Money(Fundamentally)

[Fashus Maximus]

6 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

It was still a legal arrangement. Thus state-issued. Banks issue credit in a similar fashion today: it's a legal arrangement.

I read this and 2 things came to mind: 1) my counter-argument, 2) what a talmudic line of reasoning. And then, I keep reading and sure enough, you've been reading David Graeber; I would highly suggest you be mindful of talmudic arguments when reading jewish books, as you end up believing your own nonsense. A classic talmudic argumentation is to take 2 radically opposite things, place them in the same category, and then conclude that they are therefore equivalent or similar.

Allow me to illustrate how talmudic your argument is:

a) The presence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement

b) The absence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement

c) Therefore, the presence of such a law is similar or equivalent to the absence of such a law.

If the flaw in c) is not apparent as you read it, I'm just going to have to move on (no offence).

6 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I'm getting ready to read the book, but in my talks with Nima, according to David Graeber in the book Debt: The First 5000 Years, there is no archaeological evidence supporting the existence of the barter system. Money has been state-created from the start. The source you provided doesn't actually give any evidence of money from 9000 BC. Just mentions something about cows.

I don't understand the relevance of barter, nor is it news to me that the barter system was never a thing. David Friedman explained how it is inevitable for some commonly held commodity to be used as money. Anyhow, the quote:

"9000BC - 6000BC] Subsequently both livestock, particularly cattle, and plant products such as grain, come to be used as money in many different societies at different periods. Cattle are probably the oldest of all forms of money, as domestication of animals tended to precede the cultivation of crops, and were still used for that purpose in parts of Africa in the middle of the 20th century."

6 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

What the government did that the free market did not wasn't physics, it was engineering. The entire facilities of the country were required in order to facilitate the refining of enough uranium and plutonium to make the bombs, and it was done by government order. Maybe the free market could have done it eventually, but it didn't. Government made it first.

My argument was that government contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to the body of work that culminates in the development of a nuke, and thus, the nuke is not a valid example of government invention.

In other words, I'm making a relative claim. So to disprove this, you'd have to compare government numbers with private sector numbers. All you've done is cited government results, which begs the question: compared to what?

[Vengey_Abel]

"The role of money is in the definition of money." 
Okay, but according to THE NOW, (and the above), it's definition is irrelevant where it doesn't exist...(if it has no currency, it ain't money).
 

"My argument was that government contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to the body of work that culminates in the development of a nuke, and thus, the nuke is not a valid example of government invention. In other words, I'm making a relative claim. So to disprove this, you'd have to compare government numbers with private sector numbers. All you've done is cited government results, which begs the question: compared to what?"

-Well, "compared" to output based in immutable contracts, which -in the extreme case of monetary "love"- probably has them that much more likely to continue business as usual, or remain 'simply agreeable' whilst simultaneously helping setting fire to it with the money.

 

[Fashus Maximus]

3 hours ago, Vengey_Abel said:

"The role of money is in the definition of money." 
Okay, but according to THE NOW, (and the above), it's definition is irrelevant where it doesn't exist...(if it has no currency, it ain't money).

Sure, but I said that in the context of money being used so I'm missing your point.

4 hours ago, Vengey_Abel said:

"compared" to output based in immutable contracts, which -in the extreme case of monetary "love"- probably has them that much more likely to continue business as usual, or remain 'simply agreeable' whilst simultaneously helping setting fire to it with the money.

Compared to which contract? Who's setting fire to what?

[Vengey_Abel]

May I say, these comments and ideas are fundamental more to money's causality than its essence... no?

 

[Vengey_Abel]

On 1/26/2018 at 6:28 AM, Fashus Maximus said:

Ok, Scotland then.

The role of money is in the definition of money. I also didn't think I'd need a source to show that the first evidence of a state was in 3000BC, but here it is. Anyhow, money predates the state. A can't be the cause of B if B came first.

Because they are the prerequisites and government played no part. In all 3 things, 99% of the work was already done before the government contributed to the nuclear project or satellites.

If you think the prerequisites of nukes and satellites was done after the government got involved, then I see you don't know much physics or engineering.

Control of money dictates who controls science.
...speaking of "A".
 

[Vengey_Abel]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:52 AM, Fashus Maximus said:

Sure, but I said that in the context of money being used so I'm missing your point.

Compared to which contract? Who's setting fire to what?

If the money is not in proper circulation, it is a control...
Money power wipes the board when stuff gets dicey; like losing control of government, or holding paper no one 'needs'.

When honesty is mathematically introduced into the inherently crony-stuffed infrastructure, hmm...

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

On 1/26/2018 at 5:00 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

I read this and 2 things came to mind: 1) my counter-argument, 2) what a talmudic line of reasoning. And then, I keep reading and sure enough, you've been reading David Graeber; I would highly suggest you be mindful of talmudic arguments when reading jewish books, as you end up believing your own nonsense. A classic talmudic argumentation is to take 2 radically opposite things, place them in the same category, and then conclude that they are therefore equivalent or similar.

Allow me to illustrate how talmudic your argument is:

a) The presence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement

b) The absence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement

c) Therefore, the presence of such a law is similar or equivalent to the absence of such a law.

If the flaw in c) is not apparent as you read it, I'm just going to have to move on (no offence).

The flaw is I never claimed b.). I'm not arguing absence of a law, I'm arguing less law. The free banking era and the Bank of Scotland had less law, but it still had a positive amount of law, and so therefore was legal. In the case of Scotland, if I understood it correctly, the Sovereign of the Realm granted the bank permission to issue the sovereign's currency. The BIIIIG question I would ask: can you pay your taxes in Bank of Scotland-issued notes?

I don't see why it's necessary to call that Talmudic reasoning. It's just a fallacy.  (Unless you want to call it a Talmudic-flavored fallacy)

On 1/26/2018 at 5:00 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

I don't understand the relevance of barter, nor is it news to me that the barter system was never a thing. David Friedman explained how it is inevitable for some commonly held commodity to be used as money. Anyhow, the quote:

"9000BC - 6000BC] Subsequently both livestock, particularly cattle, and plant products such as grain, come to be used as money in many different societies at different periods. Cattle are probably the oldest of all forms of money, as domestication of animals tended to precede the cultivation of crops, and were still used for that purpose in parts of Africa in the middle of the 20th century."

I get that he claims that cattle is probably the oldest form of money, I just don't see the explanation why.

On 1/26/2018 at 5:00 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

My argument was that government contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to the body of work that culminates in the development of a nuke, and thus, the nuke is not a valid example of government invention.

In other words, I'm making a relative claim. So to disprove this, you'd have to compare government numbers with private sector numbers. All you've done is cited government results, which begs the question: compared to what?

And I thought I had given relative evidence. What I quoted mentioned that, prior to the Manhatten Project, there had been less than a single ounce of uranium produced in the US because of the engineering problems of producing it. The Manhattan Project, using the entire power of the US government, was able to engineer enough uranium to not only make bombs, but to make plutonium to make bombs. Obviously they took things out of the private sector to do this, and I'm not saying the private sector couldn't have done it eventually; I'm also not saying that this is an pro-argument for the existence of government--all I'm saying is this is an example of where the government achieved significant something before the private sector did. This was an engineering feat beyond anything the world had ever seen, private or public sector. As Quigley points out, historically it's on par with humanity's development of agriculture.

[Fashus Maximus]

On 2/1/2018 at 7:23 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I'm not arguing absence of a law

That's the problem. The legal arrangement was an absence of a law preventing issuance of currency; quoting the article: "[banks] also are free to issue their own paper currency". An absence of such a law, cannot be a positive amount of law.

On 2/1/2018 at 7:23 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I don't see why it's necessary to call that Talmudic reasoning.

Talmudic because it's typically a jewish line of reasoning used only against the goyim. You don't seem jewish to me, so I couldn't help but wonder why on earth you have talmudic argumentation. Out of curiosity, do you have a jewish wife or best friend or something? Doesn't really matter, in the end.

On 2/1/2018 at 7:23 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I get that he claims that cattle is probably the oldest form of money, I just don't see the explanation why.

A better question is how could they not be used as money? The need to trade is always there, and so is the difficulty to barter. So what people will be constantly asking each other "Is there anything I can offer you, in which you will accept as payment, regardless of whether you need it for its utility?"

The answer to that is any commodity that is also money, such as rice. You can always accept it as payment, because you can either eat it now, or eat it in the future. Same goes for everyone else, so everyone else will accept it too, no matter how much rice they already have. Before you know it, rice is the de facto money regardless of whether they intended it or not.

On 2/1/2018 at 7:23 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I thought I had given relative evidence. What I quoted mentioned that, prior to the Manhatten Project, there had been less than a single ounce of uranium produced in the US 

I didn't think that this would be the comparison. That ounce of uranium took everything since the renaissance to make. What you're missing is how development cycles work with respect to the varying costs involved.

E.g. The first pill of any drug will cost you billions of dollars and many years to produce. All the others cost a few cents per pill, and you can make them by the billions. So, if the government were to take over this hypothetical drug after the first pill was developed, and proclaim that it was equally capable of making such pills, I'm sure you can see how wrong that is.

[Vengey_Abel]

On 11/25/2017 at 5:16 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Money is a medium for value and it is a huge labor saving device compared to lugging around crap tons of stuff around for say a computer, and also is more efficient than bartering because the payer doesn't need to predict what the seller wants, the payer can simply give the seller cash with which to buy what the seller wants.

It essentially makes cities possible and makes it goods far more accessible than otherwise. 

I mean hypothetically speaking if I wanted a computer and the computer guy wanted a ton of apples but all I had was words on paper then I'd have to find someone willing to exchange a ton of apples for words on paper (and chances are he'd be willing to give like 1/10th of a ton but not all of a ton nor 10 books of the same thing), and then I'd have to lug all those apples to the computer store only to discover the computer guy now wants oranges. And the oranges guy wants f__king grapes. And the grapes guy wants tomatoes. And the tomato guy wants...

...You see how this BS goes? Money makes it so much easier. 

It has also made our enslavement more complete.
We may purchase health with it in the morning, but at the end of the day we still host the disease.

[Vengey_Abel]

On 1/26/2018 at 6:00 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

I read this and 2 things came to mind: 1) my counter-argument, 2) what a talmudic line of reasoning. And then, I keep reading and sure enough, you've been reading David Graeber; I would highly suggest you be mindful of talmudic arguments when reading jewish books, as you end up believing your own nonsense. A classic talmudic argumentation is to take 2 radically opposite things, place them in the same category, and then conclude that they are therefore equivalent or similar.

Allow me to illustrate how talmudic your argument is:

a) The presence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement

b) The absence of a law preventing issuance of currency is a legal arrangement

c) Therefore, the presence of such a law is similar or equivalent to the absence of such a law.

If the flaw in c) is not apparent as you read it, I'm just going to have to move on (no offence).

I don't understand the relevance of barter, nor is it news to me that the barter system was never a thing. David Friedman explained how it is inevitable for some commonly held commodity to be used as money. Anyhow, the quote:

"9000BC - 6000BC] Subsequently both livestock, particularly cattle, and plant products such as grain, come to be used as money in many different societies at different periods. Cattle are probably the oldest of all forms of money, as domestication of animals tended to precede the cultivation of crops, and were still used for that purpose in parts of Africa in the middle of the 20th century."

My argument was that government contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to the body of work that culminates in the development of a nuke, and thus, the nuke is not a valid example of government invention.

In other words, I'm making a relative claim. So to disprove this, you'd have to compare government numbers with private sector numbers. All you've done is cited government results, which begs the question: compared to what?

"Relatively" speaking, comparing any government numbers with "ours" -is a no-starter. It's control of money that gets the thing done. Otherwise, corporations would be selling out to governments. Rothschild quoted it best...

Arguing over the function of what we currently use as "money" can't get anywhere in an impending fiat storm. It's a daily crap shoot then what a bottle of water is actually WORTH.

[Vengey_Abel]

On 2/2/2018 at 9:05 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

That's the problem. The legal arrangement was an absence of a law preventing issuance of currency; quoting the article: "[banks] also are free to issue their own paper currency". An absence of such a law, cannot be a positive amount of law.

Talmudic because it's typically a jewish line of reasoning used only against the goyim. You don't seem jewish to me, so I couldn't help but wonder why on earth you have talmudic argumentation. Out of curiosity, do you have a jewish wife or best friend or something? Doesn't really matter, in the end.

A better question is how could they not be used as money? The need to trade is always there, and so is the difficulty to barter. So what people will be constantly asking each other "Is there anything I can offer you, in which you will accept as payment, regardless of whether you need it for its utility?"

The answer to that is any commodity that is also money, such as rice. You can always accept it as payment, because you can either eat it now, or eat it in the future. Same goes for everyone else, so everyone else will accept it too, no matter how much rice they already have. Before you know it, rice is the de facto money regardless of whether they intended it or not.

I didn't think that this would be the comparison. That ounce of uranium took everything since the renaissance to make. What you're missing is how development cycles work with respect to the varying costs involved.

E.g. The first pill of any drug will cost you billions of dollars and many years to produce. All the others cost a few cents per pill, and you can make them by the billions. So, if the government were to take over this hypothetical drug after the first pill was developed, and proclaim that it was equally capable of making such pills, I'm sure you can see how wrong that is.

Funny how 'development cycles' work along so advantageously with financial cycles.

[HenryJubeda]

On 11/25/2017 at 10:57 PM, Vengey_Abel said:

If any one thing affects us ALL daily, globally, and perpetually...it is Money.

 

What is the stuff?
 

What has it done to us?
 

What should it do for us?
 

...and what is THE most important question that we should ask?

 

 

Money is a universally traded good within a scope. Currency is a form of money, but cows could be money in a society where people would trade cows for everything within that society. Currencies are usually owned by some entity like a state or a business. For example, it's currently very popular for online gaming stores to give you "points" that are worth the same as money within the scope of the website. Within the website, these points function as money, but they are useless outside of the scope of the website, just like any fiat currency is effectively useless outside of the scope it is used in. In North America, people are unlikely to accept pesos or euro coins as legal tender, because those currencies can't easily be exchanged for value in the form of goods and services within the scope of North America.

It's very important to understand that the goal of money is to be EXCHANGED for value in the form of goods or services. This allows it to be a form of stored value, as money should not perish unless something drastic happens to the value claimed by said money, or the currency the money is denoted in. For example, in Zimbabwe the value production crashed after the blacks killed all the whites, which made the money worthless. To "remediate" this issue, Mugabe then tried to print more money to solve the issue, like a retarded 4 year-old would reason is a good idea. This of course means that the reality of "total value produced" divided by "total units of currency" resulted in bills worth trillions of Zimbabwean dollars that could buy you absolutely nothing.

The idea of money is that your value production is expressed in your earnings, so that you are motivated to produce a lot of value when you are young, so that you can take raise a family and take care of yourself when you are old and unable to work as much or as hard or maybe even at all. Any excess money can be used to improve your quality of life, give your kids better chances, invest in businesses etc etc etc. The people who contribute the most to society earn the most money, so their offspring is more likely to succeed due to being able to access the best knowledge and having a better starting point to succeed from. Voluntary exchange of money is basically eugenics, as people who produce nothing will not have the resources to attract a mate and reproduce. Violating this principle results in dysgenics, which is the dumbest people breeding the most successfully.