Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:15:15 GMT
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8elYi.1083$0Q5.720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I started to read this post about Beldumb the Scrotum,. Then realized that
I am trying to argue from a capitalistic view point with a dim witted,
moronic communist. Bottom line Beldumb, you aren't worth another second of
my valuable time. Welcome to the kill file. Ploink!
Irish, I've never been a communist, nor a moron, and my wits are about 200%
of yours
And since you're nothing but a drunken fool, it's no matter if I only have
to correct your idiocy once.
Irish Mike
"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.
There is no such thing as "fair value" ... there is no "fair" when it
comes to deciding upon value in a capitalistic economy. You are talking
about the problem with communism and then apply it to capitalism. You
continue with the distortion below.
A pair of pants is worth X dollars.
Now we introduce the concept of "worth" ... is that something like "fair
value?" 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. 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. 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.
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.
There is no "fair" value or "intrinsic" worth. There are willing buyers
and willing sellers in a market that determines whether any transaction
will happen or not. 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.)
<snip more goofyness>
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. 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.
This is not that difficult, Beldin, but you must keep the language
consistent.
If someone confuses a neutron with a proton, you know they are making a
significant mistake.
<snip more foolishness>
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. "Forever" is really long term. Short
term market conditions are usually not sufficient for major property
rental changes. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Anecedotal information about your person renting experiences is not much
help in this discussion, Beldin.
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.
.
- References:
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: BillB
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: eezie
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: foldem
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: Beldin the Sorcerer
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: Beldin the Sorcerer
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: da pickle
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- From: Irish Mike
- Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- Prev by Date: Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- Next by Date: Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- Previous by thread: Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- Next by thread: Re: Who was the worst president in you lifetime?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|