 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Alright so how do you determine whether a currency is "innacurate"?
hash3m,
Person A exchanges with person B. Person B thinks the exchange is accurate as Person B receives a personal check in exchange for an old gold wedding ring.
Person A thinks that the gold ring is gold.
The gold is not accurate since the gold ring is a lead ring painted gold or some other inaccurate gold, not really gold, not accurately gold.
The personal check isn't accurate either, there isn't anyone anywhere, as it turns out, willing to exchange the personal check for anything, and it was a one time form of inaccurate currency by that measure.
The measure of inaccuracy is a check that cost the receiver of the check one fake gold ring and all the time and energy spent on finding out exactly how inaccurate the check is, in fact. The measure of inaccuracy is also the cost of all the time and energy expended in finding out that the gold ring was not gold, after all.
Had the gold ring been plated with gold, the measure of inaccurate currency wouldn't be the same measure of inaccuracy as was the gold painted ring.
Had the gold ring been all gold the measure of inaccurate currency wouldn't be the same measure either, and from the rubber check writer's perspective the rubber check and the gold could be seen by him or her as an accurate form of currency. The check was worth one gold ring. The ring is worth one gold ring. The currency to him or her, the rubber check writer, is accurate currency.
On the other hand the ring passes from someone who can measure the inaccuracy of the rubber check as inaccurate currency, inaccurate to the tune of one gold ring and all the costs required in finding out that the rubber check is, in fact, inaccurate currency.
At least the victim now knows that the rubber check writer writes rubber checks.
Currency that is designed to be inaccurate, on purpose, can be seen as currency that is accurate, precisely accurate, from the perspective of the producers, designers, and maintainers of inaccurate currency as they receive wealth by that use of currency. Who measures it? How is it measured?
A. The currency accurately transfers wealth from the deceived consumers.
B. The deceived consumers transfer wealth even if they don't know it at a measurable rate and the measure is a measure of inaccuracy, not accuracy, from the perspective of the victims.
The U.S. National debt is a number. Is it accurate? Is it currency? What does it do? What is it designed to do? Who uses it, why is it used, what is the cost of using it? Are there alternatives to its use, a currency that is more accurate (able to transfer more wealth from more people, faster, to fewer people, "better" and more "accurate" in that sense) or is the competition less accurate (not able to transfer wealth at all from the users to the producers of the competitive currency)? Is accurate currency accurate from each and every user of it, or not?
A. Universally accurate
B. Not A
Also, is the "accuracy" of a currency more relevant than the preferences of transacting individuals? It seems if it were, that would imply currency-monopoly of some sort.
You and I are not far off in viewpoints, while you and the Straw-Man you create, the one you place my name on, may have an argument going, I suspect you do, and those two sentences quoted above measure up to me as accurate currency, universally accurate, words that covey meaning, agreeable meaning, equitable meaning perhaps.
I could explain what I mean, but who am I speaking with, the reasonable person or the one who libels?
If the currency is measured as accurate by both people in one transaction then who can say that the currency is inaccurate?
Example:
The fake gold guy was paid with the rubber check for his fake gold and then, the fake gold guy pays for something else with the rubber check, a used car perhaps. Meanwhile the rubber check writer pawns the fake gold ring on someone else, buying a handful of Federal Reserve notes perhaps.
What has happened? The currency passes as accurate currency, yes or no?
Eventually the rubber check is falling apart, paper deteriorates, the ink fades, etc. Eventually the gold paint wears off the ring. Eventually someone measures the currency accurately. Currency is dynamic, not static. Money could be seen as a static thing, perhaps.
The argument for the sake of argument costs something to one of us, perhaps the other one of us gains by that routine somehow. This topic doesn't ask for libel. The victim here has not volunteered to be libeled. The exchange is inequitable; the currency is false by that measure. The currency is inaccurate by that specific measure.
Example:
I just don't see why you hate competition.
That is an example of inaccurate currency. I do not hate competition, far from it. Competition is the power, or the force, that drives prices down to cost, and the power, or the force that drives quality up to the highest possible limit of quality and quality in this sense is universal, not "quality" in a one way sense, as shown above, the quality of accurate currency is universal to all, not "quality" to someone using currency as a means of getting something for nothing from some hapless victim.
That false sentence quoted above is not a "quality" sentence from my view. From the view of the author of that sentence, as that sentence publishes what it publishes, is obviously a quality sentence to the author, or the person writing it would not write it. It was a "quality" sentence during the process of creating it, publishing it, etc. By that measure it appeared to be worth something. The moment this reader read that sentence this reader found that sentence to be false, to be another example of libel, to be of a very low quality, very inaccurate, an example of inaccurate currency, costly to me, a cost that isn't easily measured. The reward, perhaps, gained by the writer may also be difficult to measure.
Why does anyone produce and distribute inaccurate currency? What is the point? Where is the demand for it? I certainly don't want any inaccurate currency. Who does? Who wants inaccuracy currency? Who produces it? Why do they produce it? Who distributes it? Why do they distribute it? How does something not wanted by so many people become current, become active, and flowing within a social structure? Why is falsehood produced to such great abundance when roughly half the people involved are injured by that production of inaccurate currency, at least half, and the other half are the only one's who benefit by that production of that inaccurate currency?
How do the producers of inaccurate currency manufacture demand for it? How do the consumers, the victims, come to see the inaccurate currency as necessary or desirable to a point where the victims consume the false stuff?
What is the process by which inaccurate currency becomes legal? Why, for example, are liars, known liars, proven liars, elected to office regularly? Is the process incorporating inaccurate currency as a tool to be used toward that end, that goal, where wealth transfers from the producers of wealth to the producers of inaccurate currency?
Why do the people continue to work in exchange for inaccurate currency? Who duped them into such an inequitable deal? How was that accomplished, exactly?
Is there a demand for higher quality and lower cost currency? If not, why not?
The power to collect wealth from many producers of wealth is a power. Once that power exists the collected wealth can increase. When wealth becomes a power to purchase, and that power increases, what is the limit of possible increase in that power to purchase?
In Rome, the Senators privately conquered territory outside the pennisula, used captured estates and slave labor to produce cheap food, exported that food into Rome, and bankrupted the Roman farmer. End of Roman Republic, beginning of Roman Empire. Sound familiar.
Can that power purchase defense against crime, avoidance of crime?
Can that power purchase criminals willing to commit crimes, to lie, to cheat, to rob, to rape, to torture, and to mass murder for a piece of the action?
If that power is used for defense against crime, that power to transfer wealth from many, to increase the collective power, and then use that power to purchase defense against crime, is that something called insurance? Is that simply a process that can be called: Insurance?
People send wealth, give it up, transfer wealth, to a collective pot of wealth, and in return the process insures the purchaser against crime.
That is simple.
If, on the other hand, the process is crime, then the consumers will get what they pay for, yes or no?
If crime is called socialism, it is still crime. If crime is called capitalism, it is still crime. Falsehood hides the truth, yes or no? Who produces it? Why do they produce it, and can't you see that it is inaccurate currency?
What does accurate currency look like? Is it past the point of no return? Is accurate currency not welcome, not demanded, not even on the table?