Re: OT this is working out just great

On May 15 2009 5:48 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

"Monty Burns" <ac6b736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gf8vd6xot5.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 14 2009 5:48 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

"Monty Burns" <ac6b736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0dfsd6xsn1.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 13 2009 6:11 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

"Monty Burns" <ac6b736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ggipd6x4c5.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 12 2009 2:01 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

"Monty Burns" <ac6b736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:au3pd6xqr2.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Most people don't know that money is a medium of exchange with no
intrinsic value? really? What do most people think money is?
They think it has intrinsic value.

example?
People with hoards of cash in lockboxes.


Which they might have for security purposes, like drug dealers or poker
players, or they don't trust banks. This says nothing about their
attitude toward the intrinsic value of money.
It's the same as people who keep bars of gold in the basement.


How many people do you think hoard stacks of confederate money in
"lockboxes"? Now if that were a common practice it would support your
point.

Well, some do, but they're collectors.



further further clarification. Money is a measure of economic
value,
and
the economic value of a good or service is determined by the
supply
of
and
demand for that product or service in a free market.
In a completely unregulated market, perhaps.
But society determines how much good something does for society as
well.


In a regulated market too. The economic value of a product or
service
is
determined by supply and demand. Regulation can prevent that value
from
being realized in a market transaction, but the underlying economic
value
still has effect. e.g. if the government institutes price controls,
a
black market for the item develops.

You missed the point. Regulation can increase the economic value of
something far beyond its S&D value.


Yes, regulation can increase the economic value of something, by
artificially limiting the supply of it, thats why the price goes up.
No, not by artificially limiting the supply.
By requiring a higher price be paid for it.
Minimum wage laws being a simple example. (Prevailing wage laws on
government projects being a better example of poor judgement)


"contribution to society" to me implies a value judgement beyond
economic
value.

It wasn't intended as such.

OK, I wasn't sure if you intended that or not.

Professional athletes make millions while firefighters make tens
of thousands pre year. Who makes a greater contribution to
society?

Entertainers entertain tens of millions of people, often.
Firemen protect a community.
Each individual provides a larger benefit to a smaller number of
people.

I
vote for the firefighters, but supply and demand dictates the
economic
value of their services.
No, it's a function of numbers. The total payroll to firefighters
is
probably much larger than the total payroll to football players.

You already said that you were not implying anything about social
value,
my point about the firefighters was to make the distinction between
social
value and economic value.

But I'm even more confused now. If the total value of fertilizer
sold
in
the world exceeded the total amount of gold sold in the world in a
given
year, which would you prefer to have an ounce of?
It's not a matter of "an ounce of"
Fertilizer may contribute more in the aggregate than gold.
That doesn't mean one once of fertilizer contributes more than one
ounce
of
gold.


Yes, exactly, fertilizer may contribute more than gold,
Firefighters may contribute more than athletes,
Yet the money required to obtain these items/services, determined by
supply and demand, varies inversely with their contribution to society
No, it varies directly with their perceived value to that society.


and that's why money does not measure our contribution to society as
you
originally said.
Well, since you got it 100% wrong, your conclusion is 100% wrong.
Let's try this again.
A firefighter's value to his city is $X. His value to most of the other
cities in his state is $0. And his value to the rest of the country is $0
(approximately. There are reciprical coverage agreements and such, but
let's
try keeping the math easy)
X is quite likely a large number. 80,000. 100,000. If you break that down
to
the population, it's probably $6 a person per year in a typical small
city
(if the city is larger, the value of each fireman is less, because
there's
more of them)
The entertainment value of, say, Kobe Bryant to your typical basketball
fan
is small. However, there are so many basketball fans that his total value
to
society is large. Say 50,000,000 basketball fans paying 40 cents apiece.
He gets paid more, not because he's worth more than a fireman to any
particular person, but because he can entertain so many more people than
a
fireman could protect.

Oh now I understand, your talking about "value" in Beldinland!
No, I'm talking about value in society.
Clearly you're unable to grasp this.

On earth, value is determined in the marketplace. The firefighters value
in his city is X$. He has no value in other cities because (are you
sitting down?) HE'S NOT IN THOSE CITIES AND CAN'T PUT OUT FIRES THERE.

You know, I think I made that point exactly.

Are you drunk, or simply stupid?

If
he moves to another city, his value would be a function of the supply and
demand of firefrighters in THAT city.

And what they pay firefighters anywhere is a function of the value to
society of that community.


Kobe Bryant's value is determined when he is a free agent and can
negotiate with multiple owners to get the best price.
And is reflected in his entertainment value to that society, since
ultimately the society pays for all the things that pay Kobe.


Here's the thing Beldin, you can squat on your mushroom and dream about
the Beldin theory of value all day long, if there is no transaction to
determine the economic value, then you know nothing about the economic
value of an item.
Yep, you're a shithead.
People can pay the wrong price for something. The economic value is the sum
contribution of something to society.


I'll tell you what, rather than go back and forth again, why don't you
tell me about a time when you used your valuation concept in real life?
Like the last time you bought a car or a house or sold one. Tell me how
you came up with a selling price or a bid and explained it to the other
party. How did they react?
You've long snipped the part where I said most people don't understand this.
People both overpay and underpay in any given type of transaction.


Yes, you're right, people overpay and underpay all the time. But the more
transactions there are, the closer the transaction price gets to the
equilibrium price determined by supply and demand. Thats why when you
list your house, the realtor shows you comparables in your area.

Here's another current example. There are trillions of dollars in toxic
assets on the books of banks right now. Economists are trying to figure
out how to sell them off, but the problem is, no one knows what they are
worth. Why? becasue there is no market for them. There are no
transactions, therefore their economic value cannot be determined.

If as you say, "The economic value is the sum contribution of something to
society." how would you use that concept of economic value to determine
the economic value of those assets?

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

.

Loading