How to destroy money cont. Spaceman, re Xeno.

[McDuck]

Just happened to be working on another project and was reminded of your “destroy money” post.
Since a railway line and a number line are essentially the same, and we were inspecting a point of intersection….
I was wondering Spaceman, what is your opinion of Euclid’s first definition.?

[spaceman]

First ..

Secondly....assuming you're talking of book 1....that in the last 2,000 odd years we've come up with better definitions for a point.

Cheers
Spaceman

[McDuck]

Nice clip. Entertaining.
I’m not sure what you mean by “a better definition of a point”. Isn’t Euclid’s, ”A place without substance” just about as good as it gets?
And as for trolling, what exactly was your idea by introducing Zeno (and his “Mandelbrot” type nonsense) into the discussion about the destruction of money again?
More to the point, what do you think of Adam Smith’s definition of money? Is that a better place to find common ground?

[spaceman]

We must have different sources as .....”A place without substance”......isn't what I have seen attributed to Euclid and FWIW I don't think that's a very good definition of a point either.

Please try to keep your trolling entertaining in this thread......trolling is fun......but when you descend in easily proved outright lies it just shows that you don't care enough to make a proper effort.
I explained why I introduced Zeno several times in that other thread......but once again...... I thought it might help people figure out the train/fly riddle which was prompted by your cheese slicer riddle.

I doubt we will ever find any common ground regarding money as it is obvious that you believe in some complete and utter rubbish....unless you've changed recently.

Which ....."Adam Smith’s definition of money?"..........would that be, exactly????

Cheers
Spaceman

[McDuck]

Cheese slice? I don’t remember any cheese slice riddle. It was a while ago so you might be right.
I thought my main riddle was” how to destroy money”??

As for Euclid’s exact definition for a point, I guess you’re going to get problems in translation. But if you have a better definition, Awesome! This I have to hear, please elucidate me.

As for this trolling accusation of yours, I’m mystified. I’m genuinely interested in the nature of money, exchange, value and so on. You can hardly say that the matter is so simple as to require no investigation, what with Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke arguing the point in a very public way only recently. So if you have some curious definition of trolling that includes genuine enquiry, please, point me to it.

I’ll re read Adam Smith's “Enquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations” and take note of the book and chapter and part where he exactly defines money.

I eagerly await a stunning new definition for a point.

[spaceman]

FWIW I like this defintion of a point ......there are others of course.

A point specifies only location; it has no length, width, or depth.

Your trolling is pretty obvious, no matter your protestations otherwise. You're steadfast refusal to answer most questions is telling......especially ones where the answers are obvious and would equally obviously put paid to your ridiculous beliefs about money. Also telling is your oft repeated tactic of claiming to have answered a question or to understand a point when clearly you haven't and don't.

You're not genuinely interested in the nature of money, you've taken hold of some absolute nonsense and believe it to be the truth and thus closed your mind to the actual truth.

Open your mind......the truth is out there

But as I said keep it entertaining and maybe a sweet lol-cat or two and we can have some fun.

Cheers
Spaceman

[McDuck]

A bit less with “open your mind the truth is out there” please, you sound like a new age UFO buff.

At least we have found some common ground, as we together balance a toe on the incredibly volume-less place that is a point. Although I wonder if you require that point to have “duration” to be considered real.

I’ve found a good pointer (grief) for you in Smith’s, wealth of nations, work. Book one, chapter four, it covers the basic initial nature of money. I’m still carefully tractoring through the rest of this voluminous work and will point you to other defining sections as I caterpillar over them. Book two might be where I saw a clean definition.

Could you refresh me again on what you think our opposing views on money boiled down to. It’s been a while. It might just be a case of defining what exactly is meant by money, and who it was meant by.

[spaceman]

"The truth is out there".......X-files dude.....X-files!!!!!...............such a shame when pop culture references just sail by unnoticed.

Read the definition of a point I like again......see the words.....specifies only location..........can you explain to us exactly what ..... only location mean to you???? .......if it specifies location why would it need to have a duration????
So in direct answer to your wonder, no a point doesn't need to have a duration. Duration relates to time, not location. Not only that, but also..... IMHO a point isn't real, it's an idea or concept rather than something real.

When you find Smith's definition that you like, post it here and I'm happy to tell you what I think of it.

Our opposing views on money???......well from what you've posted in the past, you appear to me to have swallowed the "Money Masters" doctrine hook line and sinker and believe a whole pile of complete nonsense about money.

Why?
Mostly to annoy the banks,
the reasoning being that if the 3 million people in New Zealand all carried 100 dollars,
then that money would be out of the banks control, they couldn’t lend it out.
$300 000 000 would be removed from the money supply..
and also any associated bank fees, and the syphoned off interest for said “services”.

Nonsense...you're correct that the bank wouldn't be able to lend it out the money you have........as you have it and not the bank.........surely this is self evident to most.......however it isn't removed from the money supply

My question is this.
Did I get my money back when I withdrew it again?

So, I lent the bank $10 for 10 years.
They agreed to give me my money back plus 10% interest.
After 10 years they gave me $11 back.

Since the value of money changed over time, did they fulfil their part of the legal contract, or did they cheat me?
To act legally, should they have paid me more like $21?

What garbage....you agreed to give them your money and accept $11 back and you try to argue they should give you $21.....give me a break!!!!

What your bank is really up to....and misconceptions about your money.

Chanced upon this excellent five min video that simply and cleanly explains why you have no idea what your bank is doing with your account.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8i-4HpKlM


Where’s Spaceman when you need him!

Enjoy.

You thought the video was excellent....where I thought it was a steaming pile of kak.

Hopefully that was refreshing enough for you

Cheers
Spaceman

[McDuck]

Of course I remember Spooky Mulder and the poster on his office wall, but if a point is merely an idea, wouldn’t the truth be “in” there?

“Duration” being a consideration in “location”, is probably, (out of politeness to the paperhangers and get rich quickers that frequent this site), a rabbit hole best not dropped down. However you will find good company in Leibnitz and even in his arch rival Newton (who will be able to assist you with his Fluxions). A point you see, very rarely stands still.

Your post is long, so long that I’ll have to deal with it in three lobs, firstly “Money masters”.
Never heard of them, will track them down. Thanks for the pointer.

I am wondering what you mean by “money supply” exactly.
Global? personal? govt? bank? historical? …you see my situation.

[elguapo]

I am wondering what you mean by “money supply” exactly.
Global? personal? govt? bank? historical? …you see my situation.

Wiki has a good description;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_(economics)#Empirical_measures

The whole Money Masters/Money as Debt/Positive Money thing is really the same stuff repackaged. None of it is very informative, the idea banks 'create' money falls down at the first test. If they could, it would be impossible for a bank to go bust.

The monetary system as used today was largely created by John Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist)

[McDuck]

[QUOTE=elguapo;326992]
The monetary system as used today was largely created by John Law.QUOTE]

Great tip, Law is an interesting fellow, died a pauper, on the run after shoving a sword through the heart of a man, while fighting over a beauty.
He did have a central part in the hugely destructive Mississippi bubble of the mid 1700’s.
Considering he started from the most privileged position in life, and ended destitute, I’m not so keen to follow his advice.
Although any theory of money can have merit no matter who thinks of it.

Spaceman, I was thinking about your money supply idea.
Since silver has been used as money in the bulk of civilised situations, would you say that:
40 billion troy ounces of silver -
is a good approximate estimate of the total money supply in the world today?

[spaceman]

^No I wouldn't.....I have no real idea as to what a good estimate of the total money supply is today....and can't see why it matters

But for arguments sake, let's say I do.....now what????

Cheers
Spaceman.....careful "Handsome"......much pointlessness and stupidity lurking in this thread......buy all means join in the fun but be warned....also it's all about the lol-cats!!!!....post one or GTFO!!!!

[McDuck]

^No I wouldn't.....I have no real idea as to what a good estimate of the total money supply is today....and can't see why it matters
:

Well, you’re the one who introduced this “money supply” motif.
That quantity of silver was just the total amount of silver produced in the past 3000 years.

If you want to introduce gold or paper or something else into the mix, state your reason and be my guest.

One of the great things about using silver as a base line, is that I can say things like,”
Judas is reported to have betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver”.
As a coin weighed about half a troy ounce, one can consider that the cost of the danger, time and distastefulness of snitching (in the biblical days) was about $400 NZ.

Now, Oxfam will sell you a goat today for about 50 NZ, so you might get a good goat for two bible coins or a troy ounce of silver today. In some strange way you could say that the cost of snitching then was about 9 goats by today’s standard.

You can’t really do that sort of judgement (as flawed as it is) with say: US dollars.
But if you want, we can talk money supply in terms of US dollars.
Up to you. You really need to define the” money Supply” you were thinking of.

[spaceman]

^ LOLZ ...see this is what I mean by tiresome lies...

Well, you’re the one who introduced this “money supply” motif.

I didn't introduce the "money supply" motif at all. I simply re-posted some of your earlier nonsense and explained why it was nonsense.

Now you need to make amends with a lolcat.

Money is money....it doesn't matter how much of it is silver....or gold ...or any of the other various forms it takes.

It also doesn't matter what something cost 2,000 years ago compared with today.....last week maybe, but 2,000 years?????...give me a break.

If snitching cost 9 goats and I can buy a goat for US$25 then Judas got paid US$225 and each piece of silver was worth US$7.5 .....simple.....stupid, but simple.

Were you high when you wrote this???



Cheers
Spaceman

[McDuck]

^ LOLZ ...see this is what I mean by tiresome lies...


Nonsense...you're correct that the bank wouldn't be able to lend it out the money you have........as you have it and not the bank.........surely this is self evident to most.......however it isn't removed from the money supply

Soooo, I think, spacey old boy, that ^ would be you introducing the motif of “money supply”.

I’m curiously asking you to give me some idea of what you consider “money supply” to be.

(I selected silver as a test case, to assist you in solidifying this gelatinous idea of yours. After all, from a historical perspective, the metal silver has been a popular form of money for thousands of years.)

Of course I’m stunned to hear you utter the idea that the actual amount of money is not a quantity required in the determining of the success in the destruction of a particular part of that money.

Or expressed in your dock type thinking.
: how do yer knowing if yer has some missin ifin yer didn’t know how much yer had in the first place?

Also… the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe would indicate that the total amount of money is an important thing, and sticking with our test case of the metal silver, consider how conquistadors flooded the Spanish economy with Mexican silver coins and are thought to have sunk that economy due to inflation.

So if you could corral that amorphous blob of a concept of yours, that “money supply” idea into a slightly sharper focus, it would be greatly appreciated.