Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 423 (585387)
10-07-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
10-07-2010 7:57 PM


Re: The American Mindset
If I bought a house for $5000 in 1960, becoming worth $50000 today and I sold it, the gubm't claims I've made $45000 when in fact I've made nothing.
Really? That's a strange system, doesn't the government tax you based on the value of the house when sold irrespective of value when bought?
If the tax was a flat 10% for those 50 years, then you might say
You could have sold the house in 1960 and paid $500 tax with a profit of -$500
or
sold the house today and pay $5000 tax for a profit of $45,000
If the value of your house has not changed since 1960 then the $500 was worth approx as much in 1960 as $5000 is today so how are the government taxing you by inflation? They gain money through higher dollar amounts, but they lose the value of those dollars just as you do so they surely make no profit here if you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2010 7:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-07-2010 8:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 423 (585707)
10-09-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
10-09-2010 11:39 AM


The Intrinsic value of gold
Money cant simply be created out of thin air.
Nor can it be created by pulling arbitrary metals out of the ground. It's created by doing work in excess of your own needs and succesfully trading the excess fruit for other stuff you need that you couldn't get because you were specialising in your own thing. How we want to represent that it is up to you. But what happens if the people create more wealth than can be represented by pulling metal out of the ground?
What happens if we pull too much metal out of the ground?
What happens when the metal runs out?
What happens if gold becomes useless or rather less useful (ie., alternative material that performs the same functions is developed).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 10-09-2010 11:39 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 10-09-2010 12:20 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 41 of 423 (585717)
10-09-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
10-09-2010 12:20 PM


Re: The Intrinsic value of gold
We cant simply have wealth created by human value alone.
It isn't, it's generated by taking raw materials and creating something that is desired with them. Or by collecting the raw materials. It is generated by doing work.
When two people trade their excesses - they can both profit. It's a nonzero situation, if the result is positive, wealth has been created.
Gold is a way to keep the value of antiquity safely in the hands that held it
a) that's not necessarily a good thing.
b) it's not necessarily true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 10-09-2010 12:20 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 423 (585718)
10-09-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
10-09-2010 12:32 PM


Re: The Intrinsic value of gold as the best commodity for money
what would happen if the dollar became essentially worthless?
It would mean that the USA thought they had generated lots of wealth when in fact they had not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 10-09-2010 12:32 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 423 (585774)
10-09-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
10-09-2010 3:48 PM


inflation
The $$ charts vs other currencies vary ziggey and zaggy, depending on monetary policies of those currencies at given periods. However, aggretatly, all currencies, being fiat/arbratrary globally are inflating, simply because they are essentially digital entries and/or paper.
They inflate because of investment. If you invest $100 today it might become $130 in ten years. So if you chose between the two, they would the same. Therefore, $100 today is the same as $130 is in ten years.
Exactly the same would happen with gold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2010 3:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2010 6:20 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 56 of 423 (585798)
10-09-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
10-09-2010 6:20 PM


Re: inflation
I see it as apples and oranges. Historically gold has reflected the rate of $$ inflation. Before 1913 and the establishment of the Federal Reserve system the $$ and gold were relatively stable. After the silver coinage ended and the gold standard ended in the 1960s and 70s the inflation charts relative to gold and the $$ moved in opposite direction rapidly.
That doesn't address the point that money doesn't inflate because of the medium it takes as you said, but because it can be invested and grown, which is a good thing.
Gold had an instability that people weren't aware of, but once discovered made it unstable. It turns out that that foreign investors can cause the financial meltdown of a country by selling their currency reserves for that country's gold en masse. Now this is known, any country that switches to it will face potential foreign investor panic (started by plain fear or actual maliciousness), leading to a death spiral.
It also requires a fantastically run central authority to manage it. If it isn't managed with absolute expertise, chaos ensues, as the Federal Reserve found out when they inherited responsibility for the world's gold standard after the Bank of England's coffers were depleted post war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2010 6:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 423 (615830)
05-17-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
05-17-2011 8:55 AM


Re: What Is Money?
Just about everyting you buy today is at least 10 times higher than that period.
Then again, you earn about ten times more.
Money has to drop in value over time, Buz, otherwise capitalism fails.
If, I offered you $100 in 1964 but gave you the choice of $100 today instead - you'd wisely take the $100 in 1964. But why is it worth more in 1964? Because in 1964 you have more of your life to invest it and make it grow into something bigger. Let's say you think that if you invest the money wisely you think you can make it $5000 by today. That means, in your estimation (ignoring risk for the time being), you value $100 as in 1964 being worth $5,000 by 2011. This makes $100 in 1964 worth more than $100 in 2011, and this is a good thing.
1964 prices are no more 'real' than today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2011 8:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2011 4:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 423 (615928)
05-18-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Buzsaw
05-18-2011 11:10 AM


Re: Good Inflation......? Bad Inflation.....?
In 1900 you could buy a solid oak dining set for around $30 and eggs for a nickel or so a dozen.
I'm not sure what you think this means. In 1900 you were likely earning money counted in cents per hour - a solid oak dining set could be two weeks of wages. Solid oak dining sets are cheaper these days in comparison to wages than then. Presumably because the cost of making them has dropped considerably.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2011 11:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2011 12:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 141 of 423 (616038)
05-19-2011 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Buzsaw
05-18-2011 12:41 PM


Re: Good Inflation......? Bad Inflation.....?
I know what it means. It means that the $$ was very sound, able to purchase many goods.
Though you could buy more per dollar, you earned less dollars per day. You did not account for this in your description of the golden Victorian age. That was my rebuttal, and you repeating your original point does not serve to address my rebuttal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2011 12:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 05-19-2011 4:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 143 of 423 (616118)
05-19-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
05-19-2011 4:14 PM


Re: Good Inflation......? Bad Inflation.....?
I'm not sure where you are shopping for suits. I can get half a dozen decent suits, maybe even a dozen pretty good ones (in a sale) for an ounce of gold. If I was going to be spending a whole ounce of gold on a suit it'd have to be top end commercial designer wear or the like.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 05-19-2011 4:14 PM Phat has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 346 of 423 (818101)
08-23-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by New Cat's Eye
08-23-2017 12:58 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
You lost me at force...
Well the aforementioned corporations are forcing people to work more for less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2017 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2017 1:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 348 of 423 (818107)
08-23-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by New Cat's Eye
08-23-2017 1:59 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
No, corporate workers are not chattel.
I didn't say they were. I was pointing out that the word 'force' does not mean 'violence' it can mean 'given little to no alternative'.
They *could* withhold their labour - as they are not chattel. This could be by striking, working for smaller companies or starting their own. But that would force the corporations to offer more money for the labour. Or they might force the smaller companies out of business if they can.
Making the alternatives untenable is not something to intrinsically balk at. The corporate workers realistically cannot all work elsewhere - as there aren't enough alternate jobs, and those jobs might not pay much better because the corporate entities have such power over the market that they may in fact be offering the best salaries, even as they are decreasing. So their alternatives are striking - trying to force the corporations using the old 'workers control the means of production' concept - or they don't because they can't. The corporations do what they can to make striking untenable and to pay as little in wages as they can - so they are forcing low wages on the workers.
Right now, the corporations are using their power to force the suppressed salaries, even as profits climb. Balking at using your leverage to raise salaries but not balking at corporations using their leverage to lower salaries seems a little hypocritical, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2017 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2017 3:13 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 357 of 423 (818121)
08-23-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by New Cat's Eye
08-23-2017 3:13 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Okay - I wouldn't call that force, it's just doing business, but your point is not lost.
But in English that is what force can mean. The politician was forced out of his seat, the chess player was forced to resign, the debater was forced to concede the point, the small business owner was forced to sell his interests in the business, the child was forced to go church on Sunday.
Yeah, that's better - I just wouldn't call it force. Are all negotiations forced?
If you end up doing something you didn't want to do by circumstances or the actions of others - not just physical strength, it is perfectly normal to say you were forced to do it.
Negotiations can end with a mutually acceptable agreement, but its also typical for negotiations to involve 'leverage'. The notion of leverage doesn't mean someone got a stick and fulcrum and pried you away from your position. They metaphorically used a lever to metaphorically force you from your position.
If I haggle with someone, am I forcing them to lower their price? I would say no.
Probably not. But if you are an influential celebrity you might leverage your influence to get a price much lower than the seller would want to avoid the bad consequences of an influential person's opinion might have on sales as a whole.
In that case, you might say the seller was forced to sell at a price he would not be happy with. Normal haggling ends with both parties satisfied, even if one would prefer cheaper and one prefer more expensive.
I just don't see it that way - that the workers are forced. It's an agreement, nobody is making them take the job. If they were forced into a job that'd be chattel.
The need to pay for food, rent/mortgage, healthcare etc is pretty strong. A person might not be forced to work a particular job, but in general they are forced to work. And if all the salaries are basically the same for that job then they are forced, by this circumstance, to accept that salary or thereabouts. That circumstance is influenced heavily (but not exclusively) by large companies with their large influence on the job market.
Both sides want to maximize their own gain - that's doing business. As long as it's mutually consensual, I don't consider it forced, and in that case do what you got to do to get that money.
I call that negotiating.
Negotiating and using leverage are not mutually exclusive. But now you understand Phat was not talking about physical coercion. There is, as Marx put it, a struggle between the classes: Workers who want to be paid as much as possible, and the Capitalists who want to pay as little as possible. The Workers have get a job, the capitalists don't have to hire any specific individual. A struggle comes out of this, and it can result in a reasonable outcome. But it doesn't have to - one side can come out better than the other.
One way to negotiate is to refuse to take a given job. But doing this on an individual basis may not be effective - and in the meantime the bills are coming in. This need for money now - or soon - is the leverage the capitalist class exerts. This is one their forcing tools. This is why the term 'wage slavery' is sometimes used. It isn't chattel slavery, but a worker's need for a wage packet is usually immediate. It is rare that someone can go for several months without any income without serious ramifications. So they need to sell their labour. The workers do have one point of leverage: they control the means of production. Hence if they cooperate to withhold that labour all at the same time - hopefully they won't have to go for a long time without a wage before the capitalists have to relent and offer better salary or whatever.
So again
quote:
We need stronger unions! We need to force these corporations to share more of the wealth!
We need to work together to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie using the leverage of negotiating in a bloc rather than independently. This is just as much 'just doing business' as anything the corporate world gets up to. So you are no longer 'lost' at the word 'force'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2017 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2017 11:32 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 370 of 423 (818186)
08-24-2017 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by New Cat's Eye
08-24-2017 11:32 AM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Sure, but it can mean more than that too.
Well that's English for you. Fortunately the context of a word is helpful in understanding its usage. I haven't heard Phat incite violence before, and given he was talking about unionising, it seems pretty clear what it meant in its context.
That's business - if you're in a position where you cannot negotiate then that is your fault not your potential employer's.
It's the fault of neither, it's just the nature of the system.
I understand that you think he wasn't talking about physical coercion...
I haven't heard from him about it, he just acknowledge my reply.
Well he 'Cheered' my post, seems like endorsement that I had the correct interpretation of his words to me. My interpretation was consistent with his character, and his other comments on this subject. I think I have a good case that he was using the word 'force' just like most other English speakers do all the time.
Also, I wouldn't use the word force in that context, so no, I'm not really on board with the semantics.
When communicating with English speakers you still need to anticipate that they may use words differently than you. Besides which:
quote:
And being forced to face shutting your business down or else having to do something as benign as baking a cake (that you're going to get paid for), isn't as bad as telling someone that you won't sell them that cake because they belong to a protected class.
Message 569
quote:
By maybe-believing? Nah, you're just trying to force your usage again.
Message 447
quote:
It's like if we were coworkers and every time we had a minor disagreement about something you ran to the boss to get them to implement a decision so you could force me to comply with your way.
Message 346
quote:
I'm not saying that the public options shouldn't exist, I just don't like being demonized for having the opinion of not wanting to be forced into them.
Message 37
quote:
The women who say they want to perpetuate it have been coerced by the patriarchal societies that they are forced to live with.
Message 757
quote:
You can be forced to overcome your addiction without changing your mind.
quote:
if I'm forced to make a decision and the best means available aren't enough for me to consider my thoughts critically, then I don't call that critical thinking even if the best I can do at the time.
Message 218
But either way - I think the most natural and obvious reading of Phat is one of talking about making someone do something against their will using peaceful means such as cooperating with one another and selective witholding of labour. Phat's 'cheer' seems to concur. English seems to be on my side. As do some of your own previous posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2017 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2017 3:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 380 of 423 (818275)
08-25-2017 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Wait a minute... Did you query the database directly or something? Select all messages submitted by me that contain the word force?
Or did you find that through Google?
'Cause if you're using database administrator privileges to try to score debate points against me then I'm going to stop replying to you.
I queried the database using the search engine that is part of the interface up at the top of the screen.
Cool, fault is a strong word - I meant that it is "more your fault than there's"; not in the sense that you alone are solely culpable, but in the sense that the onus is on you to establish your position in a negotiation and not your employer's.
Sure - and part of that negotiation is to threaten to withold your labour if you don't come to an agreement. This would be forcing your employer to accept your demands, lose you, call your bluff, or find some compromise. Striking in unison is just doing this cooperatively as part of negotiations.
I get that we need to be speaking the same language, but I don't have to use a word in a way that I don't want to.
Nobody is asking you to use the word, just understand it when someone else uses it. Are you for using the tools of negotiation to get a better deal, as Phat proposes, or no?
So first off, that was weird - digging up old shit like that.Secondly, I do try to be consistent within a thread, but not so much across threads.
You said 'I wouldn't use the word force in that context' - I showed that you have, over the course of the last few years. I didn't go back over the last 12 years since the search function is limited and the point was made. The context I used it in:
quote:
We need to work together to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie using the leverage of negotiating in a bloc rather than independently. This is just as much 'just doing business' as anything the corporate world gets up to.
Striking occurs and the employer, against their will, has to lose the labour or pay more. If they pay more, it is against their will - but they consent because they calculate the alternative is worse. This is forcing someone, putting them in a position where they HAVE to make a choice even if they didn't want to make that choice. It's part of negotiating, as you have said, you have just got hung up on a common metaphor for this.
When I talk about force, I look at it in the sense of consent. If it is consensual, then I prolly won't have a problem with it. If it isn't, then I prolly will. It's about people having to go against their will, not having a choice in the matter, it being involuntary, when it starts becoming more like coercion than convincing - that's when I don't like it.
Then we agree on what 'force' means. Here is how I described it:
quote:
If you end up doing something you didn't want to do by circumstances or the actions of others...it is perfectly normal to say you were forced to do it.
My employer forces me to take several hours of my time to justify a pay rise, I force them to accepting my request by suggesting I'm going to leave. A little under a year ago I deliberately used a recruitment service I know my employer actively monitors and utilizes to look for another job after my request for a pay rise went ignored. Somebody called me and asked me odd questions about what might make me change my mind about looking for alternate work - I gave them a number. Two days later I was offered that exact number. Perhaps a coincidence, but let's say it wasn't. By making what appeared to be (and was) an earnest hunt for a job, I forced the issue - I forced my employer to make a decision about my pay.
The months of chasing that preceded it suggested they didn't want to give me the rise, if they could avoid it. So they did so against their will.
If you say 'that's business, that's not coercive, that's not force as I understand it' then I point out that neither is striking and you should just read Phat as saying 'actively negotiate' or something rather than 'force' and accept you are just using words differently.
So yes, now we agree that force can mean 'against their will' but also be perfectly normal and acceptable - I just now look to if we can agree its the heart of much negotiation - and Phat was only suggesting we look for means of using negotiation tactics to pressure employers into re-negotiating the agreement sooner rather than later.
Is pressuring someone OK? It's used in business negotiations all the time - 'pressure' is another metaphor, 'push' is another - they are all about applying a force to move things in a direction you'd prefer.
If you don't apply pressures back, then what's the negotiation? It sounds like you'd just accept whatever your employer says. You want to pay me "$10,000 to work 12 hour shifts being a body guard, escorting VIPs around Syria and Iraq? Sure - I wouldn't want to apply any forcing or pressure on you to come up with a more equitable salary for such dangerous work by withholding my labour"
When people strike and a new deal is arranged - it is consensual, of course. The employer isn't going to pay you $5,000,000 an hour if you withhold you labour - they are still only going to pay what they can. But their will is that they pay as little as they can. It's up to you and your will to change their mind and pay you more. Haggling as it were, but where one party has avoided haggling for bread knowing you need to eat and can't afford to haggle. If everybody refuses to buy bread at the same time, they don't have to go hungry for as long to apply the pressure to charge more reasonable prices. The customers have forced the baker to lower his prices even as he didn't want to at the start. He would still RATHER charge more, but he'd prefer to charge less if the alternative is that the baker doesn't get paid.
This only works if there are no other bakers. But that's the power of large corporations - they reduce the number of 'bakers' which creates the situation where a person has less and less alternative choices - leaving more 'active' and cooperative pressuring as the only viable tool left.
If you're "forcing" people by negotiating, then to me that's just doing business.
And if they refuse to negotiate? Or their offer is unsatisfactory? You could quit your job of course! That is a pressure on them, possibly - but its a more immediate problem for you - if you are living pay cheque to pay cheque - especially if the number of alternate employers is reduced due to the existence of large corporations. But if all the workers stopped working for a month - it could cost the business more than if they'd have just accepted the terms. So they are 'forced' back to the negotiating table. Against their will, to get a deal both parties can agree on.
So are you on board with negotiating like this? Or is it negatively coercive?
So regarding "We need to force these corporations to share more of the wealth!", no, I'm still not on board. I think it would be better to persuade them to willingly share the wealth over forcing them to do it.
How would you persuade them? With a rousing speech? We are talking about persuading them to share the wealth, by practically demonstrating that the workers are worth the extra money.
So I wouldn't lump a strike in with force.
You might not, but other English speakers do. The onus is on you to understand this, yes?
"The strikers forced the company to reconsider their compensation package"
"The strike forced the corporation back to the negotiating table"
"Nobody was taking the job we offered, so we were forced to offer a higher salary for it"
All perfectly sensible things to say. That's what Phat was saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2017 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2017 3:03 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024