The Long Road to Residency

[Timshel]

Yea, right. Conversion to socialism. Was the economy of the 1890s socialist? Grow up. Either that or grow a brain.

Proof positive that when discussing, you have nothing but hollow claims of "proof" you cannot back up, ridiculous assertions that Mississippi and Maryland's economies are external to each other in the same way China and the U.S. economies are internal to each other. Compare wages in the U.S. to poor countries in order to claim we have high wages, international trade is just a collection of transactions, etc. etc. etc.

You are a fucking idiot, studying hard to be a moron. You don't even grasp the fact that money represents the real wealth of the nation that issues the money, and if an outside agent holds that money, it is a debt on the issuing nation.

You probably think money has an intrinsic value.

Go back to your drug dreams, idiot. You haven't a foggy fucking clue what you are talking about.

Proof of sheer unadulterated ignorance. Do Maryland and Mississippi coin their own currency? OR, does the United States and China coin the same currency?

When statements like this are made, how do you expect thinking people to take you seriously?

Nothing but non sequitur and straw man arguments.

Money is not a debt. I have already demonstrated that it is not and you did not offer counter argument.

I have something for sale, you have money. I am not indebted to you. If I agree to sell then a transaction takes place or it does not. No debt is incurred.

Now if you had something for sale it would be a little wrong not to take back the dollars you just gave me. But you still get to set a price.

We can't buy their goods with our dollars and then bar them from using those dollars to buy goods we offer for sale. Of course not, if we did the dollar would have no value to them. But, on whatever they buy from us we still have say in the price and a transaction will not take place unless the American seller agrees to the price. There is no reason to assume that the seller will do so except at a price that he finds to be of greater value than the item sold.

That does not mean money has intrinsic value. I am not sure how you made that leap. In the example above, it is clear the money would be worthless to a foreign exporter who was barred from the use of his dollars to buy some good. But it is not a debt. We just agree to except those dollars in exchange for some item we have for sale at a price to which we agree. It's no different than what makes the dollar work in the transaction between you and I. We both accept it as currency and so it has value.

The argument was not that the Maryland and Mississippi economies have more in common than with China's. You claimed they were internal to each other. They are not. They are internal to the US and all are internal to the world. You simply don't see the citizens/state of Mississippi as an enemy as you do the citizens/state of China.

But there is no need for this us against them nonsense between individuals, states or nations in the market. The market is not a shell game where wealth is simply shuffled from buyer to seller or vice-versa. Trade benefits both parties and that is how wealth is created.

There is no need to keep them out of the party. The more the merrier as more trading partners only increases the chance of getting the best price whether you are buying or selling. This can only increase the capacity for wealth creation.

Like it or not, you are expressing economic bullshit that is boilerplate for many clueless lefties. You see the market as some war zone where there are victims and vicious exploiters. But the market functions because both parties to a transaction come to terms that are agreeable to them.

 

[Lao Tse]

Nothing but non sequitur and straw man arguments.

Money is not a debt. I have already demonstrated that it is not and you did not offer counter argument.

I have something for sale, you have money. I am not indebted to you. If I agree to sell then a transaction takes place or it does not. No debt is incurred.

Now if you had something for sale it would be a little wrong not to take back the dollars you just gave me. But you still get to set a price.

We can't buy their goods with our dollars and then bar them from using those dollars to buy goods we offer for sale. Of course not, if we did the dollar would have no value to them. But, on whatever they buy from us we still have say in the price and a transaction will not take place unless the American seller agrees to the price. There is no reason to assume that the seller will do so except at a price that he finds to be of greater value than the item sold.

That does not mean money has intrinsic value. I am not sure how you made that leap. In the example above, it is clear the money would be worthless to a foreign exporter who was barred from the use of his dollars to buy some good. But it is not a debt. We just agree to except those dollars in exchange for some item we have for sale at a price to which we agree. It's no different than what makes the dollar work in the transaction between you and I. We both accept it as currency and so it has value.

The argument was not that the Maryland and Mississippi economies have more in common than with China's. You claimed they were internal to each other. They are not. They are internal to the US and all are internal to the world. You simply don't see the citizens/state of Mississippi as an enemy as you do the citizens/state of China.

But there is no need for this us against them nonsense between individuals, states or nations in the market. The market is not a shell game where wealth is simply shuffled from buyer to seller or vice-versa. Trade benefits both parties and that is how wealth is created.

There is no need to keep them out of the party. The more the merrier as more trading partners only increases the chance of getting the best price whether you are buying or selling. This can only increase the capacity for wealth creation.

Like it or not, you are expressing economic bullshit that is boilerplate for many clueless lefties. You see the market as some war zone where there are victims and vicious exploiters. But the market functions because both parties to a transaction come to terms that are agreeable to them.

Laborers are disadavantaged when the labor market is glutted with workers abroad. From the worker point of view, he cannot compete with the foreign labor, not because his is lazy but because the cost of living in his western society is so much greater. Also when we allow the de facto slave labor of despotic foreign government sculpt the internal economy to make wage slaves of his people we only incentivize tyranny and fascism. Trade needs to be limited to trading partners with similar civil rights views and concepts of acceptable worker freedoms, to avoid a race condition to the bottom for wokers.

For a while now, they have been hiding these flaws in globalization model for the middle class with loose credit, but now they're sucking that out of the system.

You continually cite lower prices to the consumer as the justification for all your zealotry, but a consumer must also work; he must be something inside the supply chain besides consumer. A society cannot last with CONSUMER as it's comparative advantage specialty.


And you're still ignoring the intrinsic value of being independant and able to produce the diverse products needed for our national success. Supply lines stretching far into the lands of conceivably hostile territories is a logitics nightare, should war erupt. It's like you want us to lose. F you, globalist jackwad.

 

[Timshel]

You are wrong. American laborers are quite competitive, regardless of higher wages. The higher cost of living here comes with, and, is largely because of, a higher standard of living. Much of the competitive advantages we hold comes from the higher standard of living.

Civil rights have increased as barriers to trade have fallen. They will continue to increase as greater wealth among the masses will bring more political power and more desire for all the benefits that freedom bring. Also, the rule of law is clearly a great benefit to efficient market function and so adoption of it will become more attractive in order to maintain growth.

I don't have a problem with boycotts to bring about civil rights advances, but there is no reason why our government needs to dictate that to us or that some should decide it for all. They would just be violating our rights and those of foreign citizens in doing so. You can organize a boycott without the government. You just can't force everyone to participate.

 

[Good Luck]

You talk about me making strawman arguments. YOU are the one labeling people socialist, fascist, etc. I guess when the point of an argument sails over your head like a well thrown football over a defender, you can label it anything you want.

Not once did I say Mississippi and Maryland are internal to each other. They are, as you say, internal to the United States, and in sharing currency of the nation they are members, trade is internal to the United States. As such, it does not matter.

YEs, it DOES matter when things go international, because there IS NO ONE WORLD ECONOMY. China coins and issues their currency, Britain coins and issues their currency, Zimbabwe coins and issues their currency, the U.S. coins ans issues our currency, etc, etc, etc, for each and every nation on this planet. Mississippi and MAryland do NOT coin and issue their own currency, they use United States currency.

You claim to have "demonstrated" that money is not a debt. Unfortunately your "demonstration" is a load of shit. Money is nothing but a symbol of real wealth. Period. Nations claim the authority to coin money because if everyone did so it would pretty much result in chaos. However, the fact that coining money is a reserved authority for national governments does not change what it is.

Let's set aside for a moment the fact that only the United States government can coin money. Say people have that right. So a person goes to another person with money they coined themselves and gives that person some of their coined money for a product at a rate of exchange they agree upon. (They know and trust each other) What does that money mean to the person who received it? It means that they have the right to RETURN that money to the issuer, at some later date, for other real goods at an agreed upon rate of exchange. If the money did not represent to person B the ability to return it for real wealth, they would not have taken it in the first place. But as long as person B holds that money, it is DEBT upon person A who coined and gave them that money. In getting something real for it in the first place, it places the obligation on them to reimburse it with something real later. Another way of putting it is money is a MARKER. It says person A got a real product or service from person B, and now person B has the authority to use that marker to gain back something real in return.

To make things more complicated, let's say person B now gives person A's money to person C. Now person C is functionally owed the debt by person A. The debt has been transferred with person B receiving real goods or services for the money. Now person A has the product they got from person B and a debt to the money they issued to buy the goods with. They still have the obligation to redeem the money when it is presented to them for redemption. Person B has their product from person C, and is even. They sold their product to person A and received a product from person C using person A's marker. Person C now hold person A's marker (money), so person A is now in debt to person C for the economic value of the marker (money) they issued originally to person B.

Now, let's say person A gives some of their self-issued coinage money to his wife in return for making supper, who gives it to their daughter in return for doing the dishes, who gives it to her little brother in return for making the beds, who gives it back to his mother for a piece of string for his kite, who gives it to her husband for taking out the trash, etc, etc, etc. As long as the marker (money) stays inside the issuing entity (person A's household) then it is not, as you say, debt. So it is with money inside the United States. As long as we keep it here, it is nothing more than a convenient way to reach agreed relative values between items of real wealth. But as soon as one of them takes the money and uses it OUTSIDE the issuing agency, THEN it becomes debt on the issuing entity until the marker is returned to the issuing entity to be redeemed by real goods or services.

And THAT is the danger of UNBALANCED free trade. We are issuing our currency to outside entities who can then treat it as debt against our economy. How long would you be willing to give your neighbor a beer And while, contrary to your baseless accusations, I do not view China as our enemy, the REALITY is they are NOT an entirely friendly nation. If you actually think they, an admittedly, PROUDLY, full-blown Maoist socialist state, will not use our trade deficit against us in political matters, then you are truly beyond any scope of reality.

You also continue to ignore the effect of free trade - at least, how free trade is being used against the American worker. If a company decides safety regulations are too expensive to observe, they move outside the borders and people are suddenly without work. If a company decides paying $23/hr is too much for assembly line work, they move and people are out of work. These companies then sell their stuff, which is good for them. The ccompanies that buy the goods import them, and resell them onn the retail market, employing SOME of the people who lost their jobs to companies moving away, most often at lower wages than the jobs that got moved out of country.

You think the above is not a reality, then you really are deluded.

So I ask you again, HOW IS THAT BENEFITING US? The Chinese government benefits. The Chinese people (you know, those poor people you are so worried about) do not benefit - they are still slaves to their political masters working at state-set wages for U.S. companies that pay the Chinese government a share of profits for the privilege of setting up shop in China. The Chinese government benefits because they not only get some of the profits, but have the U.S. over there helping them build their industrial base. (Which is not, of itself a BAD thing, but like any tool, is bad when it is being used in a bad way.)

U.S. companies benefit because they avoid the costs of operating within the U.S. U.S. consumers benefit in a way, by having access to less expensive (cheap) goods. Less expensive is good, anyway. Cheap is not, as cheap always ends up costing more in the long run. But do American workers benefit? NO! They are working for less (if at all) because their jobs went out of our borders. And other workers also are receving less because the unemployment cause by free trade has made labor a buyer's market.

But the workers ARE the consumers, so are the consumers REALLY benefiting? I wonder how many would be willing to pay a little more for domestic goods IF they could afford them by getting their higher paying exported jobs back?

 

[Canceled2]

You talk about me making strawman arguments. YOU are the one labeling people socialist, fascist, etc. I guess when the point of an argument sails over your head like a well thrown football over a defender, you can label it anything you want.

Not once did I say Mississippi and Maryland are internal to each other. They are, as you say, internal to the United States, and in sharing currency of the nation they are members, trade is internal to the United States. As such, it does not matter.

YEs, it DOES matter when things go international, because there IS NO ONE WORLD ECONOMY. China coins and issues their currency, Britain coins and issues their currency, Zimbabwe coins and issues their currency, the U.S. coins ans issues our currency, etc, etc, etc, for each and every nation on this planet. Mississippi and MAryland do NOT coin and issue their own currency, they use United States currency.

You claim to have "demonstrated" that money is not a debt. Unfortunately your "demonstration" is a load of shit. Money is nothing but a symbol of real wealth. Period. Nations claim the authority to coin money because if everyone did so it would pretty much result in chaos. However, the fact that coining money is a reserved authority for national governments does not change what it is.

Let's set aside for a moment the fact that only the United States government can coin money. Say people have that right. So a person goes to another person with money they coined themselves and gives that person some of their coined money for a product at a rate of exchange they agree upon. (They know and trust each other) What does that money mean to the person who received it? It means that they have the right to RETURN that money to the issuer, at some later date, for other real goods at an agreed upon rate of exchange. If the money did not represent to person B the ability to return it for real wealth, they would not have taken it in the first place. But as long as person B holds that money, it is DEBT upon person A who coined and gave them that money. In getting something real for it in the first place, it places the obligation on them to reimburse it with something real later. Another way of putting it is money is a MARKER. It says person A got a real product or service from person B, and now person B has the authority to use that marker to gain back something real in return.

To make things more complicated, let's say person B now gives person A's money to person C. Now person C is functionally owed the debt by person A. The debt has been transferred with person B receiving real goods or services for the money. Now person A has the product they got from person B and a debt to the money they issued to buy the goods with. They still have the obligation to redeem the money when it is presented to them for redemption. Person B has their product from person C, and is even. They sold their product to person A and received a product from person C using person A's marker. Person C now hold person A's marker (money), so person A is now in debt to person C for the economic value of the marker (money) they issued originally to person B.

Now, let's say person A gives some of their self-issued coinage money to his wife in return for making supper, who gives it to their daughter in return for doing the dishes, who gives it to her little brother in return for making the beds, who gives it back to his mother for a piece of string for his kite, who gives it to her husband for taking out the trash, etc, etc, etc. As long as the marker (money) stays inside the issuing entity (person A's household) then it is not, as you say, debt. So it is with money inside the United States. As long as we keep it here, it is nothing more than a convenient way to reach agreed relative values between items of real wealth. But as soon as one of them takes the money and uses it OUTSIDE the issuing agency, THEN it becomes debt on the issuing entity until the marker is returned to the issuing entity to be redeemed by real goods or services.

And THAT is the danger of UNBALANCED free trade. We are issuing our currency to outside entities who can then treat it as debt against our economy. How long would you be willing to give your neighbor a beer And while, contrary to your baseless accusations, I do not view China as our enemy, the REALITY is they are NOT an entirely friendly nation. If you actually think they, an admittedly, PROUDLY, full-blown Maoist socialist state, will not use our trade deficit against us in political matters, then you are truly beyond any scope of reality.

You also continue to ignore the effect of free trade - at least, how free trade is being used against the American worker. If a company decides safety regulations are too expensive to observe, they move outside the borders and people are suddenly without work. If a company decides paying $23/hr is too much for assembly line work, they move and people are out of work. These companies then sell their stuff, which is good for them. The ccompanies that buy the goods import them, and resell them onn the retail market, employing SOME of the people who lost their jobs to companies moving away, most often at lower wages than the jobs that got moved out of country.

You think the above is not a reality, then you really are deluded.

So I ask you again, HOW IS THAT BENEFITING US? The Chinese government benefits. The Chinese people (you know, those poor people you are so worried about) do not benefit - they are still slaves to their political masters working at state-set wages for U.S. companies that pay the Chinese government a share of profits for the privilege of setting up shop in China. The Chinese government benefits because they not only get some of the profits, but have the U.S. over there helping them build their industrial base. (Which is not, of itself a BAD thing, but like any tool, is bad when it is being used in a bad way.)

U.S. companies benefit because they avoid the costs of operating within the U.S. U.S. consumers benefit in a way, by having access to less expensive (cheap) goods. Less expensive is good, anyway. Cheap is not, as cheap always ends up costing more in the long run. But do American workers benefit? NO! They are working for less (if at all) because their jobs went out of our borders. And other workers also are receving less because the unemployment cause by free trade has made labor a buyer's market.

But the workers ARE the consumers, so are the consumers REALLY benefiting? I wonder how many would be willing to pay a little more for domestic goods IF they could afford them by getting their higher paying exported jobs back?

You did a great job with this post GL...excellent! I am afeared however that the resident hair splitter will find some stray blond hair to harangue you with...LOL

 

[Good Luck]

Civil rights have increased as barriers to trade have fallen. They will continue to increase as greater wealth among the masses will bring more political power and more desire for all the benefits that freedom bring. Also, the rule of law is clearly a great benefit to efficient market function and so adoption of it will become more attractive in order to maintain growth.

I don't have a problem with boycotts to bring about civil rights advances, but there is no reason why our government needs to dictate that to us or that some should decide it for all. They would just be violating our rights and those of foreign citizens in doing so. You can organize a boycott without the government. You just can't force everyone to participate.

Shit.

Civil rights have increased because the PEOPLE demanded them. It has nothing to do with wealth or with free trade (which is NOT increasing the average wealth of American Workers anyway). Need I remind you that the MAJORITY of civil rights movements have come from the POOR, and it was NOT because they were getting wealthier thus had more political power. Civil rights increased because the victims stood up and DEMANDED that they be treated equally. And when their demands became large enough, loud enough because of the sheer mass of people, THEN they had the political power to FORCE (yes, force on everyone) the recognition of their equal rights as U.S. citizens. And THEN civil rights increase was FOLLOWED by an increase in wealth by those who had demanded equal (or at least better) treatment.

The idea that wealth increases BEFORE, which results in increased civil rights is full on bovine cookies.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Southern Man
Borders language culture. Toss them out and we no longer have a country.

WOW...that came straight from Savage's mouth, didn't it?

How many other of his catchphrases to you parrot?

Excellent catch, Zap. Savage (real name Weiner) appeals to dullards eager to soothe their panicky, low information minds. He feeds them slogans, mantras and headlines...but his substance usually does not stand the cold light of analysis.

Since no one that I know of is advocating the eradication of borders, or the elimination of English as the standard language or usurping American "culture" (which is a subjective claim to some extent), Savage is just doing his lowest common denominator appeal schtick.

Funny thing though, is that if one were to do a poll of all the remaining Native peoples tribes, you'd probably get a lot of agreement to Savages statement...although I don't think Savage would agree with the reasoning behind a Native person saying such.

 

[Timshel]

You talk about me making strawman arguments. YOU are the one labeling people socialist, fascist, etc. I guess when the point of an argument sails over your head like a well thrown football over a defender, you can label it anything you want.

Again, nAHZi was throwing around the fascist label, as he always does. I simply pointed out that it fits him much better.

I did not mean to say you were a socialist. The point, is your talking points and arguments are no different than those used by the left. Your root error, zero sum theory of trade, is key to the errors made by the left on economic issues.

Not once did I say Mississippi and Maryland are internal to each other. They are, as you say, internal to the United States, and in sharing currency of the nation they are members, trade is internal to the United States. As such, it does not matter.

Yeah, you did. #94, you claimed any trade deficit between the states was internal. It is not.

The trade deficit between Maryland and Mississippi matters just as much as that between the US and China. You have argued that the richer trading partner must be impoverished through trade. If that were true there would be no reason that trade between the states would not impoverish Maryland.

Again, you simply view the foreign nations as the enemy and so resent their gains, while you don't share that resentment of Mississippi.

YEs, it DOES matter when things go international, because there IS NO ONE WORLD ECONOMY.

Uhhh, yes, there is. It is simply the sum of transactions of the entire world instead of those of a nation.

China coins and issues their currency, Britain coins and issues their currency, Zimbabwe coins and issues their currency, the U.S. coins ans issues our currency, etc, etc, etc, for each and every nation on this planet. Mississippi and MAryland do NOT coin and issue their own currency, they use United States currency.

Ummm, international trade is conducted primarily in US dollars. I don't know why you think that matters, though.

You claim to have "demonstrated" that money is not a debt. Unfortunately your "demonstration" is a load of shit. Money is nothing but a symbol of real wealth. Period. Nations claim the authority to coin money because if everyone did so it would pretty much result in chaos. However, the fact that coining money is a reserved authority for national governments does not change what it is.

Let's set aside for a moment the fact that only the United States government can coin money. Say people have that right. So a person goes to another person with money they coined themselves and gives that person some of their coined money for a product at a rate of exchange they agree upon. (They know and trust each other) What does that money mean to the person who received it? It means that they have the right to RETURN that money to the issuer, at some later date, for other real goods at an agreed upon rate of exchange. If the money did not represent to person B the ability to return it for real wealth, they would not have taken it in the first place. But as long as person B holds that money, it is DEBT upon person A who coined and gave them that money. In getting something real for it in the first place, it places the obligation on them to reimburse it with something real later. Another way of putting it is money is a MARKER. It says person A got a real product or service from person B, and now person B has the authority to use that marker to gain back something real in return.

To make things more complicated, let's say person B now gives person A's money to person C. Now person C is functionally owed the debt by person A. The debt has been transferred with person B receiving real goods or services for the money. Now person A has the product they got from person B and a debt to the money they issued to buy the goods with. They still have the obligation to redeem the money when it is presented to them for redemption. Person B has their product from person C, and is even. They sold their product to person A and received a product from person C using person A's marker. Person C now hold person A's marker (money), so person A is now in debt to person C for the economic value of the marker (money) they issued originally to person B.

Now, let's say person A gives some of their self-issued coinage money to his wife in return for making supper, who gives it to their daughter in return for doing the dishes, who gives it to her little brother in return for making the beds, who gives it back to his mother for a piece of string for his kite, who gives it to her husband for taking out the trash, etc, etc, etc. As long as the marker (money) stays inside the issuing entity (person A's household) then it is not, as you say, debt. So it is with money inside the United States. As long as we keep it here, it is nothing more than a convenient way to reach agreed relative values between items of real wealth. But as soon as one of them takes the money and uses it OUTSIDE the issuing agency, THEN it becomes debt on the issuing entity until the marker is returned to the issuing entity to be redeemed by real goods or services.

Even in your example, which is wrong, it is not a debt. They only have the right to return it to the issuer in another transaction which will be a new agreement between them. They don't have a claim on any real assets.

Your example is wrong for many reasons. If I issue money there is nothing to say that I must accept it in return for any goods. I might, simply, not offer any goods for sale. The value of my money would not be determined solely by my acceptance of it, though, but by the markets acceptance of it.

You would be foolish to just accept my money in return for some future right to buy a product at a price I am willing to take. If the exchange were to happen immediately it would just be barter. If you really wanted a debt then you would be advised to agree to accept a certain amount of assets at a future date (again barter). It would be silly to accept some worthless right to make some future agreement on a transaction. If I am the only one accepting the dollars in exchange for goods then I have you by the short hairs and would likely gouge the shit out of you in the future transaction.

Money is of value not because it represents a claim to any actual goods but because it is happily accepted for payment in transactions by many sellers. There still has to be another agreed upon transaction, though, before that value is realized.

And there is nothing different about the transactions taking place within the household. The coin no more or less represents a debt and you have failed to explain why the husband is not OWED another supper in exchange for the coin. He is not owed shit. He can offer the coin for supper and his wife is free to refuse or accept the transaction. Nothing changes when the coin passes outside the house or the country.

You also continue to ignore the effect of free trade - at least, how free trade is being used against the American worker. If a company decides safety regulations are too expensive to observe, they move outside the borders and people are suddenly without work. If a company decides paying $23/hr is too much for assembly line work, they move and people are out of work. These companies then sell their stuff, which is good for them. The ccompanies that buy the goods import them, and resell them onn the retail market, employing SOME of the people who lost their jobs to companies moving away, most often at lower wages than the jobs that got moved out of country.

You think the above is not a reality, then you really are deluded.

So I ask you again, HOW IS THAT BENEFITING US? The Chinese government benefits. The Chinese people (you know, those poor people you are so worried about) do not benefit - they are still slaves to their political masters working at state-set wages for U.S. companies that pay the Chinese government a share of profits for the privilege of setting up shop in China. The Chinese government benefits because they not only get some of the profits, but have the U.S. over there helping them build their industrial base. (Which is not, of itself a BAD thing, but like any tool, is bad when it is being used in a bad way.)

U.S. companies benefit because they avoid the costs of operating within the U.S. U.S. consumers benefit in a way, by having access to less expensive (cheap) goods. Less expensive is good, anyway. Cheap is not, as cheap always ends up costing more in the long run. But do American workers benefit? NO! They are working for less (if at all) because their jobs went out of our borders. And other workers also are receving less because the unemployment cause by free trade has made labor a buyer's market.

But the workers ARE the consumers, so are the consumers REALLY benefiting? I wonder how many would be willing to pay a little more for domestic goods IF they could afford them by getting their higher paying exported jobs back?

This all comes down to you believing that you are better able to make choices for the American consumer than they are as individual actors in the market. You don't appreciate their values or choices and therefore feel justified in demanding that they buy based on things you value.

I agree that buying cheap stuff does not always pay. Penny wise and pound foolish, is what I say. But I am not so arrogant as to assume I know how to satisfy a buyers needs better than he or she does. You wish to assume the choices are irrational, while I assume they are simply based on different value judgments. That is, the person that buys on the cheap values the savings more than the added qualities or features.

 

[Timshel]

Hair splitting. The idiot is confused about what money is and he did nothing in the last post but commit new errors in the attempt to defend the incorrect position that money represents a debt.

 

[Timshel]

Shit.

Civil rights have increased because the PEOPLE demanded them. It has nothing to do with wealth or with free trade (which is NOT increasing the average wealth of American Workers anyway). Need I remind you that the MAJORITY of civil rights movements have come from the POOR, and it was NOT because they were getting wealthier thus had more political power. Civil rights increased because the victims stood up and DEMANDED that they be treated equally. And when their demands became large enough, loud enough because of the sheer mass of people, THEN they had the political power to FORCE (yes, force on everyone) the recognition of their equal rights as U.S. citizens. And THEN civil rights increase was FOLLOWED by an increase in wealth by those who had demanded equal (or at least better) treatment.

The idea that wealth increases BEFORE, which results in increased civil rights is full on bovine cookies.

Money adds to their volume. The poor are not able to reach their audience without resources. It was the NAACP, churches and other organizations that organized resources to advance civil rights. It took many years for those organizations to gain traction and it is clear that growing wealth among blacks is largely the reason efforts were more successful in the 50s-60s than just after emancipation. If they had still been at the levels of wealth that they were immediately following emancipation the struggle would have taken longer.

Greater wealth among the masses increases the expansion of individual rights and the reverse is also true. Further, free trade brings in new ideas and expands the sources of information. Like the wealth that results form free trade, freedom of inquiry both causes and is caused by the expansion of individual rights.

 

[Lao Tse]

Greater wealth among the masses increases the expansion of individual rights and the reverse is also true. Further, free trade brings in new ideas and expands the sources of information. Like the wealth that results form free trade, freedom of inquiry both causes and is caused by the expansion of individual rights.

So sending their jobs overseas or driving down wages with worker glut due to manipulated immigration policy are therefore bad.

 

[Lao Tse]

Hair splitting. The idiot is confused about what money is and he did nothing in the last post but commit new errors in the attempt to defend the incorrect position that money represents a debt.

money does represent a debt.

 

[Timshel]

money does represent a debt.

It does not. You, a person who rails against fiat money, should know this. But you rail against fiat money out of conspiracy fears, rather than knowledge of what it actually is.

As mentioned before, international trade is usually conducted in US dollars. If Canada buys some "cheap shit" from China it will pay for it in US dollars. But Canadian exporters are not obligated to accept the dollar in exchange for any goods. They will do so simply because the dollar has value as a commonly accepted medium of exchange.

US sellers are coerced to accept the dollar through legal tender laws, but if the dollars value goes to shit, forcing them to accept US dollars would be virtually impossible. The dollar would only have value to a seller in domestic transactions and therefore US exporters would be unlikely to accept it.

Another, thing that makes it clear that is not a debt is the ever changing exchange rates. With US dollars I could buy euros. Because it is not a debt, I would not be obligated to sale those euros for the same amount of dollars with which I bought them. I could even demand some other currency in exchange for the euros, but no one would be obligated to sale anymore than I am obligated to accept US dollars. But because the US dollar is highly valued I will more than likely attempt to sale the euros for more dollars than what I paid for the euros. The sale of the euros will only take place if I am satisfied with the price offered in the new transaction and the exchange rate used will be the one at the time of this new transaction not at the rate at which I bought the euros. There is no debt.

The value of fiat money is completely determined by its acceptance as a common medium of exchange. It can not be converted into some other commodity or even some other form of currency, as would happen if dollars were backed by gold. It is not a claim on a fixed amount of assets. It is accepted as payment by a seller because it is widely accepted as payment by other sellers. That is the ONLY reason it has value.

And you can demand that US citizens accept a worthless dollar and throw those who do not in jail. All you will do is push them into a black market where they will be able to exchange goods with more sound money. That is, exactly what happens in many nations where an unstable currency is legal tender.

A purchase of cheap shit by Americans with US dollars does not represent a debt or even any real requirement to accept the dollar as payment. Of course, if we refuse to accept US dollars for payment then we will diminish the value of the US dollar. But that is true if the Chinese exporters refuse to accept the US dollar as payment.

 

[Timshel]

The funny thing here is that, GL argued that I was somehow logically implying that money has intrinsic value when his argument is the one that implies that. By claiming that the dollar represents a debt he is arguing that it equals some tangible amount of real assets and if that were true it would have intrinsic value. For instance, if money were exchangeable for gold in fixed or fluctuating rates from the issuer then money could be said to be a debt, but it then also could be said to have intrinsic value.

The rate of exchange of dollars into gold could change. Whether the dollar is then a debt or has any intrinsic value comes into question based on whether the dollar is redeemable at the original exchange rate at the time of issuance or only at the current exchange rate.

That is, if the exchange rate changes and if old dollars are not redeemed at their issuance value, is it debt? It may still be said that the dollar is a debt in some sense as it would represent a claim on some, still tangible, newly established amount of gold. But the terms of repayment are then so volatile that it isn't what most would-be creditors look for in an investment, i.e., stability. It would be much more like a stock. In fact, money, fiat or not, is far more like stock than debt.

If everyone switched to a gold standard, though, it would just establish gold as the new universal currency. Gold would not represent a debt to the holder anymore than it does now or the current virtually universal currency (US dollar) does now.

Though gold has intrinsic value, once established as currency it's value will increase due to the same forces that cause fiat money to have value. That is, demand will increase for gold due to its acceptance as a common medium of exchange and the value to which it rises will be some combination of its fiat and intrinsic values.

A debt is a claim to a fixed amount of goods, since fiat money has no intrinsic it can not be said to be debt in any sense. A money could have intrinsic value and it still would not be debt, but it can not possibly be a debt, in any sense, unless and to the degree that it has intrinsic value.

 

[Lao Tse]

It does not. You, a person who rails against fiat money, should know this. But you rail against fiat money out of conspiracy fears, rather than knowledge of what it actually is.

As mentioned before, international trade is usually conducted in US dollars. If Canada buys some "cheap shit" from China it will pay for it in US dollars. But Canadian exporters are not obligated to accept the dollar in exchange for any goods. They will do so simply because the dollar has value as a commonly accepted medium of exchange.

US sellers are coerced to accept the dollar through legal tender laws, but if the dollars value goes to shit, forcing them to accept US dollars would be virtually impossible. The dollar would only have value to a seller in domestic transactions and therefore US exporters would be unlikely to accept it.

Another, thing that makes it clear that is not a debt is the ever changing exchange rates. With US dollars I could buy euros. Because it is not a debt, I would not be obligated to sale those euros for the same amount of dollars with which I bought them. I could even demand some other currency in exchange for the euros, but no one would be obligated to sale anymore than I am obligated to accept US dollars. But because the US dollar is highly valued I will more than likely attempt to sale the euros for more dollars than what I paid for the euros. The sale of the euros will only take place if I am satisfied with the price offered in the new transaction and the exchange rate used will be the one at the time of this new transaction not at the rate at which I bought the euros. There is no debt.

The value of fiat money is completely determined by its acceptance as a common medium of exchange. It can not be converted into some other commodity or even some other form of currency, as would happen if dollars were backed by gold. It is not a claim on a fixed amount of assets. It is accepted as payment by a seller because it is widely accepted as payment by other sellers. That is the ONLY reason it has value.

And you can demand that US citizens accept a worthless dollar and throw those who do not in jail. All you will do is push them into a black market where they will be able to exchange goods with more sound money. That is, exactly what happens in many nations where an unstable currency is legal tender.

A purchase of cheap shit by Americans with US dollars does not represent a debt or even any real requirement to accept the dollar as payment. Of course, if we refuse to accept US dollars for payment then we will diminish the value of the US dollar. But that is true if the Chinese exporters refuse to accept the US dollar as payment.

Fiat currencies are debt based, as their mere creation involved putting someonone on the hook to pay it back. So there are exchange rate between the fiat currencies. So what?

And what determines the value of the fiat currency? The power of the state to enforce it as legal tender. It depends on the killing power of the issuing regime. HEnce, why the military industrial complex has the bankers at it's core, perverting the very military apparatus of the state itself to their own personal ends.

Fiat currencies are too prone to manipulation and the money creating entity itself becomes a self perpetuating cone of currency totatitarianism. Human society is rejecting fiat currency, the lynchpin in the internationalist fascist control matrix.

 

[Timshel]

Fiat currencies are debt based, as their mere creation involved putting someonone on the hook to pay it back. So there are exchange rate between the fiat currencies. So what?

It is not. Your argument is logically inconsistent and just inaccurate. Fiat money can not be debt because it cannot be reclaimed for any fixed or tangible item, as would be true if the dollar was backed by gold.

And no one is on the hook for a fucking thing. No one is obligated or has agreed to pay back anything in exchange for a dollar. When and if the dollar comes back, the domestic seller and foreign buyer simply agree to another transaction. It is not settlement of a previously agreed to debt.

And what determines the value of the fiat currency? The power of the state to enforce it as legal tender. It depends on the killing power of the issuing regime. HEnce, why the military industrial complex has the bankers at it's core, perverting the very military apparatus of the state itself to their own personal ends.

You are an idiot and a scared little bitch, so you cloud your thinking with dark conspiracy bullshit as usual.

The power of the state to enforce it as legal tender ALONE does not determine the value of fiat currency. It's common and willful acceptance for payment determines the primary source of value with fiat currency.

As noted, if the dollar goes to crap and is no longer commonly accepted as payment, then all that is left is it's value as legal tender domestically. The state may try to stabilize it's value by jailing those who refuse it as payment or even those who accept some other currency as payment. But all that will result from that is the spawning of black markets that will not trade in the dollar, further decreasing it's value. This is proven by actual facts and has occurred numerous times in other nations with less stable currency.

Legal tender laws are practically useless. If the dollar is not willfully accepted as payment it's value will go to shit and no amount of state force will fix that. If the dollar is willfully accepted as payment it's value is not truly impacted by legal tender laws. They are not necessary to coerce sellers into accepting the dollar as payment.

Legal tender laws can make fiat currency have some small value, but it will only be worth barely more than the paper it is printed on, if that. The truth is, legal tender laws ensure that the government alone will accept it as payment. It will continue to have some value in the payment of taxes. But that will be about the only use it will have in the black markets that will not accept it for all payments.

Fiat currencies are too prone to manipulation and the money creating entity itself becomes a self perpetuating cone of currency totatitarianism. Human society is rejecting fiat currency, the lynchpin in the internationalist fascist control matrix.

I am not defending fiat currency, retard. I am simply telling you what it is.

 

[Good Luck]

Stringy cannot read to save his fucking life.

Trade between states is INTERNAL THE THE UNITED STATES. Therefore, functionally there is no such thing as deficit trading between states because it still remains in-country which is a unified economy.

No, there is NOT one world economy. The world economy is a fiction created by idiots to justify the manipulation of wealth across national borders while the people of both nations take it up the tail pipe. Each country manipulates as best they can for their own best interest and multinationals manipulate for their best interest, while NO ONE manipulates it in favor of the people. If it were truly ONE economy, it would be a fully cooperative effort, as happens within a single country. Again, stringy has theory, but reality bitch slaps it like a $20 pimp.

Money has no intrinsic value. It is merely representative of real wealth. When an entity issues money, it is based on real wealth. If there is not wealth behind the money, then it is just printed paper or numbers in a spread sheet. BECAUSE it DOES represent real wealth of the issuer, then it is incumbent on the issuer of the money to be ready and able to reimburse the holder of the currency for its value in real wealth. The idea that this simply represents a new transaction is bullshit. What is to prevdent the issuer from claiming their OWN currency has half the value in real wealth that it did when the issuer spent it? Going back to the scene where individuals coin their own currency, if I thought I would have to renegotiate said currency's value in order to return it to the issuer, I WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT. Currency could not work if it's value were renegotiated AFTER the issuer used it for a previous transaction. So, once again Stringy's theory does not hold up to the reality of currency in international economics.

And to reinforce the idea that currency is a debt against the issuer's wealth, when most currency was PM based, the direct implication was that if an entity held any paper currency, they had the RIGHT to demand the equivalent value of PM as represented by the currency note. Therefore, the currency DID, indeed, represent a debt against the PM based wealth of the issuing nation. Shifting to a fiat currency IN NO WAY changes this basic fact: money represents wealth, and therefore is a debt against the issuing agency when held by an entity outside said agency. Being fiat currency simply makes the AMOUNT of debt fluctuate slightly between transactions, but the DEBT itself still remains.

The idea that debt must be some fixed value is ridiculous in the extreme. If I owe someone $100, what does that mean in real economic terms. Behind that "fixed value" of $100 is the reality that those dollars are nothing more than represenntatives of real wealth, and the relative value between a dollar and an item of real wealth fluctuates, therefore the debt in terms of real wealth fluctuates.

THEN stringy tries to do the logic double-take, claiming that the idea of currency being debt against the issuing entity means I am claiming money has intrinsic value. What a fucking lying crock of shit! Does a loan contract have intrinsic value, or is it's value resident in the debt (ie: implied obligation to pay it back) of the debtor to the creditor? Stringy does logical tap dancing of the first order. The prima ballerina of economic theory.

And he STILL has failed to address how sending jobs out of country (one of the prime consequences of free trade), leaving U.S. workers with lower (relative to previous conditions) paying jobs or, in far too many cases, no job at all, BENEFITS the U.S. consumers WHO IS THE FUCKED OVER WORKER!

 

[Canceled2]

Hair splitting. The idiot is confused about what money is and he did nothing in the last post but commit new errors in the attempt to defend the incorrect position that money represents a debt.

He's correct...and you are the master hair-splitter.

 

[Timshel]

Stringy cannot read to save his fucking life.

Trade between states is INTERNAL THE THE UNITED STATES. Therefore, functionally there is no such thing as deficit trading between states because it still remains in-country which is a unified economy.

I read just fine. You simply don't understand what you are saying. The deficit between Maryland and Mississippi is a wash at the federal level just as the deficit between the US and China is a wash at the global. If these deficits are important between the US and China then they are no less important between Maryland and Mississippi. You simply choose to evade that point by pretending that Maryland and Mississippi are on the same team while pretending the US and China are not.

No, there is NOT one world economy.

Yes, there is.

The world economy is a fiction created by idiots to justify the manipulation of wealth across national borders while the people of both nations take it up the tail pipe. Each country manipulates as best they can for their own best interest and multinationals manipulate for their best interest, while NO ONE manipulates it in favor of the people. If it were truly ONE economy, it would be a fully cooperative effort, as happens within a single country. Again, stringy has theory, but reality bitch slaps it like a $20 pimp.

You are just going off into vague conspiracy bullshit, like your buddy nAHZi, in order to evade the facts. Everything I have stated is based on the facts of real world transactions. Meanwhile, all you have is some vague bullshit involving boogeymen and no real world examples to explain your position.

Money has no intrinsic value. It is merely representative of real wealth. When an entity issues money, it is based on real wealth. If there is not wealth behind the money, then it is just printed paper or numbers in a spread sheet. BECAUSE it DOES represent real wealth of the issuer, then it is incumbent on the issuer of the money to be ready and able to reimburse the holder of the currency for its value in real wealth. The idea that this simply represents a new transaction is bullshit. What is to prevdent the issuer from claiming their OWN currency has half the value in real wealth that it did when the issuer spent it? Going back to the scene where individuals coin their own currency, if I thought I would have to renegotiate said currency's value in order to return it to the issuer, I WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT. Currency could not work if it's value were renegotiated AFTER the issuer used it for a previous transaction. So, once again Stringy's theory does not hold up to the reality of currency in international economics.

You are completely and thoroughly confused. The above is nothing but A mish-mash of contradictory statements.

Money is not an intrinsic value because it does not represent real wealth. THAT IS WHAT IT FUCKING MEANS TO SAY IT HAS NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

And to reinforce the idea that currency is a debt against the issuer's wealth, when most currency was PM based, the direct implication was that if an entity held any paper currency, they had the RIGHT to demand the equivalent value of PM as represented by the currency note. Therefore, the currency DID, indeed, represent a debt against the PM based wealth of the issuing nation.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. When it was based on PM it was convertible fixed good and therefore carried properties analogous to debt.

Shifting to a fiat currency IN NO WAY changes this basic fact: money represents wealth, and therefore is a debt against the issuing agency when held by an entity outside said agency. Being fiat currency simply makes the AMOUNT of debt fluctuate slightly between transactions, but the DEBT itself still remains.

Of course, it does. The money is no longer convertible into any tangible good. It's value is solely determined by it's common acceptance as a medium of exchange. THAT'S WHAT FUCKING FIAT MONEY IS.

The idea that debt must be some fixed value is ridiculous in the extreme. If I owe someone $100, what does that mean in real economic terms.

The same as it does in regular terms, i.e., that you owe $100.

Behind that "fixed value" of $100 is the reality that those dollars are nothing more than represenntatives of real wealth, and the relative value between a dollar and an item of real wealth fluctuates, therefore the debt in terms of real wealth fluctuates.

It does not matter if the lender intends to use those dollars for further transactions or intends to wipe his ass with them, he is owed $100 dollars.

THEN stringy tries to do the logic double-take, claiming that the idea of currency being debt against the issuing entity means I am claiming money has intrinsic value. What a fucking lying crock of shit! Does a loan contract have intrinsic value, or is it's value resident in the debt (ie: implied obligation to pay it back) of the debtor to the creditor? Stringy does logical tap dancing of the first order. The prima ballerina of economic theory.

A loan contract spells out exactly how much one owes, what form of payment will be accepted and when it is expected. It is an actual debt. None of those attributes are present when I buy some "cheap shit" from China. I am not obligated to return anything for the dollar. The original seller is not obligated to give me back the dollar. Any return of that dollar to a domestic seller is not at all affected by the original transaction. The terms will be agreed upon at the time of the new transaction.

And he STILL has failed to address how sending jobs out of country (one of the prime consequences of free trade), leaving U.S. workers with lower (relative to previous conditions) paying jobs or, in far too many cases, no job at all, BENEFITS the U.S. consumers WHO IS THE FUCKED OVER WORKER!

Why do I need to address a point you have not established? You claim it costs us jobs. It does not, it increases the number of jobs. Creative destruction moves the jobs around and for some that can be devastating. I don't object to safety nets to help people transition but attempting to resist the changes that bring about greater efficiency is extremely destructive to the whole of society.

 

[Good Luck]

A loan contract spells out exactly how much one owes, what form of payment will be accepted and when it is expected. It is an actual debt. None of those attributes are present when I buy some "cheap shit" from China. I am not obligated to return anything for the dollar. The original seller is not obligated to give me back the dollar. Any return of that dollar to a domestic seller is not at all affected by the original transaction. The terms will be agreed upon at the time of the new transaction.

YOU are not the United States of America. YOU did not issue the dollar with which you purchased cheap shit from China. Nor is Walmart. So, of course, the incumbancy is not on YOU, (or Walmart) is it?

It IS, however, on the United States Government who issued the currency. The currency help by China is a debt against the U.S. government. You can claim it is not all you want - it just shows you haven't a foggy clue what money really is or how it works. Your creative illogic about not having a numerically defined debt does not hold water. If on June 15, 2010 China holds 120 billion dollars U.S. currency, then that is 120 billion dollars worth of real wealth the U.S. owes China. The U.S. government issued the currency, the U.S. government is responsible for the value it represents. Again, even though you deny it (again showing your extreme ignorance) international trade is a LOT more than simply a Walmart buying a bunch of junk and selling it to U.S. consumers.

And your theory that switching from PM based currency to fiat currency somehow magically changes what money is and what money represents is, again, sheer unadulterated toatl and complete ignorance of the symbology of money and how that symbology works. The ONLY thing switching to fiat currency did is take PMs out of the middle of the value equation. When most countries used PM base currency, the relative value of things was based on their value in PMs. If a British Pound ccould buy 2 grams of gold and the U.S. dollar could buy 1 gram, then the British Pound was worth twice as much as the dollar. When buying wheat, the going rate of wheat in U.S. dollars was compared to the gold standard, and the converted to Pounds. Taske away the gold standard, and they STILL compare the price of wheat by converting using the relative value of the dollar to the pound. But push comes to shove, a certain amount of dollars STILL represents the value of a certain amount of wheat. (or beef, or oil, or manufactured electronics goods, etc. etc. etc.) All we did was take PMs out of the equation, which made relative values of currencies far less stable. But it did NOT change what money really is.

Of course, it does. The money is no longer convertible into any tangible good. It's value is solely determined by it's common acceptance as a medium of exchange. THAT'S WHAT FUCKING FIAT MONEY IS.

And, once more, dead assed WRONG. HOW do you think money is "accepted as a medium of exchange" UNLESS IT REPRESENTS VALUE INHERENT IN TANGIBLE GOODS? Take a dollar, it represents 0.72 loaves of wheat bread at Town & Country grocers. It represents 2 Salted Nut Rolls at CV Pharmacy. The VALUE of real wealth is EXPRESSED in terms of money. That is how it works. Value is represented. Other wise "medium of exchange" has zero meaning.

And different people place different values on items - that is why trade works. Value is ALWAYS relative. So saying debt must have an absolute value is stupid, there is no such thing as absolute value.

Why do I need to address a point you have not established? You claim it costs us jobs. It does not, it increases the number of jobs. Creative destruction moves the jobs around and for some that can be devastating. I don't object to safety nets to help people transition but attempting to resist the changes that bring about greater efficiency is extremely destructive to the whole of society.

Well, yes, you can deny reality and in doing so claim there is no point to address. But DL&S data clearly shows that manufacturing jobs have greatly diminished in the U.S. over the last couple decades, and also shows that replacement jobs are, on average, lower paying than the manufacturing job that was lost.

If you want to claim having some poor Chinese worker making items for $2.00/hr and no benefits in place of an American worker who made $15-$18/hr plus benefits, with about 25% of those savings passed on to the U.S. consumer and 75% of them filling corporate coffers, "changes that bring about greater efficiency", be my guest. If you want to apply your "change that brings about greater efficiency" to the American Worker filling a $12/hr job in place of the $15/hr job sent outside our borders, have at it. But take care of whose view you call disgusting.