Remember me
▼ Content

The World Need A New International Income Wage Index Based On Price Of Silver, Gold



Page 2 of 3<123>
01-10-2020 19:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Ibdm,

The failure of most of those banks coincides with the brief period of deflation in fall 2008 thru winter 2009.

Because the banks making stupid loans caused the failures, which caused the deflation
Spongy Iris wrote:
Without inflation, banking is not a viable business.

Irrelevant. Makes no difference.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inequality causes inflation.

WRONG. Printing money faster then the wealth being created causes inflation
Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation will eventually cause most people to default on their debt.

WRONG. Inflation make is easier to pay a debt. You are paying it with empty dollars.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When inflation reaches a maximum peak, then there becomes deflation.

WRONG. One does not cause the other.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks issue loans to businesses and individuals.

That's why they call it a fractional reserve system.


Inequality is the root cause of inflation. Denying this is wrong.

Nope. Printing money faster than the rate that wealth is being created causes inflation. Nothing else.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Most people cannot continually to take on more debt, to pay off their existing debts.

True of the government also.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They will max out.

Also true of the government. A bad way to run things.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The US Treasury does that.

No. The U.S. government, many States, and many private individuals do that.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But eventually they will repudiate their debt or default too

Duplication. Repudiating their debt IS defaulting on it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Let me spell out for you.
...deleted contrivance...
After so many years of this, when the loans cannot be repaid, more loans can be made to cover the shortfall, or loans can default, or the debt can be repudiated.

No. Loans cannot cover a default. You can't get loans when you are bankrupt.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For deflation to occur, loans can default, or debt can be repudiated.

Same thing. Duplication.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This is a simplified abstract explanation to show what happens in reality.

No, it's a contrivance that does not show anything.


Printing money faster than wealth is created is the result of inequality.

WRONG. It is the result of the federal government spending too much money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You are skipping over the root cause.

The root cause is the federal government spending too much money, then printing more money to cover their expenses.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You may as well just say inflation causes inflation.

Inflation does not cause inflation.
Spongy Iris wrote:
That is how useless your comment is.

Argument of the stone fallacy.


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
01-10-2020 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:

In what F'd up world do you live in where all goods and services are equal?


The discussion has been about wage inequality and how that is the root cause of inflation.

That is not the root cause of inflation. The federal government printing money faster than the wealth being created is the cause of inflation.


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
01-10-2020 19:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
In your example, goods were being sold for income. That is called wages, where I live.
Another way to get wages is by work. That is called a service, where I live.

Again, what F'd up world do you live in where all goods and services are equal?


No such world.

I believe whole barter would be a better world, but I don't believe that is going to happen anytime soon. Let's see...


We still use barter. Money is just a medium to facilitate barter.


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
01-10-2020 19:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
keepit wrote:
It seems to me barter would be ineffcient.


We still use barter. That's what a market is. Money is just a medium for facilitating barter.
Without money, barter is inefficient. That's why people will use money to facilitate it. If the dollar becomes too useless, people will choose something else for money. The government can't stop that.


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
01-10-2020 19:26
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:

The federal government printing money faster than the wealth being created is the cause of inflation.


The federal government needs to print money faster than wealth is being created, otherwise too many people wouldn't be able to cover their expenses needed to live.
01-10-2020 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

We don't. Price is determined by market forces.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Part of the factors determining the price. Part of the market forces.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Why do we need money to figure this out?

Money is two things, none of them is wealth.

1) A representation of wealth. This simply means that you can buy and sell something with it. It has value. This is not wealth itself. The things you buy and sell with it are wealth. It is the goods and services people provide. People create wealth. Money is a medium to represent that wealth for exchange (barter) of the wealth so created.

2) A unit of account. This simply means you can establish a price for something. Prices are determined by market forces. It's easier than using chickens, pigs, cars, or other product as a unit of account (as with what happens in barter without money). Whether the price is two chickens or $6.98, the same thing happens. That price is determined by market forces, but it's easier to express it as $6.98 instead of in the number of chickens. It's harder to make change for chickens, and chickens don't fit in your wallet.


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
01-10-2020 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Why do we need money to figure this out?

Perhaps you can help me understand...


I can't believe I'm even wasting time entertaining this shit show...

Scenario 1. The grocery store wants to buy computers. How many tomatoes does Hewlett Packard need to accept as payment in full for 3 laptops?

Scenario 2. The florist needs to buy ammunition for a fun company outing at the rifle range. How many rose bushes are fair trade for 8,000 rounds of .223?

Scenario 3. The school needs to pay for their dumpster service. How many students should they leave in the dumpster as fair trade for services?

Dude, what the phuk am I missing??!!


It seems to me you're missing the whole point.

If people are giving their skills to the production or maintenance of an economy, why don't they have the freedom to take what they need in return, for themselves and their families, without the medium of money?


They do have that freedom. Money just makes things easier. You can represent what you buy and sell in a more flexible unit of account, and money can be traded for something else besides the immediate barter opportunities available.

Nothing has outlawed barter without money. If you want to conduct business that way, feel free.


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
01-10-2020 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The federal government printing money faster than the wealth being created is the cause of inflation.


The federal government needs to print money faster than wealth is being created, otherwise too many people wouldn't be able to cover their expenses needed to live.


The federal government is not the people. It is an organization that has the power to print money. People create wealth to cover their expenses needed to live. If they don't create enough wealth, that's their own problem. They need to get out and work.

Socialism (which is what you are describing as a solution) does not create wealth. Printing money does not create wealth. Socialism is theft of wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth.

If you do not want to accept U.S. currency, that's your decision. No government can force it upon you. If you want to limit yourself to direct barter, feel free.

It is not the government's job to rob someone else to pay for your living expenses.


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
01-10-2020 19:36
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1828)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Why do we need money to figure this out?

Perhaps you can help me understand...


I can't believe I'm even wasting time entertaining this shit show...

Scenario 1. The grocery store wants to buy computers. How many tomatoes does Hewlett Packard need to accept as payment in full for 3 laptops?

Scenario 2. The florist needs to buy ammunition for a fun company outing at the rifle range. How many rose bushes are fair trade for 8,000 rounds of .223?

Scenario 3. The school needs to pay for their dumpster service. How many students should they leave in the dumpster as fair trade for services?

Dude, what the phuk am I missing??!!


It seems to me you're missing the whole point.

If people are giving their skills to the production or maintenance of an economy, why don't they have the freedom to take what they need in return, for themselves and their families, without the medium of money?


Nothing has outlawed barter without money. If you want to conduct business that way, feel free.


Mmmm.....interesting. How do you suppose the DMV will calculate the taxes on a vehicle if the purchase amount is 1/2 a cow and 28 chickens.


Think I'll do that next time just to screw with them.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
01-10-2020 20:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Why do we need money to figure this out?

Perhaps you can help me understand...


I can't believe I'm even wasting time entertaining this shit show...

Scenario 1. The grocery store wants to buy computers. How many tomatoes does Hewlett Packard need to accept as payment in full for 3 laptops?

Scenario 2. The florist needs to buy ammunition for a fun company outing at the rifle range. How many rose bushes are fair trade for 8,000 rounds of .223?

Scenario 3. The school needs to pay for their dumpster service. How many students should they leave in the dumpster as fair trade for services?

Dude, what the phuk am I missing??!!


It seems to me you're missing the whole point.

If people are giving their skills to the production or maintenance of an economy, why don't they have the freedom to take what they need in return, for themselves and their families, without the medium of money?


Nothing has outlawed barter without money. If you want to conduct business that way, feel free.


Mmmm.....interesting. How do you suppose the DMV will calculate the taxes on a vehicle if the purchase amount is 1/2 a cow and 28 chickens.


Think I'll do that next time just to screw with them.

The DMV is part of government. They only accept U.S. dollars. They do not create wealth either. They only take it. Fees and taxes do not create wealth. Requiring a piece of paper called a license and then charging you for it creates no wealth.

The truck you drive is wealth. It was created by the manufacture of that truck. The markup price you pay at a dealership is wealth. It pays for the dealer to make that truck available locally for someone to buy. It's a service. Like any business it charges a value for that service.

Requiring a piece of paper and charging you for it is not a service. It's a tax.


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
01-10-2020 23:03
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Ever notice it's usually the elderly that push the hardest for socialism? They sell it to the younger generations, who haven't worked, paid bills, or experienced living responsibility. Usually adult children, living off their parents. Basically, old people love socialism, because they still want stuff, but no longer are willing, or able to work for it. Kids like it, because work sucks, and they hate their parents for constantly threatening to cut them off, and kick them out, if they don't do a few chores, or go out and get jobs.

Socialism, is really just living off the government tit. They don't really care how, or who feeds the government. Socialism is not self-sustaining, somebody has to work, and contribute. Why work, and give half your paycheck to the government, to hand out, like candy on Halloween, to a bunch of useless babies?
02-10-2020 00:39
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Harvey and Gas,

Money does not accurately measure how much work each person contributes to the production or maintenance of an economy.

That seems about as difficult or impossible to accurately measure as assessing the temperature of the entire globe.
02-10-2020 02:16
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
ITN: Price is determined by market forces.

SI: A major example, the price of commodities, is determined by futures contracts. As far as I know: these prices are set by market makers, who keep an inventory of futures contracts, and move the prices of contracts in their inventory up and down. Buyers and sellers of these contracts then speculate based on the market makers' asserted fluctuations of prices, when the best times are to buy contracts at a lower price, so they can be sold for a higher price at a later time (or when the best times are to sell contracts at a higher price, so they can be bought at a lower price at a later time).The buyer pays slightly more than the seller gets and the market maker gets the difference. A market maker must move prices in a manner that makes a market, so they can find the right amount of buyers and sellers to accumulate, and then clear, the inventory of stocks which they hold. Please feel free to elaborate or correct if I've made any errors.

ITN: They do have that freedom. Money just makes things easier. You can represent what you buy and sell in a more flexible unit of account, and money can be traded for something else besides the immediate barter opportunities available.

SI: Money adds complexity. It doesn't make things easier. Who says if there wasn't money you would have to trade bread for cars??? Straw man argument. Or rigid mental disorder.

ITN: The federal government is not the people. It is an organization that has the power to print money. People create wealth to cover their expenses needed to live. If they don't create enough wealth, that's their own problem. They need to get out and work.

SI: You don't seem to understand the concept of a zero sum game. Whatever one spends another gains, and vice versa. If a few people take a lot more gains than most people, most people will come up a bit short. They will need to go into debt to cover their expenses.

ITN: Socialism (which is what you are describing as a solution) does not create wealth. Printing money does not create wealth. Socialism is theft of wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth.

SI: I'm talking about inflation and deflation (not socialism and capitalism)! If you don't issue more debt "print money" for most people to cover their revenue shortfall, there would be revolts. As you. "print money" for this reason, it grows faster than wealth and causes inflation. Eventually most people will max out their debt (default) or governments will repudiate their debt (same thing). When that happens there is deflation.

ITN: It is not the government's job to rob someone else to pay for your living expense

SI: It is the job of the IRS to tax people earning above average amounts to help the government pay for welfare programs like the military, social security, and medicare.

ITN: If you do not want to accept U.S. currency, that's your decision. No government can force it upon you. If you want to limit yourself to direct barter, feel free.

SI: I have no choice but to accept U.S. currency. This conversation is about the future. Do you not think people's faith in the almighty dollar will wane when the world suffers deflation?
02-10-2020 03:43
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Money does not accurately measure how much work each person contributes to the production or maintenance of an economy.

That seems about as difficult or impossible to accurately measure as assessing the temperature of the entire globe.


True, since the democrats keep pushing for higher wages, regardless of work or skills required. $15/hour to flip burgers at McDonald's? No incentive for anyone to seek education or training, to moving into a better job, since they all pay the same. No incentive to actually do the work, or even do it well, since you can always get another job, that pays just as well.

This is part of the reason why manufacturing moved to China and Mexico. Government mandating higher compensation for employees, drives up the production costs, the price of each unit. Business isn't a charity, and neither is our government.

A business we pay wages, and other benefits, sufficient to attract and retain the staff they need, to be productive. Employee aren't going to stay at jobs, that don't fit their needs, any longer than it takes, to find a better job. They may need to get some additional education, or training to qualify for better jobs.

When you actually have to work to earn your money, it has value. You invested time and labor, to obtain it. You aren't as easily separated from it. Socialism currancy, is free money, applied to your EBT card automatically every month. You don't care how you spend it, because it only has to get you through the month.
02-10-2020 04:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
Spongy Iris wrote: Money does not accurately measure how much work each person contributes to the production or maintenance of an economy.

It is irrelevant how much physical effort one performs in his labor.

The economy is based on "value" per the price realization of the supply/demand curve.

Money is a measure of value, not of work.

Spend twelve hours per day over the next month pounding sand at the beach and let me know who pays you a living wage for it. I assure you that you'll only need a couple of minutes to get the point.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2020 19:14
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Any Norwegian can be taught to gut fish... Work sucks, but has perks, doesn't pay much though, because the can get any drunken-gutter-bum to do it all night, for a pint bottle of Thunderbird wine. Do you think the average fish-gutter would be qualified to Captain the fishing boat, and deserve the same pay, for gutting fish? Guess anything is possible in democrat-world. They took a New York City bar-slut, and gave here a seat in the House of Representatives...
02-10-2020 19:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Money does not accurately measure how much work each person contributes to the production or maintenance of an economy.

Money is not the economy. Money is not work or production. Money is a medium for trade.
Spongy Iris wrote:
That seems about as difficult or impossible to accurately measure as assessing the temperature of the entire globe.

False equivalence. One is a function description, the other is a measurement.


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
02-10-2020 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Price is determined by market forces.

SI: A major example, the price of commodities, is determined by futures contracts.

Reversal fallacy. Contracts do not set the price of commodities. They are unrelated to the price of commodities. They are speculations of future prices of commodities. Nothing more.
Spongy Iris wrote:
As far as I know: these prices are set by market makers, who keep an inventory of futures contracts, and move the prices of contracts in their inventory up and down.

Prices are not set by commodity broker houses. They do not keep an inventory of futures contracts. They do not set the price of any contract.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Buyers and sellers of these contracts then speculate based on the market makers' asserted fluctuations of prices, when the best times are to buy contracts at a lower price, so they can be sold for a higher price at a later time (or when the best times are to sell contracts at a higher price, so they can be bought at a lower price at a later time).

Buy low, sell high. The trick of course is to know when it is low and to speculate correctly on when if it going to be higher.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The buyer pays slightly more than the seller gets and the market maker gets the difference.

No. The commodity broker does not get the difference.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A market maker must move prices in a manner that makes a market,

Commodity brokers do not 'move prices'. They do not set the price of any commodity or any futures contract.
Spongy Iris wrote:
so they can find the right amount of buyers and sellers to accumulate,

They don't find anyone. They don't accumulate anyone.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and then clear, the inventory of stocks which they hold.

A commodity is not a stock. Commodity brokers do not hold commodities. Stock brokers do not hold stocks. They do not keep an inventory either.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Please feel free to elaborate or correct if I've made any errors.

You've made plenty. Already done.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: They do have that freedom. Money just makes things easier. You can represent what you buy and sell in a more flexible unit of account, and money can be traded for something else besides the immediate barter opportunities available.

SI: Money adds complexity. It doesn't make things easier.

Since you would rather trade by direct barter, you can put up with the inconvenience. Go for it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Who says if there wasn't money you would have to trade bread for cars??? Straw man argument. Or rigid mental disorder.

Fallacy fallacy. Not a straw man. Not a mental disorder. If you do not use money, direct barter is the only way to trade.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: The federal government is not the people. It is an organization that has the power to print money. People create wealth to cover their expenses needed to live. If they don't create enough wealth, that's their own problem. They need to get out and work.

SI: You don't seem to understand the concept of a zero sum game.

There isn't one. The 'zero sum game' is a myth. Capitalism creates wealth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Whatever one spends another gains, and vice versa.

WRONG. You can gain without spending. One example is a farmer growing a crop. Once the field is plowed and sown, little else is needed except to watch the plants grow....maybe water them if they need it. You do not buy the harvested crop at market prices for that commodity. You buy the seed, plant, water them, and harvest the result at the end. You have created wealth. All you are buying is the time to plow and plant, fertilizer, a bit of pest control, and any additional water for irrigating (rain and sunlight is free).

Another example is the car. You take some steel, aluminum, plastic, rubber, and construct a car. You power it with gasoline. You don't pay the price of the finished car to get the car. You BUILD the car out of raw materials. Again, you have created wealth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If a few people take a lot more gains than most people, most people will come up a bit short. They will need to go into debt to cover their expenses.

No. It is not a zero sum game. Capitalism creates wealth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Socialism (which is what you are describing as a solution) does not create wealth. Printing money does not create wealth. Socialism is theft of wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth.

SI: I'm talking about inflation and deflation (not socialism and capitalism)!

You are talking about socialism as a solution. You are wrong. Capitalism is the solution. Creating wealth is far better than stealing it. You are also conflating wealth with money.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you don't issue more debt "print money" for most people to cover their revenue shortfall, there would be revolts.

Printing money doesn't cover anyone's revenue shortfall.
Spongy Iris wrote:
As you. "print money" for this reason, it grows faster than wealth and causes inflation.

You are now locked in paradox. First you say wealth does not increase, now you say it does. Which is it, dude?
Spongy Iris wrote:
Eventually most people will max out their debt (default) or governments will repudiate their debt (same thing). When that happens there is deflation.

WRONG. During deflation, cash is king. The price of commodities is dropping. Debt has nothing to do with it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: It is not the government's job to rob someone else to pay for your living expense

SI: It is the job of the IRS to tax people earning above average amounts to help the government pay for welfare programs like the military, social security, and medicare.

WRONG. It is not the job of the government to rob someone else to pay for your living expense. The federal government never had the authority to implement either social security or medicare. Military is not a welfare program.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: If you do not want to accept U.S. currency, that's your decision. No government can force it upon you. If you want to limit yourself to direct barter, feel free.

SI: I have no choice but to accept U.S. currency.

Sure you do. Just stop accepting it. Go to direct barter like you want to.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This conversation is about the future.

Special pleading fallacy. It's about any point in time.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you not think people's faith in the almighty dollar will wane when the world suffers deflation?

No. Cash is king during deflation.


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
02-10-2020 21:18
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Any Norwegian can be taught to gut fish... Work sucks, but has perks, doesn't pay much though, because the can get any drunken-gutter-bum to do it all night, for a pint bottle of Thunderbird wine. Do you think the average fish-gutter would be qualified to Captain the fishing boat, and deserve the same pay, for gutting fish? Guess anything is possible in democrat-world. They took a New York City bar-slut, and gave here a seat in the House of Representatives...



This is funny. I enjoyed the laugh Harvey. They have floating processors in Alaska that take the fish to canneries in places like Kodiak, Alaska. With my father being from Norway, he actually liked Alaska better.
On the processors that go to Alaska from Seattle, Washington state, the people who "CLEAN" the fish make a lot of money. Of course if they work 20 hours a day when they've taken on a load from a trawler or a purse seiner.
Of course people who work on the decks of fishing boats can make a years wages in 3 or 4 months of fishing.
And with fishing or even crabbing in Alaska, I let one friend know that for every life lost fishing the Grand Banks and east towards Greenland in the Atlantic, one ship is lost in Alaska. Why they make the money they do.
02-10-2020 23:15
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
ITN: Reversal fallacy. Contracts do not set the price of commodities. They are unrelated to the price of commodities. They are speculations of future prices of commodities. Nothing more.

SI: If the price of pig bellies trading on exchanges with futures contracts triples in price, I'm pretty sure the pig bellies being sold in meat markets will also increase by similar amount. I think the prices on exchanges will lead the way, not follow

ITN: A commodity is not a stock. Commodity brokers do not hold commodities. Stock brokers do not hold stocks. They do not keep an inventory either.

SI: It seems you are confusing Brokers with Market Makers. To facilitate trading of stocks between buyers and sellers, a Market Maker keeps an inventory of stocks. Market Makers pay Brokers to get access to information of which buyers and sellers are placing orders. Brokers take the orders. Market Makers match the orders. By keeping an inventory of stocks, Market Makers can quickly match orders between buyers and sellers and facilitate smooth liquid trading.

ITN: Prices are not set by commodity broker houses. They do not keep an inventory of futures contracts. They do not set the price of any contract.

SI: I never said Brokers set prices I said Market Makers set prices.

ITN: There isn't one. The 'zero sum game' is a myth. Capitalism creates wealth.

SI: I have been saying money is a zero sum game. I have not been saying wealth is a zero sum game. Just because wealth is created, while money is used, are you saying it is possible for an economy to have more cash than debt?

ITN: Creating wealth is far better than stealing it.

SI: Are you saying the IRS is stealing wealth by taxing those who earn above average money wages?

ITN: WRONG. You can gain without spending. One example is a farmer growing a crop. Once the field is plowed and sown, little else is needed except to watch the plants grow....maybe water them if they need it. You do not buy the harvested crop at market prices for that commodity. You buy the seed, plant, water them, and harvest the result at the end. You have created wealth. All you are buying is the time to plow and plant, fertilizer, a bit of pest control, and any additional water for irrigating (rain and sunlight is free).

SI: YOU are talking about wealth instead of money. And you seem to be saying, if an economy gains wealth, it gains money. Is that what you are saying?

ITN: Printing money doesn't cover anyone's revenue shortfall.

SI: Most people can't afford to cover all their expenses without going into debt. You do realize what a mortgage is don't you?

ITN: You are now locked in paradox. First you say wealth does not increase, now you say it does. Which is it, dude?

SI: No you maliciously manipulative jackass. I'm saying the net amount of cash and debt in an economy is always zero.

ITN: You are talking about socialism as a solution. You are wrong. Capitalism is the solution. Creating wealth is far better than stealing it. You are also conflating wealth with money. Not a straw man. Not a mental disorder. If you do not use money, direct barter is the only way to trade

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.
03-10-2020 06:15
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.


How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.
03-10-2020 06:15
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
@Spongy, once countries left the gold standard, then the amount of currency could've become the new standard. And all "paper money" would do is show how "man hours" between different countries is valued.
An example of this is how many "man hours" does it take to produce a good or service and how is that valued?
A basic example is if a baker made 100 loaves of bread, how many "man hours" does that take and what is the 100 loaves of bread worth? And while that is a basic example, it extrapolates;
ex·trap·o·late
/ikˈstrapəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: extrapolate; 3rd person present: extrapolates; past tense: extrapolated; past participle: extrapolated; gerund or present participle: extrapolating

extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.
"the results cannot be extrapolated to other patient groups"
estimate or conclude (something) by extrapolating.
"attempts to extrapolate likely human cancers from laboratory studies"
Mathematics
extend (a graph, curve, or range of values) by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data.
"a set of extrapolated values"

Origin
late 19th century: from extra- 'outside' + a shortened form of interpolate.
Translate extrapolate to
Use over time for: extrapolate
03-10-2020 09:15
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
HarveyH55 wrote:
SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.


How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.


As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?
03-10-2020 10:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Reversal fallacy. Contracts do not set the price of commodities. They are unrelated to the price of commodities. They are speculations of future prices of commodities. Nothing more.

SI: If the price of pig bellies trading on exchanges with futures contracts triples in price, I'm pretty sure the pig bellies being sold in meat markets will also increase by similar amount. I think the prices on exchanges will lead the way, not follow

Redirection fallacy. You are changing the subject again. Brokers do not set prices or hold inventory of commodities.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: A commodity is not a stock. Commodity brokers do not hold commodities. Stock brokers do not hold stocks. They do not keep an inventory either.

SI: It seems you are confusing Brokers with Market Makers. To facilitate trading of stocks between buyers and sellers, a Market Maker keeps an inventory of stocks. Market Makers pay Brokers to get access to information of which buyers and sellers are placing orders. Brokers take the orders. Market Makers match the orders. By keeping an inventory of stocks, Market Makers can quickly match orders between buyers and sellers and facilitate smooth liquid trading.

There is no such thing as a 'Market Maker'. You are describing brokers, and then you are denying you are talking about them. Which is it, dude?
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Prices are not set by commodity broker houses. They do not keep an inventory of futures contracts. They do not set the price of any contract.

SI: I never said Brokers set prices I said Market Makers set prices.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'Market Makers'.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: There isn't one. The 'zero sum game' is a myth. Capitalism creates wealth.

SI: I have been saying money is a zero sum game. I have not been saying wealth is a zero sum game. Just because wealth is created, while money is used, are you saying it is possible for an economy to have more cash than debt?

Yes. It is possible to have no debt at all.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Creating wealth is far better than stealing it.

SI: Are you saying the IRS is stealing wealth by taxing those who earn above average money wages?

Yes, when the money is used for welfare purposes or for unconstitutional areas of government.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: WRONG. You can gain without spending. One example is a farmer growing a crop. Once the field is plowed and sown, little else is needed except to watch the plants grow....maybe water them if they need it. You do not buy the harvested crop at market prices for that commodity. You buy the seed, plant, water them, and harvest the result at the end. You have created wealth. All you are buying is the time to plow and plant, fertilizer, a bit of pest control, and any additional water for irrigating (rain and sunlight is free).

SI: YOU are talking about wealth instead of money.

I am talking about both. So are you.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And you seem to be saying, if an economy gains wealth, it gains money.

Generally true.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Is that what you are saying?

Yes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Printing money doesn't cover anyone's revenue shortfall.

SI: Most people can't afford to cover all their expenses without going into debt.

Everyone can cover all of their expenses without going into debt, if they choose to.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You do realize what a mortgage is don't you?

A mortgage is a choice. You do not have to take out a mortgage or buy a house. No one is forced into mortgage.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: You are now locked in paradox. First you say wealth does not increase, now you say it does. Which is it, dude?

SI: No you maliciously manipulative jackass. I'm saying the net amount of cash and debt in an economy is always zero.

Cash is not debt. There is no such thing as a 'net' between apples and oranges.
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: You are talking about socialism as a solution. You are wrong. Capitalism is the solution. Creating wealth is far better than stealing it. You are also conflating wealth with money. Not a straw man. Not a mental disorder. If you do not use money, direct barter is the only way to trade

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present.

Lie. YOU are conflating them. Then you are denying them. You are locked into another paradox. Which is it, dude?
Spongy Iris wrote:
I have barely talked about wealth,

Lie. Irrational. You must clear your paradox.
Spongy Iris wrote:
except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth:

Already here.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car.

Perhaps the baker is buying a cheaper car, where 5000 loaves of bread will do. (The plural of loaf is loaves).
Spongy Iris wrote:
That is a straw man argument.

Fallacy fallacy. If there is no money, direct barter is the only form of trade.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They are both part of a larger economy.

So?
Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't directly deal with each other,

Yes they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
but they both give their goods into the economy.

The economy is not a broker and it is not money. Redefinition fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

Yes there is. The scenario is that there is no money to act as a medium of trade.


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
03-10-2020 10:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.


How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.


As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.


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
03-10-2020 11:16
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as a 'Market Maker'


You are unbelievable! Get your friends to put your above quote in their signatures.

Go look up the company Citadel. They provide market making services.

Check out this interview with a market maker https://youtu.be/KRz259u6A6w and see if you can learn the distinction between a market maker and a broker.

You double down on your lies even when they become obvious.
03-10-2020 11:39
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:

Everyone can cover all of their expenses without going into debt, if they choose to.


Really? How so?
03-10-2020 11:49
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:

Cash is not debt. There is no such thing as a 'net' between apples and oranges.


Cash is positive, Debt is negative, and the net is the sum of them both. Got it?
03-10-2020 12:10
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.


No I'm not.

The economy is all the goods and services being supplied and demanded.

Money is created when banks loan it to businesses so they can supply goods and services demanded.

The histories of money transactions can give an indication of supply and demand. It may be hard to figure out supply and demand without the information extrapolated from money transactions. But these days with cool spreadsheet and supply chain programs such information may be easier to extrapolate.
03-10-2020 14:57
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.


How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.


As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?


What's the connection? How is one company's product or service connected to every other business, without money? Is it a credit system? All on paper? You still have a bunch of good and services available, that not everyone is going to want or need. It presumes that every business knows what each individual is entitled, at every other business. People tend to be a little greedy and dishonest as well. People move around too. Each community, has it's own economy. I'm just having trouble seeing how eliminating money is advantageous to anyone. When I go to work, I have a pretty good idea what is required, and how much compensation I'll need to make the required labor, worth the time and effort. I know the price of the goods and services in the area I live. If the job doesn't pay what I want or need, I don't have to accept working there, or I can take on additional jobs to make up the difference. When I'm buying stuff, there are often options of similar business, some willing to negotiate a little on prices. They charge too much, potential customers don't buy there. What they are selling, is only worth as much, as someone else is willing to pay. If the baker charges too much for a loaf of bread, people can always bake their own bread. The baker needs to lower his price, since his products need to move, limited shelf life. If I can bake bread myself, for a fraction of what the baker charges, I could also sell to my neighbors.
03-10-2020 20:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as a 'Market Maker'


You are unbelievable! Get your friends to put your above quote in their signatures.

Go look up the company Citadel. They provide market making services.

Check out this interview with a market maker https://youtu.be/KRz259u6A6w and see if you can learn the distinction between a market maker and a broker.

You double down on your lies even when they become obvious.


These are people who buy and sell or commodities. They are brokers. They do not set the price.


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
03-10-2020 20:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Everyone can cover all of their expenses without going into debt, if they choose to.


Really? How so?


Simple. Don't go into debt.


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
03-10-2020 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Cash is not debt. There is no such thing as a 'net' between apples and oranges.


Cash is positive, Debt is negative, and the net is the sum of them both. Got it?


Debt is not cash. There is no 'net'.


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
03-10-2020 20:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.


No I'm not.

The economy is all the goods and services being supplied and demanded.

Paradox. Irrational. You are still locked in paradox. You must clear your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks loan it to businesses so they can supply goods and services demanded.

No. Money is created when a government 'prints' it by expanding M1.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The histories of money transactions can give an indication of supply and demand.

No. Money is a trade medium, not an indicator of supply and demand.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It may be hard to figure out supply and demand without the information extrapolated from money transactions. But these days with cool spreadsheet and supply chain programs such information may be easier to extrapolate.

Magick Spreadsheets are not crystal balls. They cannot foretell the future.

The spread of a stock or commodity is determined by the broker, not anything like a 'market maker'. It is the price you pay for using the broker. It doesn't matter if it's a stock (popular or not), or a commodity like corn or gold.

Think of it as a markup price implemented by a broker. He is a merchant, like any other.


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
03-10-2020 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.


How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.


As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?


What's the connection? How is one company's product or service connected to every other business, without money? Is it a credit system? All on paper? You still have a bunch of good and services available, that not everyone is going to want or need. It presumes that every business knows what each individual is entitled, at every other business. People tend to be a little greedy and dishonest as well. People move around too. Each community, has it's own economy. I'm just having trouble seeing how eliminating money is advantageous to anyone. When I go to work, I have a pretty good idea what is required, and how much compensation I'll need to make the required labor, worth the time and effort. I know the price of the goods and services in the area I live. If the job doesn't pay what I want or need, I don't have to accept working there, or I can take on additional jobs to make up the difference. When I'm buying stuff, there are often options of similar business, some willing to negotiate a little on prices. They charge too much, potential customers don't buy there. What they are selling, is only worth as much, as someone else is willing to pay. If the baker charges too much for a loaf of bread, people can always bake their own bread. The baker needs to lower his price, since his products need to move, limited shelf life. If I can bake bread myself, for a fraction of what the baker charges, I could also sell to my neighbors.


All good examples. He is trying to describe 'the economy' as a medium of exchange (money), then denying he is doing so. He is locked in paradox. He is being irrational, trying to argue both sides of this paradox.


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
03-10-2020 20:50
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.


No I'm not.

The economy is all the goods and services being supplied and demanded.

Paradox. Irrational. You are still locked in paradox. You must clear your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks loan it to businesses so they can supply goods and services demanded.

No. Money is created when a government 'prints' it by expanding M1.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The histories of money transactions can give an indication of supply and demand.

No. Money is a trade medium, not an indicator of supply and demand.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It may be hard to figure out supply and demand without the information extrapolated from money transactions. But these days with cool spreadsheet and supply chain programs such information may be easier to extrapolate.

Magick Spreadsheets are not crystal balls. They cannot foretell the future.

The spread of a stock or commodity is determined by the broker, not anything like a 'market maker'. It is the price you pay for using the broker. It doesn't matter if it's a stock (popular or not), or a commodity like corn or gold.

Think of it as a markup price implemented by a broker. He is a merchant, like any other.


A stock broker is essentially a democrat... He get's rich off of using your wealth, passing on his own gambling losses onto you.
03-10-2020 21:25
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.


How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.


As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?


What's the connection? How is one company's product or service connected to every other business, without money? Is it a credit system? All on paper? You still have a bunch of good and services available, that not everyone is going to want or need. It presumes that every business knows what each individual is entitled, at every other business. People tend to be a little greedy and dishonest as well. People move around too. Each community, has it's own economy. I'm just having trouble seeing how eliminating money is advantageous to anyone. When I go to work, I have a pretty good idea what is required, and how much compensation I'll need to make the required labor, worth the time and effort. I know the price of the goods and services in the area I live. If the job doesn't pay what I want or need, I don't have to accept working there, or I can take on additional jobs to make up the difference. When I'm buying stuff, there are often options of similar business, some willing to negotiate a little on prices. They charge too much, potential customers don't buy there. What they are selling, is only worth as much, as someone else is willing to pay. If the baker charges too much for a loaf of bread, people can always bake their own bread. The baker needs to lower his price, since his products need to move, limited shelf life. If I can bake bread myself, for a fraction of what the baker charges, I could also sell to my neighbors.


Honor system. Greater freedom.

If you give what others need and want, why can't you take what you need and want, without transacting with money?
03-10-2020 21:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.


No I'm not.

The economy is all the goods and services being supplied and demanded.

Paradox. Irrational. You are still locked in paradox. You must clear your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks loan it to businesses so they can supply goods and services demanded.

No. Money is created when a government 'prints' it by expanding M1.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The histories of money transactions can give an indication of supply and demand.

No. Money is a trade medium, not an indicator of supply and demand.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It may be hard to figure out supply and demand without the information extrapolated from money transactions. But these days with cool spreadsheet and supply chain programs such information may be easier to extrapolate.

Magick Spreadsheets are not crystal balls. They cannot foretell the future.

The spread of a stock or commodity is determined by the broker, not anything like a 'market maker'. It is the price you pay for using the broker. It doesn't matter if it's a stock (popular or not), or a commodity like corn or gold.

Think of it as a markup price implemented by a broker. He is a merchant, like any other.


A stock broker is essentially a democrat... He get's rich off of using your wealth, passing on his own gambling losses onto you.


Interesting way to put 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
03-10-2020 22:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
HarveyH55 wrote:A stock broker is essentially a democrat... He get's rich off of using your wealth, passing on his own gambling losses onto you.

Worded another way, we need Democrats as much as we need stock brokers.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2020 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.


How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.


As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?


What's the connection? How is one company's product or service connected to every other business, without money? Is it a credit system? All on paper? You still have a bunch of good and services available, that not everyone is going to want or need. It presumes that every business knows what each individual is entitled, at every other business. People tend to be a little greedy and dishonest as well. People move around too. Each community, has it's own economy. I'm just having trouble seeing how eliminating money is advantageous to anyone. When I go to work, I have a pretty good idea what is required, and how much compensation I'll need to make the required labor, worth the time and effort. I know the price of the goods and services in the area I live. If the job doesn't pay what I want or need, I don't have to accept working there, or I can take on additional jobs to make up the difference. When I'm buying stuff, there are often options of similar business, some willing to negotiate a little on prices. They charge too much, potential customers don't buy there. What they are selling, is only worth as much, as someone else is willing to pay. If the baker charges too much for a loaf of bread, people can always bake their own bread. The baker needs to lower his price, since his products need to move, limited shelf life. If I can bake bread myself, for a fraction of what the baker charges, I could also sell to my neighbors.


Honor system. Greater freedom.

If you give what others need and want, why can't you take what you need and want, without transacting with money?

The other may not have what you need and want. Without money, you cannot trade with him to get what you need and want. You have to find someone to trade with that has what you need and want, and needs or wants what you have to trade.

Rather inconvenient.

With money, you can trade what you have for money (if the other is using the same money). You can then use that money to trade for what you need and want with those that have it.

Much more convenient.


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
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate The World Need A New International Income Wage Index Based On Price Of Silver, Gold:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate is a question of price offering113-12-2019 05:33
Nancy, an oil tycoon's daughter is kidnapped by a cultish environmental group who's ready to wage226-11-2019 21:22
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/world/school-climate-strike-walkup-trnd/index.html213-03-2019 16:35
ClimateCoop - Blockchain based collaboration & governance platform enabling dynamic community develop1911-03-2018 17:13
based on the satellite measurements of the world, the Earth seems to be colder than normal2704-01-2016 08:25
▲ 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