Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?


"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5IednXREm7LgSaza4p2dnAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Beldin the Sorcerer"

<snip the continued foolishness>

"Fair value" is a real number. It isn't the same as "price", fair or
otherwise.


I choose this one, Beldin, because it is exactly on the point to which you
digressed.
No, it's a point that you simply fail utterly to understand.



There is no such thing as "fair value" ... there is no "fair" when it
comes to deciding upon value in a capitalistic economy.

You're an imbecile.
There is ALWAYS a fair value.

You are talking about the
problem with communism and then apply it to capitalism.

No, I'm talking about the generalities of regulated capitalism... you know,
the system we live under? And again, your apparent total lack of sense is
showing.

You continue with
the distortion below.
Nope.
Your shitheadery is showing.

Fair value is what the general selling price of the item, or any similar
items will be.
The fair value of a 2 liter bottle of coke is about 1.39.
It will sell for between .89 and 1.69.

Some idiot in a football stadium may sell it for 3.99. A bigger idiot might
actually BUY it.


The fair value for a pair of socks can be stated.




A pair of pants is worth X dollars.


Now we introduce the concept of "worth" ... is that something like "fair
value?"

Yes, idiot boy.
How many economics classes did you fail?

You can say that you paid an amount for the pair of pants or you
can say that it cost some amount to produce the pair of pants, but the
pants do NOT have a "worth" that has any meaning. "Worth" to whom? Owner
can put any "worth" figure on the pants that he wants.

Wrong AGAIN!

There's replacement costs , a basic determinant of worth.
All non-unique items have a fair value. Great works of art don't.

If he wishes to use the
pants as collateral for a loan, it is not the owner that will decide what
"worth" will be put on the pants ... and each prospective lender can
propose a different "X" dollars.

They CAN, but they won't.
They'll have it appriased to determing (are ya ready, retard man?) it's
FAIR VALUE.

Different potential buyers might have an infinite
number of X's to assign to their thought about the "worth" of the pants.
That whole process is called the "market" for those pants.

Christ, you ARE a shithead.
Some retard willing to pay 30 times what something is worth doesn't make it
worth that. It just makes the retard a retard.

Fair value is a function of what most people... the average person... will
pay for something.

"The Market" reflects this over time.




That pair worn by, say, Brad Pitt, is still worth X dollars, but screaming
drooling women may be willing to pay more for it. That doesn't change it's
intrinsic worth, of course.


Now we add "intrinsic" to our misunderstanding of "worth." You cannot
keep your definitions correlated, Beldin. Anything is possible if you
redefine the words you use in discussing possibilities. Communication is
better when everyone uses the same dictionary when they write.

No, Pickel, you simply show your ignorance.

There is no added value to the pants, beyond it becoming more "unique".
The material didn't change, it's general usefulness didn't change.
Did you EVER take an economics course?



There is no "fair" value or "intrinsic" worth.
Yep, you're a pure shithead.

You can take a *** in a bag. If you find some retard to pay you $20,000 for
it, it isn't worth $20,000.
It's simply proof of the idiocy of the guy who buys it.

There are willing buyers and
willing sellers in a market that determines whether any transaction will
happen or not.

That doesn't define what it's worth.

You can buy a house for less than it's worth. That doesn't make the house
worth less.

Things and services are exchanged in this market. (If you
wish to add something that makes this much more complicated, add something
"real" to the discussion ... like "elasticity" ... that would make some of
our discussion more complicated and would actually have a basis in
reality.)


Pickel, you're going to continue to look like a *** for brains, unless you
get off this whole "something is worth whatever someone will pay for it "
stupidity.
If there's 100,000 of them, and 99,999 sell for between $30-$40, and the
other one sells on E-bay for 55.72, it isn't worth 55.72. It just means the
idiot who bought it paid too much.



<snip more goofyness>
Pickel, you're total lack of ANY basic understanding of economics, beyond
the shithead "Commie bastards BAD, Capitalistic USA Good!" someone spoonfed
you half a century ago is obvious.
Go learn some basic econ theory.


That "market" actually sets the price, Beldin, whether you like it or
not.

They set the max price. The expenses set the min price.
If the min price is OVER the max price, there is no business.


The market sets the price, Beldin.

Wrong, *** for brains.

There is no minimum price or maximum
price. If "the" price that a willing buyer is willing to pay is lower
than keeps the business in business, the business may need to either find
a way to lower expenses or find another business. If "the" price provides
a profit that is well above the industry profit, more suppliers of the
thing or the service will enter and compete with the business or
businesses already in that industry.

Wrong on all counts.
IF the costs are in excess of what someone will pay for an item, it isn't
manufactured.

Seen many record players out there?

IF the costs are trivial, the company gets rich.

Understand how Microsoft got rich?
See many competing O/S's?
See anyone making a mint off it BESIDES Microsoft?


This is not that difficult, Beldin, but you must keep the language
consistent.

You're simply a fool, Pickel.

When it comes to RENTAL units (you remember, the initial discussion), they
rent within the same range. They more or less have to. Similar units have
similar expenses (Building maintenence, property taxes, utilities, etc)
If someone confuses a neutron with a proton, you know they are making a
significant mistake.

And if someone confuses one idiot overpaying with the general price of an
item, they make a bigger one.



<snip more foolishness>

One day you're gonna shock me and admit when your ass is handed to you.
Add patents to the list. There are both Fords and Chevys available.

How many versions of Claritin were there available the first three years,
Pick-idiot?
You know ***, as usual.
The Internal Combustion wasn't under patent protection when the automobiles
took over.
The Betamax was patented... to their eventual loss, of course. VHS wasn't
patent-restricted, it was shared technology.... as was the IBM PC.... didn't
work out too well for IBM of course.
Apple is patented.... anyone making Apple machine clones anymore? They did
LICENSE it out for a little while.

Really, Pickel, how damned idiotic are you running tonight?


You snip examples that prove you know ***, and you call it foolishness.
Patented technology is (duh!) patented.

Drug patents are specific to non-cloning for X years. No generics, no
reverse engineering, and it makes sense, so they have some chance to recover
R&D costs.

Technology patents abound, as do lawsuits for illegally using patented
technology.
And yet you bull*** that patents don't restrict competition.

And when I hand you your ass, you snip it and call it "foolishness".
The fool is you.


What DOESN'T happen is that the owners decide to rent at a loss
forever.

Not forever ... not usually ... that's for sure. Of course, no one said
any such thing ... but don't let that slow you down.

You said idiocy this whole thread.


No, Beldin, you confuse short term and long term conditions of the market
with all sorts of other things.

No, idiot.
See, when you're discussing "tenent paying property taxes" it's a long term
thing.
They pay all the expenses over time, or the owner goes broke and they're out
on the street. This is why your idiot claim thath they'd vote to increase
property taxes without having to pay them is, indeed, moronic.

"Forever" is really long term. Short term
market conditions are usually not sufficient for major property rental
changes.

Property tax increases aren't short term.

The announcement of the proposed opening of a large manufacturing
plant in a community with few home/apartment rentals available might have
a significant impact in the market for those homes and apartments, for
example. Even if the property taxes don't change, the market might set a
higher price for the properties.

Property taxes are not the ONLY expense.
Raising the taxes increases the rent. OR it decreases the ability of the
landlord to gouge, but he's still passing on the taxes.

Since you're a financial moron....
Any competent landlord has a minimum rental price based on expenses. One of
those expenses is an allowance for unrented units. He crunches his numbers.
If property taxes go up, he passes it along. If he can't pass it along
because the market is too tight, he either looks at who might get out of
business, with the intent of passing it along later when the market loosens
up, or he goes out of the rental business himself.
"The market" isn't some mystical power, nor is the value of a rental unit.



The thread is discussing renters paying property tax.
They do, when they pay rent.
You deny it, you merely look stupid.
Rent goes up when property tax goes up. I've owned, I've rented.


It is all in the terminology, Beldin. You usually are pretty strict about
using technical words in context. I guess there are exceptions to
everything.

No, I'm not.
I only argue word meaning when you completely misstate it.
Civil marriage vs religious marriage, there's a real need to be clear.

Talking about renters "not paying" property tax, however, isn't. No one
claimed they wrote a check for it; it's the idiots who claim they aren't
paying more when the taxes rise that don't understand.


You seem to think that the "dollars" paid by the renter somehow are the
same dollars that the landlord uses to pay the taxes and the water bill
and the flowers he gets for his wife when he forgets their anniversary. I
suppose you are "technically" correct that his renters pay for those
flowers, but such a technicality has nothing to do with the market for the
property or the economics of being in the rental business.
Nope.
One is a budgeted expense for a business.
The other is a personal expense.



I am glad that you have been in a market where each and every additional
expense can result in an immediate and equal increase in the rent. When
the heating oil price went up last December, I am sure the rent was raised
for December but when it went down in April, I wonder if the rent went
down again? Maybe so, maybe not.

I doubt the rent went up in December, except for those people who's lease
changed.
But I'm sure it went up for everyone over the next year.

It doesn't need to go month to month. It's averaged over the course of a
year.
Leases are signed for a year, generally. (some are available shorter term,
and of course month to month is possible, generally for a higher rent....
higher risk of short term unit vacancies, scroll up and reread that
competent landlords budget for that).



Anecedotal information about your person renting experiences is not much
help in this discussion, Beldin.

Your lack of understanding of basic economics isn't much help either.



When you start claiming renters vote to increase taxes and don't pay
them, you look like a horse's ass.


What people think about my looks is not affected by property taxes either.

Not your physical appearance, there, idiot boy.
You could look like Brad Pitt...
Hell, you could secretly BE Brad Pitt.





.