Money can take the basic interest from the wares. If the wares don't pay the interest, they aren't sold. And the wares lower its price until they're sold, that's their nature.
I'm stuck in the mindset that if wares don't cover fixed and variable costs (costs of producing the wares), they aren't sold. -----------------
If they do, they are sold even if profit is $0,
----------------- simply because wares produce a benefit by their existence/use value. Interest doesn't come into this at all...
----------------- The supply of money is scarce (or that money concrete money dies by hyperinflation) and no sector has produced it (forget our current regulated financial system): the whole community has given it the value.
Money takes profit because its scarce and it (unlike wares and the time of workers) last forever at no cost.
So, essentially, a representation of a good or a representation of someone's time/work can be stored in a medium that lasts for ever at no cost. I think I'm getting this part, but where is the profit coming from? The difference between the retained value of money, and the decreased value of the expiring good it used to represent? Yes, but not only that, even if the wares don't expire they are something that the producer doesn't want. They must find their way to the customer and they have to pay the "highway" tax. The selling price must include the production costs, the proportional wage of the merchant and the tribute to money for letting all this happen. If the game stops, money is the only one immune, so it can exact a profit from its privilege. Before we get to solutions... What is this highway tax? Is it the cost of transporting goods, the cost to recoup storing goods, or the cost of the price going down to get rid of the goods because they are taking up space? The only way I know of that a producer can "push" products out is by lowering the price until it is both, lower than the competitor's price, and lower than the costumer's "utility" price (I won't pay for something if I don't need it). I still don't understand what serviceexactly this tribute is paying for? |
|
|
|
Any scientist worth a can of beans will tell you, that yes, evolution is not fact, but theory.
I am asking these questions because no one can answer them, much less you.
Please let me know which one of these is not a fact: 1) when two groups exist in the same place, the stronger group can dominate the weaker 2) living things have lots and lots of sex 3) genes, which store blueprints for life's design, exist 4) genes store all the code of the living thing's predecessors 5) genes divide and recombine when things have sex and make babies 6) accidents happen 7) environments change  groups of living things can become separated in the environment, either due to nature (flood-> new river/island) or by their own choice (migration) 9) there are obvious similarities on both macro and micro biological species, found in both concurrent living ones and in ancestral lines The theory that explains all those things is evolution. Feel free to come up with a better theory, as long as it's supportable by facts and includes all of them |
|
|
|
Ok lets see...platypus dives and its eyes, nose, and ears fill with water and it drowns.
It also can't find food without the eletro-detection beak. So it starves too. Now its really dead.
What came first, the platypus' beak, or the electro-detection wiring?
Neither. Evolution is gradual, not instant. I am really curious how you think an electrical pathway can be wired into the brain after the beak structure is already there. Do you think electricians go into finished houses and wire them for lights and AC outlets? Please don't say the neural circuitry was pre-wired "by accident", or out of evolution's magical foresight.
Give me a rundown of how science says evolution built a platypus beak. This should be very easy, since evolution is "observable and provable".
I would guess that platipy lived on land, and couldn't dive, instead using their beaks to snatch things out from under water. Eventually one of them was able to at least somewhat close it's nostrils. That one had lots of sex, and a group came out that could close their nostrils more than another group. The group that was able to close their nostrils caught more things, and outlived the group that couldn't (natural selection). By this process, ones that could close their nostrils best kept out-eating, out-living, and out-sexing ones that couldn't. By that same process, one of those nostril-closing freaks had a more sensitive nose to things swimming in the water. That sensitivity may have been while they were wading around on the surface, with their beaks submerged, or once they started diving. The evolution of the electro-deception could easily have developed in parallel with the nostril closing, and just ended up being really convenient for when they started diving, since not needing to keep your eyes open means you get fewer injuries. Plus ponds aren't exactly clear and easy to see in. There's your answer to which came first. |
|
|
|
More evidence? Japan younth is interested in technology, but not in science. However, in practice, Japaese are atheists.
Um, is Technology to Science as Macroevolution to Microevolution? What's the difference? |
|
|
|
How does evolution adapt? Magic? Where is evolution? What is the source? If it is non-physical, how does it impact physical matter?
So, you say evolution is made up and is not fact, and then point out that you don't even understand what it is or how it works? Oooookay then. |
|
|
|
Let's break this up bit by bit So in AnCapistan, instead of a Public Works Department, you have customer service? Microsoft and Cisco would own the world, and you want their customer support to take the place of government?
Microsoft would compete with Google and Linux, like they do now. Cisco would have to either continue to provide best service possible, or start competing with distributed mesh networking. For every monopoly, an upstart can and does arise to take them down when people get too annoyed with them. What's the difference between a monolithic state and a megacorporation? I'm failing to see any functional difference between the American Democratic Republic and AnCapistan (both at their theoretical best.) It's what happens when they're not at their best that I have a beef with. In America, the system is correctable, and even massive abuses have ways of being mitigated, reversed, or fixed.
In one, you're fighting for votes. In the other, you're fighting for revenue. Actually, at this point, it seems in both we're fighting for revenue. So, yes, both will have corruption. Though like with monopolies, hopefully better systems will pop up once people get frustrated enough. I think a core set of laws is necessary for regulating commerce, and unifying military, national, and international infrastructure. Corruption isn't going to go away. If anything, it will get worse, because whistleblowing suddenly become a matter of corporate security.
No different from government corruption. Enter Wikileaks... You have a silly little game of socioeconomic brinksmanship with private armies involved. That can't possibly end well. That essentially means whoever can snap up the most resources the fastest wins.
At this point, the most valuable resource is human intelligence. Engineers, scientists, programmers, etc. If you snap up those resources and treat them well, what's the problem? If you abuse them, that resource can leave (brain drain). In AnCapistan, I guarantee I'm going to destroy you before you have a chance to hurt me. I'm not going to wait for you to make the first move, because maximizing my long term well being means establishing and enforcing whatever set of rules I deem optimal.
Unless your goal is to make a lot of money from a lot of people, which means you have to do what you can to make as many people at least minimally satisfied. Only problem is, if you have power, you can print and/or control the money. I believe Bitcoin just solved that problem. If you mean the above in business competition sense, you'd either buy the competitor, or try to out-compete. And if you screw up, small startup (Google) will kick your ass. I'm going to seize all available resources, and you will have no recourse except to get out of Dodge, because I'm not going to acknowledge your attempts to bring to me to court at some McJudge outlet.
See above for resources. Also, customers vote with their dollars. If you're an ass and are legally untrustworthy, those involved with you from a business sense, those being both the end-customers buying your products products and your suppliers selling you materials, will both start to dump you. I'm going to treat with like minded individuals, those who are able to capitalize on the sudden lack of a central legal system, and we're going to be benevolent dictators. We're going to get away with it because our mercenaries are paid, trained, equipped, and indoctrinated better than your freedom fighters.
Your mercenaries cost you money, and can't force people to buy stuff from you. People have the money you want... An empire will arise out of the ashes of AnCapistan, because humans are stupid, greedy, evil bastards.
AnCapistan will likely be a rather wild place, no doubt. But those who are stupid will have no power, those who are bastards will not be able to compete in a system where reputation counts, and those who are greedy will keep looking for ways to exchange their goods/services for our money Why not impose a central state designed to mitigate the greedy, evil tendencies and maximize freedoms? A Democractic Republic seems like a pretty good system to me.
Mitigating tendencies by force still gets rid of freedoms. They may be freedoms to be a greedy bastard, but it's still a freedom that no longer exists. I'm kind of somewhat of a liberal Dem, and also think that a Democratic Republic is a pretty good system, but this AnCap and Libertarian thing still sounds neat to me (I'd love to see it in action, just as I'd love to see deflationary Bitcoin economy in action). |
|
|
|
|
"Intelligent design" makes America an amusing country.
I especially love how a banana is intelligently designed for our hands, with the 5 ridges, easy color coding for ripeness (green -> yellow), and a pull-top for peeling. Yay god!
|
|
|
|
Have you read Snow Crash, and if yes, what model does that world fall under?
I have, and TBH, I don't remember much of the 'real world', though what I do remember was a mostly failed US State (suffering hyperinflation), surrounded by a mostly AnCap society... though I may be remembering incorrectly. I'll have to see if I can dig up my copy. Edit: While we're on Neal Stephenson, the society in Diamond Age is one I can pretty much get behind. The way the Phyles work, at any rate. I think a p2p version of SecondLife with bitcoin backed economy would be a cool idea. I've never really forgiven that company for singlehandedly killing their game's economy just as it was switching from industrial to service/financial based one... But I digress |
|
|
|
|
Meds are good. Contrary to what the paranoid naysayers may be saying, the can help you think things through with a clearer head. They're not needed for the rest of your life, but while you're in a weird situation, with your brain doing stupid stuff, taking some for a few months may help you figure things out and get on more solid footing in your life. That's what happened with me, anyway.
Or you can just kill yourself *shrug* It's your choice. "What may be missed" is a fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you read Snow Crash, and if yes, what model does that world fall under?
|
|
|
|
|
Being under 18, those girls really can't be prosecuted for punching the cops in the nuts. New business skill parents should teach?
|
|
|
|
Someone ordered a stack of McBenjamins for field work?  |
|
|
|
What do you do?
Increase his allowance. SOCIALIST! |
|
|
|
Money can take the basic interest from the wares. If the wares don't pay the interest, they aren't sold. And the wares lower its price until they're sold, that's their nature.
I'm stuck in the mindset that if wares don't cover fixed and variable costs (costs of producing the wares), they aren't sold. If they do, they are sold even if profit is $0, simply because wares produce a benefit by their existence/use value. Interest doesn't come into this at all... The supply of money is scarce (or that money concrete money dies by hyperinflation) and no sector has produced it (forget our current regulated financial system): the whole community has given it the value.
Money takes profit because its scarce and it (unlike wares and the time of workers) last forever at no cost.
So, essentially, a representation of a good or a representation of someone's time/work can be stored in a medium that lasts for ever at no cost. I think I'm getting this part, but where is the profit coming from? The difference between the retained value of money, and the decreased value of the expiring good it used to represent? |
|
|
|
All totalled, with the yearly packaged curriculium and the money we spend for coops, group classes, tutored classes and a few museum trips each year; I'd say that I spend about $8K per year for all my kids.
Sadly, that is a ridiculously high amount for a lot of people. Especially if you have 2 or 3 kids. But, I guess the answer to that is "PRIORITIES!!!" That's ridiculously high if they have one kid. for - 3 , I think it was - It's a damn fine deal. Oh, wait, I misread that at 48k per kid. I take that back, sorry. Does seem pretty cheap. |
|
|
|
All totalled, with the yearly packaged curriculium and the money we spend for coops, group classes, tutored classes and a few museum trips each year; I'd say that I spend about $8K per year for all my kids.
Sadly, that is a ridiculously high amount for a lot of people. Especially if you have 2 or 3 kids. But, I guess the answer to that is "PRIORITIES!!!" |
|
|
|
When we talk about Bitcoin, we're talking about a digital commodity whose value depends (just as any other commodity) on supply and demand.
What makes an accounting ledger (read: bitcoin) a commodity? Now, the bitcoin network as a whole has a market price, which will adjust based on the value and volume of things (e.g. fiat currencies, bananas, etc.) that are sold for bitcoins; but a unit of account itself (a.k.a. a bitcoin transaction) is just another credit/debit entry in that network. So, when you speculate on the value of BTC in terms of fiat currencies, you're trying to price the act of recording a transaction. Essentially, you're trying to figure out a wage that an accountant should be paid for tracking all bitcoin-denominated transactions. But don't we already have accountants for the bitcoin network? And don't we pay them in bitcoin bounties and transaction fees? USD/money is a commodity, and something like 95% of it exists in digital form, as just records in an accounting ledger. So... |
|
|
|
Exorbitantly large amounts of funds in the hands of unknown individuals whose security/business conduct is also unknown can be a hindrance to a healthy currency, since one could fear that an amount too large for the market to handle would be dumped onto the market (voluntarily or not) in a short timeframe.
I would look at this as, "exorbitantly large amounts of funds in the hands of unknown individuals" means that there are some unknown individuals out there with A LOT of money and A LOT of incentive to see this currency survive and be healthy. |
|
|
|
what else is there to say?
If you mean steady in relation to USD, that SUCKS, since it means both BTC and USD moved down compared to the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
The one GIGANTIC flaw in your premise is that you think the president has anything to do with the country's economy, which is what actually drives government debt.
Don't confuse us with facts. Australian Economic perspective:  That graph looks Chinese, and is thus communist propaganda! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
