 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
hash3m,
Anyone can, and I know for a fact that some do, trade down, and they do so on purpose.
Trading down is a reference to the monetary value. Economics is concerned with SUBJECTIVE VALUE. Thus when I trade a Ferarri for a scooter, I have thereby demonstrated that I valued obtaining the scooter more than keeping the Ferarri.
When you repeat your viewpoint in this thread, what are you doing? Are you trading down or up? You could trade in another thread, a thread where the topic is your advertised viewpoint. What is the point of repeating your way of seeing things, over and over again, in this thread?
You may trade a Ferrari for a scooter, and you may do that because you want a scooter, and you may do that because you don't want the Ferrari as much as the scooter. Thanks for keeping me out of your dogmatic way of seeing things. I don't go there, I see things differently and I prefer to see charity as charity. People can be, and people are, charitable when people have that plan and when people execute that plan. There isn't only your plan, and there isn't only the Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System plan. Thanks for making your latest advertisement here exclusive to you, rather then making your latest advertisement here inclusive to everyone (which it is not).
You may trade a scooter for a Ferrari, and you may do so for whatever reason you come up with, and that doesn't have anything to do with me, this topic, or my way of seeing actual, real, current, and accurate modern economic activity - where charity is included in it.
Charity is, perhaps, one small part, so a reader who may be reading this may do good, do a more accurate job, of placing charity in an accurate place, and avoid confusing charity with another actual, real, current, and accurate modern economic activity called "dumping".
Dumping can be seen as "giving away the razor so as to sell razor blades".
"Giving away" in such a case isn't "charity" when compared to, say, someone volunteering to serve old people at the old folks home, for no pay, even when doing so requires time off of a paying job.
The point of me communicating both "Charity" and "Dumping" is to point out, again, that the Austrian Dogma is incomplete, from a more complete, or more accurate perspective of economy, where people wander from equitable transactions to the extreme ends of wandering.
Example of the extreme ends of wandering from equity can be seen with a laundry list as such:
Equity
That is the middle. That is when one person trades at a measurably equitable rate with someone else. To use the Ferrari for a scooter example, the traders are both completely satisfied with the trade, as far as they are concerned. As far as those two are concerned 1 Ferrari is worth as much as one scooter.
Now that we have a base by which to measure these two people during that transaction we can add to both sides of equity. I can put equity in the list as number 2 and can add number 1 and number 3 to both sides of equity.
1. Blank
2. Equity (1 Ferrari = 1 scooter)
3. Blank
If 1 Ferrari is given up for nothing in return, then the trade is not equitable.
- Not equity A (1 Ferrari = nothing in return)
- Equity
- Not equity B (1 pile of nothing = 1 Ferrari)
Which is a sustainable method of operation? Clearly, it seems to me anyway, that equity is sustainable and wandering off of it is merely charitable. The giver upper will run out of things to give up, and must return to work, or starve, or depend upon charity.
The receiver, if receiving more for less is taken to the obvious limit, will consume all the charitable people. When the receiver has all the Ferraris, all the scooters, all the food, all the power, the limit is reached - obviously. Everyone else has starved to death.
Equity is sustainable. Wandering from equity is also sustainable such as 6 of one and half a dozen of another is sustainable, or what comes around goes around, or perceptions such as "karma" are sustainable (so far).
Being taken to the cleaners by the same "trader" tends to grow old, and the "giver" (the one receiving less for nothing, or some unsustainable measure of trade) tends to find more equitable traders because, perhaps, being taken to the cleaners is obviously unsustainable. The giver gives up. The reciever has an interest in sustaining the inequitable flow to him, or her.
Anyone, please, please note here, I'll put a big red marker here too.
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.
[size=NOTE THE CLAPTRAP HERE]
Who is this person arguing with? A sentence is true, then the arguing person follows up the true sentence with the word "No", then adds a comma, and then another true statement
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.
Fraud begins as an interest in someone's mind.
That is a true statement.
Why would someone react to that true statement with the word "No"?
Fraud begins as an interest in someone's mind. That is true. Why respond to that true statement with a false reaction to it?
If the person responding to the true statement could disprove the true statement, then would that person do so, or would that person do something else, and what is that "something else", and why is that person failing to disprove the true statement, and why is that person doing whatever that person is doing here?
I have no problem with someone following up a true statement with more true statements. There are many forums, many topics, and many places to "state the obvious", such as "thinking begins in someone's mind" and "fraud hasn't occurred until it has actually occurred" or "black is black" and "white is white" or "the sun is the greatest source of power in this solar system" - well that last one may be "iffy".
Why add "no" in between the true statement I published and the true statements published after repeating the true statement I published? What is the point of that false ad?
Why downgrade a word? Why is this person re-defining a word? Why is this person miss-associating the word "accuracy" with the word "subjective"? What is the point of this example of duplicity?
I clarified the murder part because you had brought it up, and the rest of your post is typical confusion of the meanings of fraud, criminal, victim, all accompanied by your usual abandonment of objective terms for subjective ones like "accuracy."
Who is this person arguing with, again, and again, and again, and why do that in here, why spill that brawl into this particular topic on this particular forum, there must be a reason, is this a purely random occurrence?
If you concede property rights as the basis for all human systems, your entire argument would crumble. A criminal is someone who uses someone's property without their volunteering. A victim is someone who's property was used without their volunteering. Fraud is implicit theft of property.
That argument happened to wander in here of all places? Where is this Straw-Man whose argument will crumble? I see only the creator of the Straw-Man and his personal argument, where this "property rights" dogma proliferates, confuses, or does whatever it's designer has planned for it to do.
If the idea is to accurately convey the meaning of crime, if that is what is to be done, then my observation is to direct focus at the criminal, to see the criminal planning the crime, and then see the criminal execute the crime, to see the process as it occurs from beginning to end.
- Criminal
- Blank
If the topic is crime, the argument between the Sraw-Man and his creator can crumble their own arguments about crime, as they see fit, my part of this discussion, on that part of that diversion from this subject, is not an argument. My part is to see crimes at the origin of it - or sooner, and to see it accurately as soon as possible, so as to have the time, and the power, to avoid it, be i libel, or be it torturte and mass murder.
My part isn't an argument; nothing to crumble. I won't be the victim of this libeler, if I can see the plan unfolding in time.
I can employ my power to communicate accurate currency.
Accurate currency is productive purchasing power; in a universal sense.