 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
hash3m,
You're still perfectly backwards on the concept of value.
You are still creating and publishing falsehoods and targeting me with those false creations. That sentence targets me, and it is false.
From my view your falsehoods are good, not perfect, examples of fraud. You are the fraud, you target your victim, and your intended victim is me. I see an opportunity to defend against your fraud.
From your view, perhaps, your viewpoint isn't as good an example of fraud as your fraud is to me. Your fraud is good, I'm just able to defend against it - somewhat.
See how there are two sides to this exchange.
When someone fails to see the other side of the exchange, it seems to me, the person doing the failing is apt to misunderstand the other side of the exchange, the person who fails to understand the other side of the exchange is prone to get it wrong, perhaps even backwards. I don't know what you think. I know what I think.
You're still perfectly backwards on the concept of value.
Someone so caught up in an attractive belief, a favored way of seeing things, is someone who may mistake that way of seeing things to be the only way to see things, and no other way of seeing things is possible. That is a case of self defeating, closed minded, false belief.
Value can be seen as cost. This isn't new stuff.
You're still perfectly backwards on the concept of value.
Example:
Replacement cost.
A common practice in the effort to accurately measure value is a calculation based upon accurate estimates of replacement costs.
If someone could show me where I am "perfectly backwards" on anything they might actually do so - if they could.
You're still perfectly backwards on the concept of value.
What is the point, again, of arguing with your own preferred Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying Systematic fleecing of the working people? Why are you brining that argument in here?
Economics is concerned with subjective value, as it's demonstrated. Not before it's demonstrated, and not as it's perceived in the minds of non-parties to the transaction, and not objective nominal values. If I transact voluntarily, I have thereby demonstrated my preference for what I receive over what I gave for it.
Who are you arguing with? Why bring your Straw-Man in here?
Your economic viewpoint may very well be as it is; but what does that have to do with me, what does that have to do with this topic?
If you prefer something and someone else has it, go ahead and get it, and go ahead and think about what you are doing in any way you can conjure up or follow if your thinking follows some pre-recorded dictates or dogma.
Why are you publishing those subjective viewpoints in here?
This topic concerns accurate currency from a Joe's Law perspective; so, wouldn't your publications of the argument you are having with your Straw-Man be perfectly not backwards in a topic having the title you choose to place on your argument with your Straw-Man?
As far as I know, and you could correct any of my errors if I am working with errors, your Austrian Economic Theories require a specific type of currency and your way of seeing things isn't such that the currency you employ is, by design, universally accurate. As far as I can tell, and you aren't giving up any trade secrets, not willingly, as far as I can tell you prefer fraudulent currency, where the currency is accurately made fraudulent by you so as to be an accurate tool you use to conduct your fraud, to gain your interest, to get what you want at the expense of your victims; but what does all that have to do with this topic?
I'm not one of your victims, not so long as I can defend against being one of your victims, so it makes sense that you now bring along your Straw-Man so as to conduct your argument against your own nebulous viewpoint. Why not discuss the topic instead?
I am a poor referee here since you prefer not to have a referee during your argument with your Straw-Man. You ignore specific things that refer to accurate data, you ingore specific things that are examples of accurate data, and you even manage to re-define the concept of accuracy in your mind, or so your words suggest.
What is the point of continually ignoring the topic and continually arguing with your Straw-Man, and what is the point of falsely associating me with your self-created Man of Straw? I am not arguing with you, what would be the point? What would be the point of arguing with someone who makes up false ideas and then attributes those false ideas to their chosen opposition? You can do that all by yourself, you don't need me to place your false idea on, why not find someone who will accept your false ideas placed upon them as you wish? Why am I so special to you? Why do you pick me, of all the forums, on all of the World Wide Web, why pick me to conduct your false advertisements?
Why pick this thread?
What is the point?
The point of this thread is to accurately communicate the concept of accurate currency (universally accurate and not fraudulently accurate from the fraud's unique perspective) from a Joe's Law perspective; which is a power perspective.
Joe's Law:
Power produced to a state of abundance will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases since power reduces the cost of production.
In order to view a power perspective such as the one I view it may be a good idea to shed the dogma that dictates the necessity of inaccurate currency - or fraud. There is no place for fraud, or inaccurate currency, in a productive power perspective, since, logically, destructive power, like inaccurate currency, or fraud, destroys - rather than producing.
That is what you say, why are you claiming that "economics" said what you said (or wrote)? Now your Straw-Man has taken off one hat and your Straw-Man has donned a hat called: "Economics"? Can I meet this guy, or is this guy actually you - again?
If I give a Ferrari away for free, economics says I therefore valued having nothing over keeping the Ferrari.
If I give a Ferrari away, I do it, and I do it for reasons that may not be understood by you. You might very well get my reasons backwards, perhaps not perfectly backwards, but so far you have a long history of failing to feed back any measure of understanding concerning what I think. So far your feedback appears to be inspired by what you misunderstand concerning what I think, so much so, that it appears from my view that you are arguing with some imaginary creation that you have constructed without my help.
What does your Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System have to do with me, or this topic?
Why can't you speak for your own thoughts? Why do you pretend that some nebulous entity speaks your thoughts instead of you? Do you think that Mr. "Economics" will inspire greater belief than you can?
You are behind that curtain. I can see you working the levers.
Who are you asking? Are you asking your Straw-Man? Why are you constructing these libels here in this thread? Why are you targeting me with you inaccurate currency?
Can you patent your mind-reading technology please?
What is the purpose of your "help" - here?
Please find a place where your argument is appropriate, or please explain why you are targeting me with this "help", or whatever this is that you are doing.
One of the fundamental principles of economics is that we can't read minds, which is why we can only determine subjective value as it's demonstrated. People can lie, or they may be unable to decipher their own complex thoughts, but when they act voluntarily their preferences become demonstrated.
Your argument above appears to be defending this:
It appears as if you are defending a concoction of legal doctrine, perhaps, I don't know. What is the point of creating an argument and then confusing the argument you create with an ever expanding series of false viewpoints?
Fraud begins as an interest in someone's mind.
No, thinking begins in someone's mind. Fraud hasn't occurred until it has actually occurred.
A fraud, or a price, or a cost, or any viewpoint occurs. If that is true, if such things do occur, then a time and a place where it begins can be accurately known. A time and a place where it ends can be accurately known too.
What is the point of claiming that these things can only occur at one time, and not have a beginning and an end? Are you stepping from your preferred Economic dogma into your preferred Legal dogma? How many possible diversions from the topic are possible?
Someone dead set on creating a never ending argument has an advantage over someone who prefers to communicate accurately, in a universal sense.
If you desire argument for the sake of argument, can you get it, if you want it, if you love it, if you need it, and if you must have it - I suppose.
What is the point of your part in these diversions from the topic? Will your answer be true? Will your answer be accurate?
Example:
Does that confess your desire for argument? When no argument originates from me, or anyone, do you create an argument out of thin air? What is the point of continuing this charade if your beliefs concerning what I may or may not do are proven to be inaccurate?
The whole reason I put the effort into distinguishing the subjective feelings of "accuracy" from the objective fact of fraud is because I believe you will ultimately try to argue against some forms of voluntary exchange on the basis of "inaccuracy." I believe you will try to illegitimate some forms of voluntary transaction by labeling them "inaccurate."
What really drives you into here? Do you really think that I am going to mislabel something? That is what you do. If you are transferring or projecting your faults onto me, and then fearing your mirror image, then this whole business you are conducting here makes sense to me. I prefer not to believe in my reasoning here, certainly not without some acknowledgement on your part, since you are the only one who knows what you actually think, presumably. I can only guess. I can only guess based upon what you do, or I have to trust what you say.
So far what you say about me has nothing to do with me. So far what you say is demonstrably false, demonstrably fraudulent, and so far, as far as I am concerned, you libel me, and you do so repeatedly. That is hardly the stuff worthy of trust.
So, really, what are you doing here?
What is the point?
Suppose the dollar hyper-inflates, going back toward the topic, and suppose that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Indians, Japanese, and Hugo Chavez's Economic power (including oil), take over the power associated with the term "World Reserve Currency"?
What, other than ignorance (a destructive power), stops the people in this land from creating their own accurate currency to replace the hyper-inflated (and thereby power-less) dollar, and what stops that accurate currency (replacing the dollar) from competing and winning market share from the hypothetical new Reserve Currency suppliers?
The answer is simple. The Dollar Hegemony must destroy all competition at all cost or it will lose market share, and The Dollar Hegemony (the people who wield that power) currently has the power to eliminate competition within this legal regime (North America, or the U.S.A).
That stops any effort, and all effort, to the extent of it's power (the power wielded by specific people) to effectively produce an accurate currency to replace the fraudulent currency. That is the power, and it is real.
On the other hand; there are people who are gaining power where these competative people are producing a more accurate currency and gaining market share. All is not necessarily lost, not by a long shot; the power struggle isn't won by those who destroy alone. Someone must actually produce productive power.
Is productive power going to be invested toward the production of more and more productive power, or will power be employed to destroy competition?