Can you describe the "Wealth Creating Engine" that has enabled American Greatness...

[Hubbs]

That's because the explanation is self-evident if the rest of what I'm saying is right. Think about what I've been saying. Assuming I'm correct - which is a pretty likely assumption for me to make - no net value is created if for every gain, there's a corresponding loss.

[alexey]

That's because the explanation is self-evident if the rest of what I'm saying is right. Think about what I've been saying. Assuming I'm correct - which is a pretty likely assumption for me to make - no net value is created if for every gain, there's a corresponding loss.

Alrighty then. Your assumption is not self-evident. More over, it is obviously wrong.

But yes, your assumption is correct if your assumption is correct.

[Hubbs]

Alrighty then. Your assumption is not self-evident. More over, it is obviously wrong.

But yes, your assumption is correct if your assumption is correct.

Do you not see the difference between the two assumptions? You're asking me to give an answer based on the first assumption. What exactly am I supposed to do to convince you of the second assumption if, by definition, I need to prove the first assumption correct first to give you that answer? I might as well ask you for evidence that there is a net gain in value, then ridicule you for saying that it would be self-evident if only you could convince me that a net gain in value is possible. I mean, ****ing duh. That's why I haven't asked.

[alexey]

Do you not see the difference between the two assumptions? You're asking me to give an answer based on the first assumption. What exactly am I supposed to do to convince you of the second assumption if, by definition, I need to prove the first assumption correct first to give you that answer? I might as well ask you for evidence that there is a net gain in value, then ridicule you for saying that it would be self-evident if only you could convince me that a net gain in value is possible. I mean, ****ing duh. That's why I haven't asked.

I have been very generous at providing evidence. The most obvious case of you being wrong is progress from short miserable lives on the edge of survival, which was the case several thousands of years ago, to modern living.

[Hubbs]

I have provided progress from short miserable lives on the edge of survival to modern living as evidence of net gain in value.

How do you rationalize your claim that humans did not produce a net gain in value over the last, say, 50000 years?

The same way I rationalize the fact that in that world that only contained you and me, when you spend more money for something, you have to spend less for something else.

I don't believe you ever answered that question, either. How do you spend just as much money on everything else if you want to spend more money on one particular thing?

[alexey]

The same way I rationalize the fact that in that world that only contained you and me, when you spend more money for something, you have to spend less for something else.

I don't believe you ever answered that question, either. How do you spend just as much money on everything else if you want to spend more money on one particular thing?

Was there value before there was money?

One tribe domesticates chickens. Another tribe domesticates cows. They meet and trade their secrets. Both tribes gain. Where is the equal corresponding loss?

[Hubbs]

Was there value before there was money?

I'm using money because it is the expression of value we most commonly use today. Money can't fully express value, because money itself is supposed to have a value. But it's the closest thing we've got to a unit of measurement. If you want to suggest another one, I'm all ears.

One tribe domesticates chickens. Another tribe domesticates cows. They meet and trade their secrets. Both tribes gain. Where is the equal corresponding loss?

In the value of the fruits, nuts, vegetables, etc. that both tribes were eating more often before they had a plentiful source of chickens and cows.

[alexey]

I'm using money because it is the expression of value we most commonly use today. Money can't fully express value, because money itself is supposed to have a value. But it's the closest thing we've got to a unit of measurement. If you want to suggest another one, I'm all ears.

Does money have intrinsic value?

In the value of the fruits, nuts, vegetables, etc. that both tribes were eating more often before they had a plentiful source of chickens and cows.

Actually no, both tribes traded their chickens and cows with a third tribe for the secret of argiculture. Everybody is now eating more fruits, nuts, vegetables, as well as meat.

[Hubbs]

Does money have intrinsic value?

Depends on what you mean by "intrinsic." Most of the time, yes. When people lose their faith in a currency, no.

You have to understand, when you say "money" you're mostly talking about "currency." Do sea shells have an intrinsic value? Well, sure, a little, to most people. Did they have a lot more when they were used as money by Native Americans? Hell yeah they did. And did they lose it when the Native Americans were wiped out? Yup.

Dollars are pieces of paper. Does paper have intrinsic value? Sure, a tiny bit, to most people. Do dollars normally have way more intrinsic value? Yeah, because we generally accept them to be un-counterfeit-able en masse, and we also accept them to be legal tender which anyone who lists a price of anything in dollars can be forced to accept by law. (I don't know if you've happened to see the video of a guy paying a towing company in 88,000 pennies, but I highly recommend it. Comedy all around.)

Actually no, both tribes traded their chickens and cows with a third tribe for the secret of argiculture. Everybody is now eating more fruits, nuts, vegetables, as well as meat.

Hold on, you just asked a question and then completely changed the parameters by introducing a third tribe. I'm trying to play by your own rules, but you can't just change those rules after I provide you with an answer.

[alexey]

Hold on, you just asked a question and then completely changed the parameters by introducing a third tribe. I'm trying to play by your own rules, but you can't just change those rules after I provide you with an answer.

I have created a plausible hypothetical where there is a net gain in value. What's your response?

[PeterMP]

I'm using money because it is the expression of value we most commonly use today. Money can't fully express value, because money itself is supposed to have a value. But it's the closest thing we've got to a unit of measurement. If you want to suggest another one, I'm all ears.

The fact that alexey nor I can suggest a good expression of value doesn't mean that by using money as an expression of value doesn't mean that your answers are any good. I asked before, if Bill Gates gives $50 million to a charity did he lose?

The fact of the matter is that neither one of us knows because neither of us values money in the same way that Bill Gates does, and neither of us understand what Bill Gates gains by doing so nor the value of what he gets.

The fact that I can't supply a right answer doesn't force to me to conclude that a wrong answer is the proper answer.

However, I'd suggest there must be a way measuring the effect on the total productivity of the system that is the best measure of the value of something.

In the case of Bill Gates, it would be hard to measure. Does giving money affect Bill Gates' mood? Does that play a role in his long term productivity, in terms of things like his health?

What does the charity do with the money? How affective are those actions as compared to the absence of the money?

In the value of the fruits, nuts, vegetables, etc. that both tribes were eating more often before they had a plentiful source of chickens and cows.

You're randomly alternating between transactions between individuals having winners and losers, which is what alexey's question was about, and THINGS gaining and in value or losing value.

They are two independent ideas.

I'm not sure if you do this purposely to avoid answering hard questions or you do it "accidently" when asked a hard question.

[Hubbs]

I have created a plausible hypothetical where there is a net gain in value. What's your response?

No, you asked a question, then changed the question after I answered it. Don't play games.

You also didn't create a plausible hypothetical scenario where there's a net gain in value. Let's be clear here. You created a plausible hypothetical scenario in which you think there's a net gain in value.

Seeing as I can pretty easily assume what the "new" question is, I would say that you're completely ignoring the value of earlier hunting and gathering. One method of getting food gains value as people determine that it works, the other method loses value. After domestication, you need two or three chickens to achieve the value of one chicken before. Food is food.

Now, I've created a hypothetical scenario where I think there's no net gain in value. You haven't devoted one second to answering my question. If you're gonna keep asking yours, you've gotta start providing answers. How do you spend more on one thing without spending less on others?

[Hubbs]

The fact that alexey nor I can suggest a good expression of value doesn't mean that by using money as an expression of value doesn't mean that your answers are any good. I asked before, if Bill Gates gives $50 million to a charity did he lose?

Yes, sorry, it's been easier to do the quick back-and-forths with alexey over the past day, I'll get to your other post.

Bill Gates certainly loses if we're measuring value in dollars.

The fact of the matter is that neither one of us knows because neither of us values money in the same way that Bill Gates does, and neither of us understand what Bill Gates gains by doing so nor the value of what he gets.

The fact that I can't supply a right answer doesn't force to me to conclude that a wrong answer is the proper answer.

However, I'd suggest there must be a way measuring the effect on the total productivity of the system that is the best measure of the value of something.

In the case of Bill Gates, it would be hard to measure. Does giving money affect Bill Gates' mood? Does that play a role in his long term productivity, in terms of things like his health?

What does the charity do with the money? How affective are those actions as compared to the absence of the money?

Yes, those are all very nebulous questions.

You're randomly alternating between transactions between individuals having winners and losers, which is what alexey's question was about, and THINGS gaining and in value or losing value.

They are two independent ideas.

I'm not sure if you do this purposely to avoid answering hard questions or you do it "accidently" when asked a hard question.

Hmmm. I suppose this is a fair criticism. Okay, let's back up a tad. When I originally made the winners/losers point, I was speaking in terms of whatever the measurement of value is at the time - for us, it's usually dollars. When I started to get peppered by questions about society as a whole, I tried to answer using the word "value" to generally mean how much society valued any given thing in relation to all other things, because you and alexey seemed too be using it to generally mean only the value of whatever particular good/service/idea we were talking about. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[PeterMP]

Yes, sorry, it's been easier to do the quick back-and-forths with alexey over the past day, I'll get to your other post.

Bill Gates certainly loses if we're measuring value in dollars.

In the short term, yes, but not necessarily in the longer term.

How doing so affects his health and general attitude are going to affect his long term productivity and life expectancy is an unknown.

Doing so might also keep him from being the next Georges Besse.

[alexey]

No, you asked a question, then changed the question after I answered it. Don't play games.

This is not a game. I asked you to show where there is a corresponding and equal loss in value. You pointed at a loss of nuts and berries. I explained how that loss could be plausibly avoided.

A single example of a net gain in value proves you wrong. Tell me how more food for the same amount of work is not it.

You also didn't create a plausible hypothetical scenario where there's a net gain in value. Let's be clear here. You created a plausible hypothetical scenario in which you think there's a net gain in value.

Seeing as I can pretty easily assume what the "new" question is, I would say that you're completely ignoring the value of earlier hunting and gathering. One method of getting food gains value as people determine that it works, the other method loses value. After domestication, you need two or three chickens to achieve the value of one chicken before. Food is food.

Is there a net gain in value if people can produce more food with the same amount of work?

Now, I've created a hypothetical scenario where I think there's no net gain in value. You haven't devoted one second to answering my question. If you're gonna keep asking yours, you've gotta start providing answers. How do you spend more on one thing without spending less on others?

I do agree that in some cases there is no net gain in value. Your example could be one of those cases... but it does not refute the possibility of having a net gain in value.

[alexey]

The same way I rationalize the fact that in that world that only contained you and me, when you spend more money for something, you have to spend less for something else.

In this example you would be foolish to exchange useful items for rectangular pieces of colored paper (or perhaps small metallic discs)

(unless there are vending machines in this world, of course)

[Hubbs]

In the short term, yes, but not necessarily in the longer term.

How doing so affects his health and general attitude are going to affect his long term productivity and life expectancy is an unknown.

Doing so might also keep him from being the next Georges Besse.

His productivity is measured in giving away dollars now.

This is not a game. I asked you to show where there is a corresponding and equal loss in value. You pointed at a loss of nuts and berries. I explained how that loss could be plausibly avoided.

A single example of a net gain in value proves you wrong. Tell me how more food for the same amount of work is not it.

Is there a net gain in value if people can produce more food with the same amount of work?

I do agree that in some cases there is no net gain in value. Your example could be one of those cases... but it does not refute the possibility of having a net gain in value.

No, what you've done is come up with hypothetical scenario after hypothetical scenario after hypothetical scenario, and in each one you stopped asking questions, yet have somehow come up with the response that I didn't show what happened to value. Do I ever get to come up with hypothetical scenarios for you? Ever? Do I ever get to pepper you for a change?

In this example you would be foolish to exchange useful items for rectangular pieces of colored paper (or perhaps small metallic discs)

(unless there are vending machines in this world, of course)

Damnit, the vending machines, I forgot about the vending machines.

Wait, they do take coins...

By the way, looks like the World Bank agrees with me about a little something related to this thread...

World Bank chief calls for new gold standard

Citi: Central Banks Are Going To Start Dumping Dollars In The Coming Weeks

ICE Starts Accepting Gold As Initial Margin Collateral For All Energy And CDS Trades

Interesting...

[PeterMP]

His productivity is measured in giving away dollars now.

Why?

Is there no such thing as long term investments?