 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
I'm afraid Ken wins.
He knows you guys pretty well.
He predicted exactly how this will play out - some arm-waving, indignation, empty threats... Give you a week or two, and you're ready for more bad news.
His timing is awesome - from rationed bits of news he doled out to the way he fed you this heap of dicks.
He knew you'll do nothing, I'm sure a few months after this dies down, he'll rinse and repeat.
Thanks for being sensible.
|
|
|
|
Hoarding implies there will be or already is a scarcity of whatever it is you're hoarding.
Saving money in your bank account is not the same thing. Not even close.
 See TV show "Hoarders." I suppose you could argue that old newspapers and broken combs are scarce, but most won't find your argument convincing. +1 for creativity, nonetheless. Well, A.) Don't cite a TV show as an example. Ever. and B.) None of those things are scarce. There's another term for what that is. But you already know that A.) Absurd. Dogma. Why? B.) Hoarding is both the correct and most commonly used term for it. There may be other terms for it, but that's not relevant. Your claim that a thing must be scarce to be hoarded is proven wrong. Hoarders hoard - money, feces, old newspapers, what have you. That type of non-life-affirming behavior is called "hoarding." *If you're rich and brilliant like Howard Hughes, it's not called anything, at least not to your face. You can't hoard money. There's no such thing as "hoarding" a currency, commodities are a separate matter all together. Sure you can. It's altogether common. Freudians see it as a manifestation of the anal retentive complex, an infantilism related to the anal stage of human development. |
|
|
|
...Credit cannot exist without someone first saving the capital to support the extension of said credit. There is no way around the fact that savings, in some form, must exist. However, savings isn't necessarily in any fomr normally associated with the concept. ... And when I say that we've been eating through our capital for decades, I mean this literally. In our modern world, oil is the primary input commodity for just about everything...
I agree with you that we have been eating through commodities like oil for centuries, but you can't possibly mean that these commodities are "savings"? Sure, the oil economy can't continue indefinitely, but neither can the universe (which, according to the second law of thermodynamics, tends toward entropy). I'm not trying to nit-pick but by savings, I mean not spending MONEY for a nontrivial amount of time. I'm all for trying to cut down on unnecessary consumption. That's exactly what I mean. Money (and currency, not quite the same thing) is an abstraction of wealth, but not wealth itself. As noted by others, thinking of cash/gold as wealth is a common error. Think about what the "old money" of the North-Eastern US does. They certainly don't sit on billions of dollars, or even billions of dollars worth of gold; they buy assets and/or commodities. That's investing, but it's also savings. They may simply be buying equities in corporations, but that is still an abstraction of what real savings is. The corporate capital is the savings, and the stock certificate is simply a deed to a small part of that. The monetary price to aquire said stock certificate is only relevant to when it's bought or sold, the rest of the time it's irrelevent. In the novel Cryptocromicon, a wealthy character describes it like this, "Gold is not wealth, gold is the corpse of wealth; I can show you how to make wealth." I don't disagree with any of the above, but (in this particular context), investing and saving are two entirely different things. If you look back through the thread, the user i was addressing was mistakenly assuming that his money should maintain its worth *without him investing it*. In other words, he felt that he should be able to put his money in his mattress, and come back to it being worth just as much as when he left it there. That's, if I am reading you right, the opposite of what you are saying. I have nothing against investing - we'd be living off nuts and berries if it wasn't for that. |
|
|
|
Hoarding implies there will be or already is a scarcity of whatever it is you're hoarding.
Saving money in your bank account is not the same thing. Not even close.
See TV show "Hoarders." I suppose you could argue that old newspapers and broken combs are scarce, but most won't find your argument convincing. +1 for creativity, nonetheless. Well, A.) Don't cite a TV show as an example. Ever. and B.) None of those things are scarce. There's another term for what that is. But you already know that A.) Absurd. Dogma. Why? B.) Hoarding is both the correct and most commonly used term for it. There may be other terms for it, but that's not relevant. Your claim that a thing must be scarce to be hoarded is proven wrong. Hoarders hoard - money, feces, old newspapers, what have you. That type of non-life-affirming behavior is called "hoarding." *If you're rich and brilliant like Howard Hughes, it's not called anything, at least not to your face. |
|
|
|
...Credit cannot exist without someone first saving the capital to support the extension of said credit. There is no way around the fact that savings, in some form, must exist. However, savings isn't necessarily in any fomr normally associated with the concept. ... And when I say that we've been eating through our capital for decades, I mean this literally. In our modern world, oil is the primary input commodity for just about everything...
I agree with you that we have been eating through commodities like oil for centuries, but you can't possibly mean that these commodities are "savings"? Sure, the oil economy can't continue indefinitely, but neither can the universe (which, according to the second law of thermodynamics, tends toward entropy). I'm not trying to nit-pick but by savings, I mean not spending MONEY for a nontrivial amount of time. I'm all for trying to cut down on unnecessary consumption. |
|
|
|
You predicate your complaint on the baseless assumption that hoarded money should not depreciate. 1. I wasn't talking about money. I was talking about "wealth". ... If you take money out of this argument, than what, exactly, are we talking about? What do you mean by the word "inflation"? As for your other points, I agree. |
|
|
|
Hoarding implies there will be or already is a scarcity of whatever it is you're hoarding.
Saving money in your bank account is not the same thing. Not even close.
See TV show "Hoarders." I suppose you could argue that old newspapers and broken combs are scarce, but most won't find your argument convincing. +1 for creativity, nonetheless. |
|
|
|
...What you describe is saving, but this is what money is for.
You're mistaken, that's not "what money is for." That's what you want it to be, but your wish has no basis in reality. Money is not meant to be be hoarded any more than food is meant to be hoarded, and inflation is the mechanism through which money-hoarding is discouraged. Savings must come before consumption on the aggregate. Nothing else is possible. We've been eating through the accumulation of savings of our predecessors for 30+ years. By definition, that which is not sustainable cannot continue forever. The only difference between savings & hoarding is the perspectives of the observer. Saving does not need to precede spending. Buying on credit is not only possible, but commonplace. We have not "been eating through the accumulation of savings of our predecessors for 30+ years." Perhaps some of us have, I have not. I agree with "that which is not sustainable cannot continue forever," though you have failed to show the relevance of that truism to this topic. |
|
|
|
...What you describe is saving, but this is what money is for.
You're mistaken, that's not "what money is for." That's what you want it to be, but your wish has no basis in reality. Money is not meant to be be hoarded any more than food is meant to be hoarded, and inflation is the mechanism through which money-hoarding is discouraged. |
|
|
|
...
No, saving money is nothing like waiving your place (...). Where did you hear such an absurd comparison?
What you call "saving money" is called hoarding. It is called gluttony and greed. Who/what are you saving this money from?
It is saved by not consuming. They come from trade of course, for instance sale of your work hours. So if I have five hundred cooked dinners, you would think it wise and prudent for me to eat one & shove the rest under my mattress? I saved those dinners by not consuming them. That's exactly what you are doing with money, expecting it to be just like you have left it when you finally decide to come back for it and use it. The result is I have wasted 499 dinners, dinners which could have fed 499 people, as I "saved" those dinners. You, apparently, have done something similar with your money, and are now wondering why you weren't rewarded for your brilliant strategy. |
|
|
|
...
You predicate your complaint on the baseless assumption that hoarded money should not depreciate.
In your case, think of inflation as God's way of punishing gluttony and greed.
Is he god now? Or should I say she? Saving money is like waiving you place in the queue for resources to consume or invest. You should be free to consume or invest at the time of your own choice. If you let a socker team of five year olds with mums go before you in the queue to the pissoir, should you only be allowed to lighten yourself half way afterwards? No, saving money is nothing like waiving your place (...). Where did you hear such an absurd comparison? Who told you that "You should be free to consume or invest at the time of your own choice"? Rubbish. What you call "saving money" is called hoarding. It is called gluttony and greed. Who/what are you saving this money from? Don't let the words fool you, you are saving this money so you can have it later. You, not anyone else. That's hoarding. |
|
|
|
|
This is why we can't have nice things.
|
|
|
|
|
Stop trolling. You weren't raped; you were asking for it.
|
|
|
|
Hello  |
|
|
|
|
