be logged (thus accounted for) without the use of any currency.

For the umpteenth time (I know you like that word) I totally agree with this statement.

You are, of course, conflating the semantics of "account for" with "accomplish accounting."

In order to adhere to the rules of accounting, you absolutely need a currency under which to balance, at a minimum, the currency values of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. You can't get around this requirement.

Yes, parties can barter; it happens all around the world every day.

All accounting of barter transactions requires a currency to perform the valuation needed to enter the appropriate currency values as needed to adhere to the rules of accounting.

Yes, parties can barter and only perform inventory tracking. Parties are empowered to forego accounting. Nobody can force anyone to perform accounting. When accounting is not performed, there is no currency requirement.

Yes, chickens can theoretically be used as currency. In that case, your examples of converting everything to chickens will work. The following is a good example:

gfm7175 wrote:[INSERT DATE HERE] In exchange for three chickens, which were delivered today, Woodworker Bob promised to build and deliver a storage container.

Woodworker Bob charges CH3.00 (three chickens) to build storage containers, and he collects in advance. Single-entry accounting would work since Farmer Jim paid in cash, i.e. chickens.

gfm7175 wrote:Ahhhh... Got it. I will now accept this as your position moving forward.

So ... can we get that admission ... so we can have a good laugh over it and just forget about it?

gfm7175 wrote:I assume that you will now share your definition of 'wealth' so that I can verify for myself whether or not money is a proper subset of it?

This is a logical error on your part. I have defined money as a proper subset of wealth. This is all you need to know. You can conclude that I define wealth as a superset of money. This provides you all the information you need to conclude that, per my definition, all attributes of wealth are attributes of money.

For you to have a definition in which money is not wealth, per your definition money cannot be a proper subset of wealth because there must be some characteristic of wealth that does not apply to money.

You have not been able to present any characteristic of wealth that is not a characteristic of money. You attempted to claim that wealth somehow doesn't represent itself ... or some other such unintelligible nonsense ... but discarding this ... crap ... you haven't identified any valid examples. As such, you have not differentiated money from wealth in any way. Money is wealth according to everything you have specified.

As it stands, your claims that money is not wealth is falsified by the assertion that money is a proper subset of wealth, and you cannot falsify that assertion. You can deny it but you have not been able to falsify it.

gfm7175 wrote:How can he say "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" when you, by your own admission, haven't even produced a definition for him to consider as of yet?

Well, he can't ... since he sucks at math and formal logic. He had all the information he needed, he just didn't understand it, owing to his shortcomings. However, he can't be both a total bonehead on the matter and then pretend to be the authority on the matter. He simply knee-jerked "You are wrong" because I poster the words "money is wealth" and that is blasphemy in his faith.

gfm7175 wrote:Are you saying that he rushed to scream "WRONG" before you even provided him with a definition to consider?

Yes, he just screams "WRONG" on impulse. I don't mind trying to help him out and to correct him when he's wrong, and I wouldn't mind if he were to just be honest and say "Look, that's not what I believe." That would be fine. No harm, no foul.

But for him to lie and declare me to be wrong ... and then to EVADE honest discussion of the matter because he knows he wrong ... at a certain point he deserves all the mockery and derision he gets. Lying is not a good thing. Again, if you decide to embrace his lies and to regurgitate them, then you are begging for all the same mockery and derision.

The best policy is to never let others do your thinking for you, especially in the case of lying morons.

gfm7175 wrote:If so, then it doesn't make sense for you to claim that the onus is on ITN to provide you with an attribute of wealth that isn't an attribute of money because, as you are saying here, you haven't even defined what wealth is.

Thank you. That is exactly the question he is EVADING.

I know, why don't you ask Into the Night for such an example characteristic. It would mean so much coming from you.

[hint: I already know how you are going to respond to this. It's mildly disappointing]

gfm7175 wrote: Given that, what ITN has done is provide you with what his definition of wealth is and answered your question according to his provided definition of both wealth and money.

Incorrect. He has dishonestly EVADED the aforementioned question because he is dead wrong and he knows it, but he can't be honest and admit his error because that would imply that his WACKY extremist dogma is in error.

gfm7175 wrote:You must have glossed over one of my very first posts then (after I joined into this discussion) which specifically asked you for it. Since you didn't provide it, I could only at that point draw from your responses making use of the word as to how you were defining it. Feel free to define it.

Don't revert to the dishonesty, please. You posted that I changed my definition of wealth "umpteen" times. You did so because you were mindlessly parroting Into the Night and not because you somehow noted any changes in my definition of wealth. You embraced his dishonesty and you made it your own.

This is the point where you admit "OK, yeah, I got caught up in the heat of the moment and I shouldn't have written that..., " ...we have a laugh about it and we forget about it. If you pretend to deny it, it's just going to fester and combine with other things and it will never go away.

gfm7175 wrote: This answer would not be rational at all, actually. It would be making an appeal to ignorance.

Did Into the Night tell you to write that? It's totally stupid. It's on the level that he would write.

Did you miss the part about it being math, specifically set theory? Do you deny math? Please let me know if you do. If you need help understanding it, let me know. I'm happy to help out ... as long as you don't attack me for doing so.

gfm7175 wrote:Accounting already makes perfect sense to me.

Nope. You don't understand it at all. You think that accounting is inventory tracking. You think balancing ledger entries is optional. You think that currency is not needed for the currency values of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. You think T-accounts is a teaching method. You think that the rules of accounting are akin to an urban legend. You make errors in almost every post that would otherwise be immediately flagged by first-year accounting students.

Your statement is moderately delusional. You have already (correctly) acknowledged that you are not an authority in accounting. Don't now pretend that accounting somehow makes sense to you as though you were an expert in accounting.

gfm7175 wrote: I have already explained the differences between ledger entries, balance sheets, and inventory tracking,

Nope. I already know the differences between them. You were conflating them and advertising your conflation to all who would read your posts.

gfm7175 wrote: ... and how each of them can be done without any use of any currency.

You did not succeed ... but that is irrelevant. What is needed is an authoritative source on the rules of accounting that says what you are saying. I'd really like to see it. Until then, you have simply elucidated your misunderstandings that accounting is inventory tracking.

gfm7175 wrote:I realize that this wasn't the whole post; I ran out of time for the time being.

That is totally fair. That is why message boards work the way they do.

26-05-2021 04:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Into the Night wrote:Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

Babbling. Gibberish. Continued EVASION. Ongoing dishonesty. No argument presented.

26-05-2021 14:02
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1029)
Harvey and James, take a look at that video. It explains how safemoon tokenomics work and how you can start to earn money through reflections. It is like investing but the amount of money you get through reflections is going to be insane. For example we are talking about thousands of dollars per day if you would buy in today with 7000 dollars and the price would go up as it is destined to go because of the tokenomics( the supply of the coins diminishes constantly). The whales already get hundreds of thousands of dollars per day through reflection.
So in overall if the price of the safemoon goes up 1000 x you most probably do not want to sell because you are going to make thousands of dollars per day through reflection. My only regret now is that I have too little money to invest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJIimbQksU&t=1s&ab_channel=SafeMoonMarkSafeMoonMark

A comment from the same guy who posted the video:

Watch my first video! I go over market cap and volume in extreme detail. There is an Advanced version coming out soon, where I bring Calculus, Differential Equations, and Software into the mix, but the first one should give a very solid understanding!
As for getting the volume up, at this point in time buying Safemoon is near impossible for the average person, and none of its Use Cases are live. Once the exchange, wallet, and debit card require Safemoon to pay for Transaction fees, or it is a one click buy with USD, that will be the catalyst that brings us into the multi-billion dollars in volume per day, and where our reflections will make us unbelievably rich!


So as you can see, it is not selling the coin for a profit. It is about reflections. That is why I love safemoon and all of those new shitcoins. I myself consider bitcoin too oldschool to invest now. It has to be kept alive though because it is a mascot for the entire crypto market.
Edited on 26-05-2021 14:43
26-05-2021 16:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Xadoman wrote:There is an Advanced version coming out soon, where I bring Calculus, Differential Equations, and Software into the mix, but the first one should give a very solid understanding!

What would be the purpose of discussing differential equations? What is the purpose of capitalizing "differential equations" except to treat it as a buzzword while not knowing what it really means?

Xadoman quoted: "... or it is a one click buy with USD, that will be the catalyst that brings us into the multi-billion dollars in volume per day, and where our reflections will make us unbelievably rich!

Did this guy just try to establish a causality between volume and price? Did this guy just guarantee huge volume?

Xadoman wrote:So as you can see, it is not selling the coin for a profit. It is about reflections.

... or are you too stupid to know the difference between "weather" and "Climate"?

Xadoman wrote: That is why I love safemoon and all of those new shitcoins.

Because you are thmaaaart! You know the difference between "profit" and "reflections." Most people aren't as thmart as you.

Xadoman wrote: I myself consider bitcoin too oldschool to invest now.

That is a huge concern. That's why it's a top consideration, right up there with P/E ... and "reflections."

Xadoman wrote: It has to be kept alive though because it is a mascot for the entire crypto market.

Of course. That's why it's called the supply-demand-mascot curve.

26-05-2021 17:45
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1029)
What would be the purpose of discussing differential equations? What is the purpose of capitalizing "differential equations" except to treat it as a buzzword while not knowing what it really means?


This guy who posted the video obviously knows math pretty well. James likes math so I thought it would be beneficial to him to take a look at the math behind the safemoon tokenomics. I myself am walking away from math discussions because I suck big time in math but I for sure intuitively could tell if someone is good at math and I enjoy watching such videos where things are made quite understandable for dummies. My intuition for example tells me that you are also very good at math. You have said that you are a computer guy and I belive it. Most probably you have a quite high IQ( definately over 130 in my estimation). So, as you can see, I use my intuition to select out those who know about the subject and those who do not. A low IQ dummie could never make a video such as this.

Did this guy just try to establish a causality between volume and price? Did this guy just guarantee huge volume?

Just watch the video , everything is explained in it.

or are you too stupid to know the difference between "weather" and "Climate"?


I do not belive in the climate scam any more. You and others have explained the basic physics and (also intuitively) it makes sense to me.

Because you are thmaaaart! You know the difference between "profit" and "reflections." Most people aren't as thmart as you.


I do not understand what you mean but I see reflections as dividends from an investment. Whales are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars per day from reflections and those guys are not stupid. Follow the money they say.

That is a huge concern. That's why it's a top consideration, right up there with P/E ... and "reflections."


I do not even understand what P/E stands for but my intuition tells me to stay away from oldschool coins that have no reflection function. I am a hodler, not a day trader. Day trading is profitable for those who are good in math and can read charts. With reflection function the tokenomics is ticking in my favour simply by hodling.

Of course. That's why it's called the supply-demand-mascot curve.


Yep, bitcoin is a puppet and the strings are being pulled exactly the way they needed it to be. Those who have been in the business could read those charts like their own hand. For example this guy know a lot about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsq0HnqKQc

This guy knows and teaches about day trading. He do not even need to follow the mainstream news because he says he knows the news a couple of days in advance simply by looking at the chart of the bitcoin.
26-05-2021 20:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Xadoman wrote:This guy who posted the video obviously knows math pretty well.

Nope. He is a con man who is taking advantage of his target audience's mathematical incompetence. He knows that with sufficient techno-babble his target audience will think "Wow! This guy who posted this video obviously knows math pretty well! We should hand all our money over to him."

Xadoman, every transfer loses 10%. Every "transfer" causes somebody to lose wealth and the most that is returned throughout the SafeMoon community is half of that original 10% that is lost. The wealth of all SafeMoon holders goes to zero over time and whoever owns that "Burn" account will eventually have all the SafeMoon wealth.

Who owns that "Hold" account?

I know, I know ... that account is billed as not having any owner, and as not having any sort of private key, thus rendering it totally inaccessible to anyone.

Do you believe all that? If so then you are exactly the gullible target audience this guy seeks.

Also, did you catch his comment about how he reviewed the source code?

Did he really review the source code?

If not, then he is clearly lying about everything in the video.

However, if he did review the source code then how do I get this source code to review? Legitimate software developers who discuss code provide links to the code they are discussing because they want their audience to see what they are talking about. I noticed that this guy totally blew over that topic without providing any links.

If this didn't raise your eyebrows then you are exactly the gullible target audience he is seeking.

Xadoman wrote:I myself am walking away from math discussions because I suck big time in math

You don't say ....

Xadoman wrote: ... but I for sure intuitively could tell if someone is good at math

... but I wouldn't go that far ... You apparently believe whatever you are told by anyone who simply claims to be good at math.

Xadoman wrote: My intuition for example tells me that you are also very good at math.

What you refer to as "intuition" is correctly called "guessing." I suppose that I have claimed to be good at math and that might explain why your intuition tells you that I am good at math ... but I don't think you have ever seen me do any math.

But now you have a problem. Your intuition tells you that I am good at math, and here I am telling you that the guy who posted the video is a con man who erroneously capitalizes "Differential Equations" because he doesn't know what that is ... but your intuition tells you he is good at math and that you should trust him on that basis.

Who are you going believe?

For anyone else reading this post, the underlying problem with SafeMoon is that it is being marketed to speculators, i.e. it is not being marketed as any sort of currency to be used to purchase goods and services. Speculators are told to buy it at a low price, hold it, and it is guaranteed to shoot up in value due to all the activity of SafeMoon being used as a currency to purchase goods and services. But wait, nobody will use SafeMoon as a currency. 10% is lost every payment. You know that many vendors won't accept American Express because of its 3.5% merchant fees as opposed to Visa or Mastercard's 2%. Who is going to accept 10%? Nobody. Ergo, it will not be used as a currency. Ergo, speculators will find that it doesn't increase in value.

Xadoman wrote: A low IQ dummie could never make a video such as this.

I didn't say he was a dummy. He is probably a very smart con man. I just don't think he is really all that good at math.

Xadoman wrote:Just watch the video , everything is explained in it.

I have seen the video. You are correct. All the information I need is in there.

I will not be handing over my cash to SafeMoon anytime soon.

Xadoman wrote:
or are you too stupid to know the difference between "weather" and "Climate"?
I do not belive in the climate scam any more.

I was not talking about Climate Change. I was drawing a reference to the warmizombies' use of buzzwords. The guy who posted the video could have reworded his statement into the following question: "... or are you too stupid to know the difference between "profit" and "reflections."

In fact, from now on, anytime someone mentions SafeMoon and talks about making money or getting rich, I'm going to ask "How do you not even know the difference between "profit" and "reflections?"

Hey, I should ask you while I have you: "Don't you even know the difference between "profit" and "reflections"? Let me know if I need to hike up either the snark or the condescension. Thanks in advance.


Xadoman wrote: I do not understand what you mean but I see reflections as dividends from an investment.

See above. What I meant was that this video is a total scam/sales pitch and is playing confusing word games with gullible audiences. What you just described is an inaccurate description of how one profits by speculating on SafeMoon, but your inaccuracy is irrelevant. You posted previously that it's not about profit, it's about "reflections." Ooooh. Aaaaah. So what's that difference?

Hey! Don't you even know the difference between "profit" and "reflections"?

Xadoman wrote:Whales are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars per day from reflections and those guys are not stupid. Follow the money they say.

Are you sure? I'm guessing that you were told that, but that it is not true. That can only happen if there is huge volume. Not only do I not believe there will ever be huge volume, I can't think of any vendors that will accept a 10% loss by accepting SafeMoon. No vendor acceptance means zero volume which means zero reflections which means zero profitability for speculators.

Xadoman wrote:I do not even understand what P/E stands for but my intuition tells me to stay away from oldschool coins that have no reflection function.

P/E is Price per Earnings ratio. Note: You could have looked it up.

If a company's stock price is $100.00 and the company's per-share-earnings were $5 then that stock has a P/E of 20. This is used as one gauge of the relative value of a company's stock and whether one should buy it.

I was being sarcastic. I was comparing your gauge of a coin being "old school" with an actual valuation gauge.

Xadoman wrote:With reflection function the tokenomics is ticking in my favour simply by holding.

Only if there is volume in activity, which is not likely to happen.

What vendor will be willing to accept a 10% price cut?

26-05-2021 21:18
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
... continuation from yesterday...

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:3. What attribute of wealth is not an attribute of money?
Money has the attribute of representing wealth. Wealth does not have that attribute, since it already IS wealth.

This is a logical error. All wealth represents the wealth that it is. Money is wealth in liquid form so it represents wealth per the units of measure defined by the currency.

There could be a whole separate discussion held solely on the concept of representation and what it means to represent. In short, I think that such a notion (that all representations represent themselves) renders the whole concept of representation to be completely void/empty, so I do not subscribe to it. Thus, wealth does not represent wealth, but money represents wealth, so this attribute of money is not an attribute of wealth.

IBdaMann wrote:
Free information: From time to time you are inclined to introduce the concept of printing money. A currency simply provides units of measure for wealth. When money is printed, those units of measure decrease and all the money loses some value. Printing money is effectively slicing the wealth pizza into more slices. Wealth is neither increased nor decreased; there are simply more slices.

Printing money is not dividing it; it is adding it. It results in a money supply increase. If this increase occurs without any corresponding increase in wealth, then inflation ensues.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I'm sure you would agree that the SODC "turning on the printing presses" does not increase wealth, which leads us to my own little reminder of the formal logic that you haven't adequately addressed (and remains outstanding), the answer to which is crucial to our conversation:

[1] Money is wealth Since this is YOUR claim, I take it that you are accepting this premise as true
[2] Printing money increases the amount of money

Let me know if I have adequately addressed it above.

It is my view that you have not done so, and seem to be attempting to change addition into division. Maybe you could further correct/clarify?

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
4. What authoritative source on accounting can I reference that permits Net Worth to be anything other than a currency value?

See my answer to #1.

That doesn't work. Just give me an authoritative source and I'll be off to the races.

I feel that I have already adequately addressed this. I realize that you don't agree.
26-05-2021 21:59
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1029)
Who owns that "Hold" account?

I know, I know ... that account is billed as not having any owner, and as not having any sort of private key, thus rendering it totally inaccessible to anyone.

Do you believe all that? If so then you are exactly the gullible target audience this guy seeks.


I believe they most probably have the key for the wallet but it is a trust issue. They have no reason to use it right now. It could even be beneficial to bring back some coins in the future. I have read that once you lose the key for your bitcoin then the coins are lost forever. There is no way to bring them back. With an enourmous burn wallet it would be easy to compensate for such lost coins.

I didn't say he was a dummy. He is probably a very smart con man. I just don't think he is really all that good at math.


Lets just wait for his next upload when he brings in the big guns - differencial equations and things like that. Then we could decide wether he is good in math or not. I hope James would also chime in to have a word in it because I also trust his math abilities.

Who are you going believe?


I am going to believe in both. I think that you are too rational and therefore are missing out an opportunity to jump on the train in early days. The majoroty of people are not as rational as you are. For example my friend invested into some scam that advertised 20% profit per month. There was no project, only supposedly a team of smart investors who could make a lot of profit out of your invested money. Needless to say he got scammed by this pyramid scheme. Safemoon on the other hand has a project - they will going to release a wallet soon. There will be a credit card and supposedly there will be their own exchange or something like that in the future. Things are looking bright for Safemoon.

You posted previously that it's not about profit, it's about "reflections." Ooooh. Aaaaah. So what's that difference?


It is about selling a cow or milking a cow. I just pointed out that there is no need to sell the cow anymore. You can instead milk it.

Are you sure? I'm guessing that you were told that, but that it is not true. That can only happen if there is huge volume.


It already happens on daily basis. The top whale gets hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of safemoon per day. Fortunately he keep selling so that his bag continues to get smaller day after day.

Only if there is volume in activity, which is not likely to happen.

What vendor will be willing to accept a 10% price cut?


Who knows what will happen in the future. They might modify the price cut. I am sure though that the crypto thing will go mainstream in the nearest future. People are addicted to their smartphones and eventually they will be addicted to cryptocurrencies. Who would not be addicted to money?
26-05-2021 22:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


gfm7175 wrote:There could be a whole separate discussion held solely on the concept of representation and what it means to represent.

Yes, we could have that conversation and it would be welcome. I am a huge fan of people defining all their terms.

Whenever we do have that conversation, I'd like to establish context with the following:

1) Do I represent myself? I claim that I do.
2) Does my mug of coffee represent a mug of coffee? I claim that it does.
3) Do three chickens represent three chickens? I'm pretty sure that they do.
3a) Do three chickens represent three chickens if you declare chickens to be the currency? I think they still do.
4) Does an ounce of gold represent $1,900.00 of wealth?
5) Does $1,900.00 represent the ability to acquire an ounce of gold?

You may fire when ready, Gridley.

IBdaMann wrote:Printing money is not dividing it; it is adding it.

It is adding to the number of slices. Yes.

IBdaMann wrote: It results in a money supply increase.

Yes, it results in more money for the same wealth, more slices for the same pizza, with the greater number of slices all being smaller and with all dollars being worth a bit less every time another dollar is printed.

IBdaMann wrote: If this increase occurs without any corresponding increase in wealth, then inflation ensues.

Yes. Inflation means each dollar is worth a bit less.

I think you can put it all together from here. Let me know if you cannot.

IBdaMann wrote:I feel that I have already adequately addressed this. I realize that you don't agree.

It's not really a subjective matter for which I can agree or disagree. You have never answered this question.

Let's go over it again.

I define money as a proper subset of wealth.



If A is a proper subset of B then all attributes of B are attributes of A, and all A elements are B.

You want to say that money is not wealth. Ergo you have only three options:

1. Cough up an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games do not suffice)
2. Admit that you deny math
3. Admit that as far as you can tell, money is wealth.

At this point, your immediate kneejerk reaction is to challenge me on the logic and the math. It will not go well for you. You might want to take a moment and appreciate how I very carefully chose my definition of money.

If your ultimate answer is "OK IBDaMann, your claim of money as wealth makes sense under your definitions but I have different definitions that afford different attributes to wealth than to money and that money is therefore not a proper subset of wealth under my definitions" well then that's perfectly acceptable as well.

If, however, you are going to insist that I am simply incorrect then you've got to pick one of those three above.

Enjoy.

26-05-2021 23:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I'm not claiming to be an authority,

This is good. As such, you really should clarify whether you are willing to learn about the subject or whether you will take offense at people offering to help you. This will prevent misunderstandings.

As always, you should avoid letting others do your thinking for you. Avoiding this will prevent misunderstandings.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Paradox G.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: You also keep making reference to something called "rules of accounting".

Yes. The fact that you felt it necessary to put that in quotes should be your clue that you are not very well in touch with the subject matter.
WRONG. He is pointing out (in his own way) your vacuous argument.
IBdaMann wrote:
Have you heard of CPAs? That initialism stands for Certified Public Accountant. The word Certified in this case refers to certification in the rules of accounting. Those rules of accounting form the body of knowledge (BOK) from which material is drawn for the rather grueling and exhaustive CPA exam which must be passed in order to become a CPA.

The CPA exam is about the rules and regulations in a State for that CPA exam, not about the 'rules of accounting'. The exam does cover, however, accounting procedures in use by various people.
IBdaMann wrote:
To deny the rules of accounting is to deny the existence of CPAs, CPA exams, CPA governing bodies and CPA licensing procedures.

Nope. That's what the exam covers. It does not define 'accounting' either. It is a government test.
IBdaMann wrote:
To point you in the right direction, START HERE for the requirements in your area. I encourage you to contact your CPA licensing board for the authoritative BOK you must master to become a CPA. This would be your rules of accounting (not in quotation marks).

Nope. It's about the regulations around accounting responsibilities and the rules of reporting...in other words, the laws in that particular State. That's why CPA's cannot practice outside of their State.
gfm7175 wrote:While certain accounting methods have largely replaced other accounting methods

Accounting is not a history course.

He never said it was. Hallucination.
IBdaMann wrote:
What might have been in the past is irrelevant. The rules of accounting exist in the present. CPA's must adhere to today's standards.

The laws in each State differ. There is no overall 'standard'.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night will sloganeer that accounting is not a standard. He is mistaken. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I encourage you to research the accounting BOK for Wisconsin and appreciate it for the standard that it is.

Nope. There is no overall 'standard'.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: 'single entry bookkeeping' is still a valid way to perform accounting,

Sure, but for cash, i.e. money ... because money is always a currency value and nothing but a currency value ... so merely performing "inventory" on it (tallying the count) is balancing it. Single-entry accounting is sometimes referred to as "cash accounting" although technically that's a misnomer.
Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:although at this point in time it would be considered to be a more primitive method of accounting.

It's not primitive. It's totally mainstream and totally accepted. When the day comes that you have a small business and you need to track your cash and your cash transactions, single-entry accounting might very well be your best friend.

Yet another paradox. I will call this one paradox H.
You can't demand double entry bookkeeping and allow single entry bookkeeping at the same time. You are being irrational.
gfm7175 wrote:Accounting, at its very core, is an information logging system (generally involving the recording and tracking of wealth transactions).

Accounting, at its core, is a complete "financial picture" system intended to aid in decision-making.

MRP does not even have finances in it, yet it is part of accounting.
AMIT does not have finances in it, yet it is part of accounting.
IBdaMann wrote:
Any description you might encounter that deviates from the description I just gave you will be wrong to that extent.

You have not given a description. You simply mention CPA's and the magick they have.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Wealth can be bartered, and such barter transactions can be logged (thus accounted for) without the use of any currency.

For the umpteenth time (I know you like that word) I totally agree with this statement.

Paradox C.
IBdaMann wrote:
You are, of course, conflating the semantics of "account for" with "accomplish accounting."

Semantics fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
In order to adhere to the rules of accounting, you absolutely need a currency under which to balance, at a minimum, the currency values of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. You can't get around this requirement.

Paradox A. You have already been shown otherwise.
IBdaMann wrote:
Yes, parties can barter; it happens all around the world every day.

That it does.
IBdaMann wrote:
All accounting of barter transactions requires a currency to perform the valuation needed to enter the appropriate currency values as needed to adhere to the rules of accounting.

Yes, parties can barter and only perform inventory tracking.

Paradox C.
IBdaMann wrote:
Parties are empowered to forego accounting.

The example was an example of accounting.
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody can force anyone to perform accounting.

The example was an example of accounting.
IBdaMann wrote:
When accounting is not performed, there is no currency requirement.

Accounting was performed. No currency required. Paradox C.
IBdaMann wrote:
Yes, chickens can theoretically be used as currency.

Chickens are not being used as a currency in the example. Contextomy fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
In that case, your examples of converting everything to chickens will work.

He is not converting anything to chickens in the example. Contextomy fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
The following is a good example:
gfm7175 wrote:[INSERT DATE HERE] In exchange for three chickens, which were delivered today, Woodworker Bob promised to build and deliver a storage container.

Woodworker Bob charges CH3.00 (three chickens) to build storage containers, and he collects in advance. Single-entry accounting would work since Farmer Jim paid in cash, i.e. chickens.

Paradox C. Paradox H.
gfm7175 wrote:Ahhhh... Got it. I will now accept this as your position moving forward.

So ... can we get that admission ... so we can have a good laugh over it and just forget about it? [/quote]
Answer his question. You are working hard to evade. Define 'wealth'.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I assume that you will now share your definition of 'wealth' so that I can verify for myself whether or not money is a proper subset of it?

This is a logical error on your part. I have defined money as a proper subset of wealth. This is all you need to know. You can conclude that I define wealth as a superset of money. This provides you all the information you need to conclude that, per my definition, all attributes of wealth are attributes of money.

Vacuous argument fallacy. Paradox G.
IBdaMann wrote:
For you to have a definition in which money is not wealth, per your definition money cannot be a proper subset of wealth because there must be some characteristic of wealth that does not apply to money.

RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
You have not been able to present any characteristic of wealth that is not a characteristic of money.

Lie. RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
You attempted to claim that wealth somehow doesn't represent itself ... or some other such unintelligible nonsense ... but discarding this ... crap ... you haven't identified any valid examples. As such, you have not differentiated money from wealth in any way. Money is wealth according to everything you have specified.

Yes he has. RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
As it stands, your claims that money is not wealth is falsified by the assertion that money is a proper subset of wealth, and you cannot falsify that assertion. You can deny it but you have not been able to falsify it.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:How can he say "Fine, you are welcome to your own personal definition but I'll stick with mine" when you, by your own admission, haven't even produced a definition for him to consider as of yet?

Well, he can't ... since he sucks at math and formal logic.

Insult fallacies. Denial of math. Denial of logic. I can't believe I'm hearing this from you IBD. You just denied MATH.
IBdaMann wrote:
He had all the information he needed, he just didn't understand it, owing to his shortcomings.

Lie. Define 'wealth'. Stop evading. Insult fallacies.
IBdaMann wrote:
However, he can't be both a total bonehead on the matter and then pretend to be the authority on the matter.

Insult fallacies.
IBdaMann wrote:
He simply knee-jerked "You are wrong" because I poster the words "money is wealth" and that is blasphemy in his faith.

Not a faith. Vacuous argument fallacy. Paradox A.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Are you saying that he rushed to scream "WRONG" before you even provided him with a definition to consider?

Yes, he just screams "WRONG" on impulse.

Lie. Bulverism fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't mind trying to help him out and to correct him when he's wrong, and I wouldn't mind if he were to just be honest and say "Look, that's not what I believe." That would be fine. No harm, no foul.

Not a religion. Pivot fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
But for him to lie and declare me to be wrong ...

I am not lying. You are wrong. You are locked in numerous paradoxes. You refuse to clear them.
IBdaMann wrote:
and then to EVADE honest discussion of the matter because he knows he wrong ...

It is YOU that is evading. Define 'wealth'.
IBdaMann wrote:
at a certain point he deserves all the mockery and derision he gets.

Insult fallacies.
IBdaMann wrote:
Lying is not a good thing.

Then stop doing it.
IBdaMann wrote:
Again, if you decide to embrace his lies and to regurgitate them,

Inversion fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
then you are begging for all the same mockery and derision.

Insult fallacies.
IBdaMann wrote:
The best policy is to never let others do your thinking for you, especially in the case of lying morons.

Paradox D.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:If so, then it doesn't make sense for you to claim that the onus is on ITN to provide you with an attribute of wealth that isn't an attribute of money because, as you are saying here, you haven't even defined what wealth is.

Thank you. That is exactly the question he is EVADING.

Lie. I have answered this question. I have defined 'wealth' in a consistent way. RQAA. YOU are evading. Define 'wealth' in a consistent way. Paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
I know, why don't you ask Into the Night for such an example characteristic. It would mean so much coming from you.

He asked YOU to define 'wealth'. Define 'wealth'. Stop evading.
IBdaMann wrote:
[hint: I already know how you are going to respond to this. It's mildly disappointing]

Paradox D.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Given that, what ITN has done is provide you with what his definition of wealth is and answered your question according to his provided definition of both wealth and money.

Incorrect. He has dishonestly EVADED the aforementioned question

Lie. RQAA. Inversion fallacy. Paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
because he is dead wrong and he knows it, but he can't be honest and admit his error

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Assumption of victory fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
because that would imply that his WACKY extremist dogma is in error.

Insult fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:You must have glossed over one of my very first posts then (after I joined into this discussion) which specifically asked you for it. Since you didn't provide it, I could only at that point draw from your responses making use of the word as to how you were defining it. Feel free to define it.

Don't revert to the dishonesty, please.

Insult fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. Paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
You posted that I changed my definition of wealth "umpteen" times.

Because you have. Paradoxes A,E.
IBdaMann wrote:
You did so because you were mindlessly parroting Into the Night and not because you somehow noted any changes in my definition of wealth.

You claim you never defined wealth. Paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
You embraced his dishonesty and you made it your own.

Inversion fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
This is the point where you admit "OK, yeah, I got caught up in the heat of the moment and I shouldn't have written that..., " ...we have a laugh about it and we forget about it. If you pretend to deny it, it's just going to fester and combine with other things and it will never go away.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. Passive assumption.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: This answer would not be rational at all, actually. It would be making an appeal to ignorance.

Did Into the Night tell you to write that?
IBdaMann wrote:
It's totally stupid. It's on the level that he would write.

Bulverism fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
Did you miss the part about it being math, specifically set theory?

Set theory is not part of math. It is part of logic. Denial of math. Denial of logic.
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you deny math?

You just did.
IBdaMann wrote:
Please let me know if you do. If you need help understanding it, let me know. I'm happy to help out ... as long as you don't attack me for doing so.

Condescending BS.
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]gfm7175 wrote:Accounting already makes perfect sense to me.

Nope. You don't understand it at all.

He already demonstrated that he does...a lot more than you, apparently.
IBdaMann wrote:
You think that accounting is inventory tracking.

He has demonstrated otherwise. Fixation. Paradox B.
IBdaMann wrote:
You think balancing ledger entries is optional.

Ledgers are not balance sheets. Paradox B.
IBdaMann wrote:
You think that currency is not needed for the currency values of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.

He has already demonstrated so. Argument of the stone fallacy. Paradox B.
IBdaMann wrote:
You think T-accounts is a teaching method.

He never made any such statement. Hallucinations. Paradox H.
IBdaMann wrote:
You think that the rules of accounting are akin to an urban legend.

Buzzword fallacies. False authority fallacies. Paradox H.
IBdaMann wrote:
You make errors in almost every post that would otherwise be immediately flagged by first-year accounting students.

You don't get to speak for 1st year accounting students. You only get to speak for you.
Omniscience fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
Your statement is moderately delusional.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
You have already (correctly) acknowledged that you are not an authority in accounting. Don't now pretend that accounting somehow makes sense to you as though you were an expert in accounting.

He never claimed to be an expert in accounting. He certainly knows more about it then you do, though.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: I have already explained the differences between ledger entries, balance sheets, and inventory tracking,

Nope.
IBdaMann wrote:
I already know the differences between them.

Void argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Paradox H.
IBdaMann wrote:
You were conflating them and advertising your conflation to all who would read your posts.

Inversion fallacy. It is what YOU were doing. They are all in the past posts. Anyone that wants to can read it.
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]gfm7175 wrote: ... and how each of them can be done without any use of any currency.

You did not succeed ...

He did. Lie.
IBdaMann wrote:
but that is irrelevant.

It is relevant. Fallacy fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
What is needed is an authoritative source

False authority fallacy. RQAA. Paradox G.
IBdaMann wrote:
on the rules of accounting that says what you are saying.

Buzzword fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Paradox H.
IBdaMann wrote:
I'd really like to see it.

RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
Until then, you have simply elucidated your misunderstandings that accounting is inventory tracking.

He has already shown otherwise.
Paradox B.


I don't know why, IBD, but you have become like tmiddles on this issue. You have become that which you despise.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2021 23:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: You also keep making reference to something called "rules of accounting".

Yes. The fact that you felt it necessary to put that in quotes should be your clue that you are not very well in touch with the subject matter.

I put it in quotes because it is a term that you are making very regular use of, but I don't understand how you are using it, thus my request for you to define it.

IBdaMann wrote:
Have you heard of CPAs?

Yes, I have.

IBdaMann wrote:
That initialism stands for Certified Public Accountant.

I am fully aware of what it stands for.

IBdaMann wrote:
The word Certified in this case refers to certification in the rules of accounting. Those rules of accounting form the body of knowledge (BOK) from which material is drawn for the rather grueling and exhaustive CPA exam which must be passed in order to become a CPA.

To deny the rules of accounting is to deny the existence of CPAs, CPA exams, CPA governing bodies and CPA licensing procedures.

To point you in the right direction, START HERE for the requirements in your area. I encourage you to contact your CPA licensing board for the authoritative BOK you must master to become a CPA. This would be your rules of accounting (not in quotation marks).

Are you defining 'rules of accounting' as passing a CPA exam? Can you list a couple of these 'rules of accounting'?

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:While certain accounting methods have largely replaced other accounting methods

Accounting is not a history course.

Indeed it isn't, but certain accounting procedures have changed over time.

IBdaMann wrote:
What might have been in the past is irrelevant. The rules of accounting exist in the present. CPA's must adhere to today's standards. Into the Night will sloganeer that accounting is not a standard. He is mistaken. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I encourage you to research the accounting BOK for Wisconsin and appreciate it for the standard that it is.

Can accounting be performed outside of today's standards? It seems like you are defining accounting by whatever the standards of the day were/are/will be. I think this is in error.

I think that accounting should instead be defined by what has remained consistent throughout its existence, which is that it has always been a system of information logging (generally involving the recording/tracking of wealth transactions). I would not take the position that the subsequent addition of various standards/rules dictating how the information logging process must be performed suddenly changes the definition/purpose of accounting.

This will be my stopping point for now, but I will skip ahead to one more point:

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: This answer would not be rational at all, actually. It would be making an appeal to ignorance.

Did Into the Night tell you to write that? It's totally stupid. It's on the level that he would write.

Did you miss the part about it being math, specifically set theory? Do you deny math? Please let me know if you do. If you need help understanding it, let me know. I'm happy to help out ... as long as you don't attack me for doing so.

I didn't comprehend your post properly, leading to my mistake.

When I come back to the discussion, I'll see if I'm understanding where your line of reasoning is going with this... It seems like you are defining wealth as "a superset of money" and defining money as "a subset of wealth". However, is that actually defining what 'wealth' and 'money' are? Wouldn't that rather be noticing the equivalencies between the attributes of 'wealth' and of 'money', as those words have been defined?
Edited on 27-05-2021 00:58
27-05-2021 01:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


gfm7175 wrote:
IBDaMann Wrote: To point you in the right direction, START HERE for the requirements in your area. I encourage you to contact your CPA licensing board for the authoritative BOK you must master to become a CPA.
Can you list a couple of these 'rules of accounting'?

You're killing me. I just pointed you to an authoritative source where you can get all of your questions answered.

Sure, I could list some rules for you, but I could be making it all up ... and I would be asking you to believe me. I don't do that. I never ask people to believe me. I always give the correct answer up front and then tell people how they can verify it for themselves. I'm not selling anything.

Let's try this one more time. To point you in the right direction, START HERE for the requirements in your area. I encourage you to contact your CPA licensing board for the authoritative BOK you must master to become a CPA.

gfm7175 wrote: Are you defining 'rules of accounting' as passing a CPA exam?

No. I am defining the rules of accounting as the BOK from which the material for the CPA exam is drawn.

gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:While certain accounting methods have largely replaced other accounting methods
Accounting is not a history course.

Indeed it isn't, but certain accounting procedures have changed over time.

My definition of the rules of accounting is the current BOK. What might have been in the past is irrelevant. The rules of accounting exist in the present. CPA's must adhere to today's standards.

gfm7175 wrote:Can accounting be performed outside of today's standards?

Not under my definition. Your definition might vary. You might define accounting as inventory tracking, ... who knows?

gfm7175 wrote: It seems like you are defining accounting by whatever the standards of the day were/are/will be.

There is a very good reason that it seems this way.

Yes. This is the case.

gfm7175 wrote:I think this is in error.

Noted. Is this because there is some rule of accounting that doesn't sit well with you? ... the requirement to balance ledger entries, perhaps?

gfm7175 wrote:I think that accounting should instead be defined by what has remained consistent throughout its existence,

Why do you suppose CPA governing bodies don't see it that way?

gfm7175 wrote: ... which is that it has always been a system of information logging (generally involving the recording/tracking of wealth transactions).

Actually, it has always been "the financial picture" to aid in making decisions ... not merely any one part of it.

The logging is accomplished in the journal. That is just one small part.

gfm7175 wrote: You're still asking a question that involves, according to you, an undefined term ('wealth') though.

Are you claiming that I am the authority who gets to define wealth?

Let's just go with "no" for that one. My definition of wealth is not needed. The relationship I have defined is sufficient. Money ⊂ Wealth (Money is a proper subset of Wealth) and all the corresponding mathematical implications. Note: Into the Night somehow never learned that Set Theory is math. Maybe you can bring him up to speed the next time you chat with him.

27-05-2021 03:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBDaMann Wrote: To point you in the right direction, START HERE for the requirements in your area. I encourage you to contact your CPA licensing board for the authoritative BOK you must master to become a CPA.
Can you list a couple of these 'rules of accounting'?

You're killing me. I just pointed you to an authoritative source where you can get all of your questions answered.

No. You pointed to another Holy Link. It contains no 'rules of accounting' whatsoever.

IBdaMann wrote:
Sure, I could list some rules for you, but I could be making it all up ... and I would be asking you to believe me. I don't do that. I never ask people to believe me. I always give the correct answer up front and then tell people how they can verify it for themselves. I'm not selling anything.

Paradox G.
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's try this one more time. To point you in the right direction, START HERE for the requirements in your area. I encourage you to contact your CPA licensing board for the authoritative BOK you must master to become a CPA.

The Holy Link you gave does not mention anything like 'BOK'. Strawman fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Are you defining 'rules of accounting' as passing a CPA exam?

No. I am defining the rules of accounting as the BOK from which the material for the CPA exam is drawn.

So you are defining the 'rules of accounting' as passing a CPA exam. I will call this paradox I.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:While certain accounting methods have largely replaced other accounting methods
Accounting is not a history course.

Indeed it isn't, but certain accounting procedures have changed over time.

My definition of the rules of accounting is the current BOK. What might have been in the past is irrelevant. The rules of accounting exist in the present. CPA's must adhere to today's standards.

Buzzword fallacies. Paradox I. I will call this new paradox J. You cannot deny accounting under older rules and accept them at the same time.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Can accounting be performed outside of today's standards?

Not under my definition. Your definition might vary. You might define accounting as inventory tracking, ... who knows?

Paradox C.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: It seems like you are defining accounting by whatever the standards of the day were/are/will be.

There is a very good reason that it seems this way.

Yes. This is the case.
Paradox J.
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]gfm7175 wrote:I think this is in error.

Noted. Is this because there is some rule of accounting that doesn't sit well with you? ... the requirement to balance ledger entries, perhaps?

Ledgers are not balance sheets. Paradox B.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I think that accounting should instead be defined by what has remained consistent throughout its existence,

Why do you suppose CPA governing bodies don't see it that way?

They do, to a certain extent. Paradox J.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: ... which is that it has always been a system of information logging (generally involving the recording/tracking of wealth transactions).

Actually, it has always been "the financial picture" to aid in making decisions ... not merely any one part of it.

The logging is accomplished in the journal. That is just one small part.
Paradox B.
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]gfm7175 wrote: You're still asking a question that involves, according to you, an undefined term ('wealth') though.

Are you claiming that I am the authority who gets to define wealth?

Since you continue to evade defining 'wealth' in a consistent way, I must assume that you have no intention of doing so. I will assume it is a meaningless buzzword until you stop evading and define 'wealth' as you are using it.
Paradox E.
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's just go with "no" for that one. My definition of wealth is not needed.

Yes it is. Paradox G. You must define the words you are using. Buzzword fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
The relationship I have defined is sufficient.

No, it isn't. Paradox E. You cannot define a buzzword using another buzzword or a circular argument fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
Money ⊂ Wealth (Money is a proper subset of Wealth)

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'wealth'. For that matter, define 'money'.
IBdaMann wrote:
and all the corresponding mathematical implications.

Pivot fallacy. Math has nothing to do with defining the words you use.
IBdaMann wrote:
Note: Into the Night somehow never learned that Set Theory is math.

WRONG. Set theory is part of logic, not math. Denial of math. Denial of logic.
IBdaMann wrote:
Maybe you can bring him up to speed the next time you chat with him.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Condescending (passive) arrogance.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2021 18:59
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
RE: 'wealth' and 'money' discussion:

This is precisely where I am at with regard to it (ignoring all claims of paradoxes, misunderstandings, insults, aka all of the excitement from past postings)... Let me know if and where you disagree with my understanding.

IBD has made the claim "money is wealth".

IBD makes this claim based on a couple of definitions, as follows:
[1] 'Wealth' is defined as "a proper superset of money".
[2] 'Money' is defined as "a proper subset of wealth".

Therefore, in order to refute IBD's claim that "money is wealth", one must make note of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money.


Am I correct in my understanding so far?


If so, then I ultimately take issue with it as I feel that some vital information is missing. What I am looking for in order to proceed with IBD's reasoning is the following:

Wealth is defined as ______________.
Money is defined as ______________.

Therefore, under the above definitions, the claim "money is a subset of wealth" is true because ALL attributes of wealth pertain to money.

Given the above, the claim "money is wealth" is true.



My understanding atm is that IBD is filling in my blanks with the words "wealth is defined as a superset of money" and "money is defined as a subset of wealth".

If this is the case, then it is my conclusion that IBD is basing his "money is wealth" claim on a circular argument (namely, that 'money is a subset of wealth' because 'money is a subset of wealth').


I additionally feel that this particular line of reasoning allows for ridiculous conclusions, such as:

Computers are animals. How do I know this? I know this because computers are defined as "a subset of animals", and animals are defined as "a superset of computers".

Any thing can be a subset of any thing if it so happens to be defined as "a subset of _______".


Therefore, IBD's reasoning still leaves me at this point:

Wealth is defined as ______________.
Money is defined as ______________.



Edited on 28-05-2021 19:17
28-05-2021 19:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


gfm7175 wrote:If so, then I ultimately take issue with it as I feel that some vital information is missing.

You may "feel" as though there is information missing but objectively you have all the information you need, unless you deny mathematics.

The mathematical relationship of "proper subset" is all the information you need and renders my definition completely falsifiable. This puts the onus on you to falsify it.

How can you falsify it? By showing that money is not a proper subset of wealth. How do you show that money is not a proper subset of wealth? By providing one lone single solitary attribute of wealth that does not apply to money, per the mathematical definition of "proper subset."

gfm7175 wrote:I additionally feel that this particular line of reasoning allows for ridiculous conclusions, such as:

Computers are animals. How do I know this? I know this because computers are defined as "a subset of animals", and animals are defined as "a superset of computers".

This is a logical error on your part. One does not subjectively declare a proper subset. A set either meets the mathematical definition of a proper subset or it does not.

I'm betting that you haven't bothered to look any of this up.

Let's take a look at your example claim that Computers ⊂ Animals. To falsify this, all I need is one attribute of Animals that is not an attribute of Computers.

Let's see. "Procreation." Procreation is not an attribute of computers but it is an attribute of animals. Ergo, Computers ⊄ Animals

The math makes it falsifiable. The math provides you with all the information you need, regardless of how you "feel" on the matter.


... so this brings us back to your three choices:

1) Admit that money is wealth, or
2) Admit that you deny math, or
3) Provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games immediately rejected).


Enjoy!

28-05-2021 23:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:If so, then I ultimately take issue with it as I feel that some vital information is missing.

You may "feel" as though there is information missing but objectively you have all the information you need, unless you deny mathematics.

Mathematics is not being discussed here. You need to define 'wealth' and you need to define 'money'.
IBdaMann wrote:
The mathematical relationship of "proper subset" is all the information you need and renders my definition completely falsifiable. This puts the onus on you to falsify it.

It is not possible to falsify a circular argument, nor to prove it True. Circular definitions are a circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism) and only cause vacuous statements (also a fallacy).
IBdaMann wrote:
How can you falsify it? By showing that money is not a proper subset of wealth. How do you show that money is not a proper subset of wealth? By providing one lone single solitary attribute of wealth that does not apply to money, per the mathematical definition of "proper subset."

Set theory is not part of mathematics. It is part of logic. Denial of math. Denial of logic. You can't turn to math to define 'wealth' or 'money'. You have to define, them, dude. Stop evading.
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I additionally feel that this particular line of reasoning allows for ridiculous conclusions, such as:

Computers are animals. How do I know this? I know this because computers are defined as "a subset of animals", and animals are defined as "a superset of computers".

This is a logical error on your part. One does not subjectively declare a proper subset. A set either meets the mathematical definition of a proper subset or it does not.

Logic error (circular argument fallacy). You cannot define an undefined set with another undefined set.
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm betting that you haven't bothered to look any of this up.

Void authority fallacy. He is asking YOU, specifically, to define what you mean by the words 'wealth' and 'money'. Answer the questions put to you. Stop evading.
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's take a look at your example claim that Computers ⊂ Animals. To falsify this, all I need is one attribute of Animals that is not an attribute of Computers.

Circular argument fallacy. You cannot falsify an undefined set using another undefined set. Four term fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see. "Procreation." Procreation is not an attribute of computers but it is an attribute of animals. Ergo, Computers ⊄ Animals

Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
The math makes it falsifiable. The math provides you with all the information you need, regardless of how you "feel" on the matter.

Math is not used here. Answer the questions put to you. Stop evading.
IBdaMann wrote:
... so this brings us back to your three choices:

1) Admit that money is wealth, or
2) Admit that you deny math, or
3) Provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games immediately rejected).

Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Attempted force of negative circular.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2021 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
gfm7175 wrote:
RE: 'wealth' and 'money' discussion:

This is precisely where I am at with regard to it (ignoring all claims of paradoxes, misunderstandings, insults, aka all of the excitement from past postings)... Let me know if and where you disagree with my understanding.

IBD has made the claim "money is wealth".

IBD makes this claim based on a couple of definitions, as follows:
[1] 'Wealth' is defined as "a proper superset of money".
[2] 'Money' is defined as "a proper subset of wealth".

Therefore, in order to refute IBD's claim that "money is wealth", one must make note of an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money.


Am I correct in my understanding so far?


If so, then I ultimately take issue with it as I feel that some vital information is missing. What I am looking for in order to proceed with IBD's reasoning is the following:

Wealth is defined as ______________.
Money is defined as ______________.

Therefore, under the above definitions, the claim "money is a subset of wealth" is true because ALL attributes of wealth pertain to money.

Given the above, the claim "money is wealth" is true.



My understanding atm is that IBD is filling in my blanks with the words "wealth is defined as a superset of money" and "money is defined as a subset of wealth".

If this is the case, then it is my conclusion that IBD is basing his "money is wealth" claim on a circular argument (namely, that 'money is a subset of wealth' because 'money is a subset of wealth').


I additionally feel that this particular line of reasoning allows for ridiculous conclusions, such as:

Computers are animals. How do I know this? I know this because computers are defined as "a subset of animals", and animals are defined as "a superset of computers".

Any thing can be a subset of any thing if it so happens to be defined as "a subset of _______".


Therefore, IBD's reasoning still leaves me at this point:

Wealth is defined as ______________.
Money is defined as ______________.

A perfectly reasonable request.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-05-2021 01:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)


Into the Night wrote:Mathematics is not being discussed here.

Math is what I'm discussing. Perhaps you are reading a different thread, or perhaps you are simply not reading this one very well.

Into the Night wrote: You need to define 'wealth' and you need to define 'money'.

Hold on. Let me check.


... nope. I do not have any such need.

I have defined money, however and currency. You quoted my definitions in at least one of your responses. Rather than give you an "RQAA" I'll go ahead and redefine it for you. Please take note.

Money: A quantity of a currency.
Currency: Units of measure of wealth

However it seems that you are actively denying Set Theory. You are going with Option B, i.e. admitting to denying math.

Great.

Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to falsify a circular argument, nor to prove it True.

There is no circular argument. I take it that it's too much to ask for you to look up some of these fundamental concepts before rashly forming absurd postions.

Into the Night wrote:How can you falsify it?

Didn't you bother to read my post? I walked gfm7175 through, step by step, how to falsify my argument.

Please take note. I will walk you through it as well but I won't repeat it after this.

I am asserting that money is a proper subset of wealth, ergo money is wealth by the property of inheritance.

All you have to do is show that money is not a subset of wealth and voila! ... money is not wealth.

All you have to do to show that money is not a subset of wealth is identify one, lone, single, solitary attribute of wealth that isn't an attribute of money. This will show that there is no inheritance and thus money is not wealth. Note: word games and semantic dishonesty will be immediately dismissed.


... so this brings us to your three choices:

1) Admit that money is wealth, or
2) Admit that you deny math, or
3) Provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games immediately rejected).

The mathematical relationships of set theory are all you need to know.

Page 6 of 10<<<45678>>>





Join the debate Crypto investments:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Crypto-Climate Watch List54009-09-2023 02:41
Tom Brady lost $30 million after FTX crypto collapse. Too bad307-09-2023 15:54
$740M in crypto assets recovered in FTX bankruptcy so far024-11-2022 11:07
Crypto exchanges disintegrating as you read this, FTX is gone bitcoin is down 65% this year417-11-2022 16:19
Everybody Can Obtain The New Trillion Dollar Crypto Coin whitepapers To Become Millionaire Easily406-11-2021 03:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact