Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Four Horsemen

Expand Messages
  • walto
    ... Internet discussions are often marred by the Dunning-Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
    Message 1 of 90 , Jan 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "harrypollard" wrote:
      >
      > > Roy,
      > >
      > > You exhibit the very problem I was referring to. You have been told certain
      > > things and you haven't thought to question these 'certainties'.
      >
      > The accepted definitions of common English words ARE certainties that we have ALL been "told," and are not subject to honest "question." Some people just refuse to know the facts that can be identified using those definitions, and like to make up their own definitions because that helps them to avoid knowing those facts.
      >
      > > Your meaning of 'money' is pretty useless.
      >
      > No, it is the correct and most useful meaning, and that is why it is used by all competent and honest English speakers.
      >
      > > You said:
      > >
      > > "No, it only requires a willingness to know the fact that money is what is generally accepted in exchange."
      > >
      > > So, checks are money.
      >
      > No, they are not, by definition, because they are not generally accepted in exchange. When you use a check to buy something, the person that accepts the check can't generally turn around and use it to buy something from someone else. What is money is the CONTENTS OF THE CHECKING ACCOUNT, of which the check effects a TRANSFER. The check is not money; it is an instruction to your bank to PAY money, as it says right on it in plain English that you would be able to read and understand, if you were willing to understand.
      >
      > I have proved all this to you before, many times, and you always just refuse to know the relevant facts of objective physical reality.
      >
      > > Travelers' checks are money.
      >
      > False. They are not generally accepted in exchange: they must be signed by the user in the vendor's presence.
      >
      > > Credit card slips are money.
      >
      > No, such claims are just false, absurd, and dishonest. If you find a credit card slip on the street -- or a waste bin full of them -- you cannot use them to buy anything.
      >
      > > In fact, way back in the 40's the London Coop would give you their
      > > own coins in their change. I forget why you took them, but they would be generally acceptable at any Coop store.
      >
      > IOW they were not GENERALLY accepted in exchange.
      >
      > > On the other hand, I recall that on
      > > a speaking trip to Northern California, I happened to run into 3 shops that
      > > would not take a check, not take a credit card, not take a $20 bill. (I remember it because I was amused and added it to a speech.)
      >
      > "Generally" does not mean "universally" or "invariably."
      >
      > > However, that's by the way.
      >
      > I.e., irrelevant. Right.
      >
      > > Money has two functions, It is an "exchange medium" and it's a "measure of value".
      >
      > As something's value is what it can be exchanged for, money is only useful for the latter function to the extent that it is useful for the former. And it is also a store of value and unit of account.
      >
      > > As Henry George observed (in 1879!) the "exchange medium" function has diminished in importance, while the "measure of value" function has become paramount.
      >
      > If that is what he said (there is always room for doubt regarding what you claim someone has said), he was incorrect: as I _correctly_ observed above, money CANNOT function as a measure of value EXCEPT insofar as it functions as a medium of exchange.
      >
      > > This change has continued since George and now money - or dollar
      > > bills -
      >
      > As I correctly pointed out to you above -- and on many previous occasions, and you have always just ignored and refused to know -- while dollar bills are money, money is NOT just "dollar bills." Paper currency is only one of the things that are generally accepted in exchange. Coins are also generally accepted in exchange, and the contents of demand deposit accounts are also generally accepted in exchange.
      >
      > I have proved all this to you before, many times, and you always just refuse to know it.
      >
      > > are used less and less even as most transactions - and certainly
      > > important ones - are carried out with an exchange of paper usually written up for a particular purpose.
      >
      > Right! The paper must be "written up for a particular purpose" because it is NOT GENERALLY ACCEPTED in exchange, and therefore is NOT MONEY. The paper that is written up for a particular purpose is a legal document that EFFECTS A TRANSFER of money. In the case of a check, it instructs your bank to transfer money from your account to the person cashing it. In the case of a credit card slip, it instructs the credit card company's bank to transfer money to the account of the person depositing the slip, and creates an obligation for you to transfer money to the credit card company.
      >
      > I have proved all this to you before, many times, and you always just refuse to know it.
      >
      > > Even this is now superseded by transfers. I haven't paid a utility bill, a
      > > credit card. or others, for years - using bits of paper. The payments are automatically deducted from my bank account when due.
      >
      > Payments are "deducted from your bank account," are they? Fancy that! I wonder what there could be in your bank account that could be deducted from it to satisfy a debt? Such a mystery...
      >
      > To you, that is.
      >
      > > So, are these deductions 'money'?
      >
      > They are TRANSFERS of money. They remove money from your bank account and put it into the accounts of those to whom you owe the money. I'm not sure how you prevent yourself from knowing such obvious and indisputable facts, but I know that you manage to do it somehow.
      >
      > > Not really, they are simply bookkeeping
      > > editing in which a value is moved from one account in the computer to another.
      >
      > Value... value... What could the "value" being moved be the value OF? Such a mystery...
      >
      > To you, that is.
      >
      > > Yet, they have become 'money' which leads to the thought that banks
      > > create money.
      >
      > Right. The contents of demand deposit accounts are generally accepted in exchange, and are therefore indisputably money. As banks create most of the contents of demand deposit accounts, banks indisputably create money. QED.
      >
      > > So, economists - already up to their ears in false reasoning - have decided
      > > that this bookkeeping editing is money and have thus declared it so.
      >
      > NO. It is not the "bookkeeping editing" that is money but the BANK'S OBLIGATION TO PAY, which the bookkeeping editing transfers from one account holder to another. That obligation to pay is nothing but a DEBT, which is why we live in a DEBT MONEY system.
      >
      > > But then they have a habit of piling error upon error until the original
      > > mistake is buried under ever more arcane verbiage. (One notes what they did to Land and its Rent.)
      >
      > Blatant ad hominem fallacy. Just because mainstream neoclassical economists are wrong about land and rent doesn't mean they are wrong about everything.
      >
      > > In all these kinds of exchanges (and bookkeeping) one thing remains constant
      > > - the measure of value. In the US this is the dollar. In all these
      > > transactions the measure of value is the dollar.
      >
      > Yet some of us are willing to know the fact that the value of the MEASURE of value has been changing....
      >
      > > (One notes that changing this value has not escaped the attention of
      > > politicians and their economists as they add error upon error.)
      >
      > _Someone_ is adding error upon error...
      >
      > > Anyway, Roy, changing your mind is a hopeless task.
      >
      > When I am right.
      >
      > > You know things because you have been told them - which source makes them true and not subject to question.
      >
      > Whereas you know things because you have made them up out of whole cloth, which source makes them true and not subject to question...
      >
      > > That's a shame.
      >
      > Indeed.
      >


      Internet discussions are often marred by the Dunning-Kruger effect:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

      http://psy.mq.edu.au/vision/~peterw/corella/237/incompetence.pdf

      W
    • roy_langston
      ... Inflation is shorter and more descriptive. ... Having a label and definition for the concept helps people share information about it. ... Maybe that s
      Message 90 of 90 , Feb 1 9:01 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "harrypollard" wrote:

        > So why not say they are changing systematically?

        "Inflation" is shorter and more descriptive.

        > How does calling rising prices inflation help to "understand how, when and why"?

        Having a label and definition for the concept helps people share information about it.

        > Whereas inflation in its original meaning indicates that the money issuer has done something.

        Maybe that's part of it: the apologists for bankster privilege want to conceal the fact that it is private commercial banks that are issuing the money, not government.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.