History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?

Abhorsen said:

All still contained in the definition of wealth. Wealth is net worth. Net worth looks at your trillion zimbabwe dollars and laughs at it, and offers you $5 USD cause it looks cool.

Click to expand...

Try getting one from eBay, I hear they do sell them.

Abhorsen said:

Yep, they are useless. So are a lotta hollywood movies that no one watches, but that's not the service economy either.

Click to expand...

It is probably a decent sized chunk of it, when you account for all of the people that go into the movie consumption experience, from valets to the actors.
Those actors also consume more services than your average person, IMO.

Abhorsen said:

But sometimes you only need it a few times, or the service economy is cheaper. Also, not all the goods are fungible: houses aren't, for example (they are some of the least fungible goods cause of location). And some services are fairly fungible: 1 hour of one janitorial service is probably a lot like 1 hour's worth of another.

Click to expand...

Not really, the price and rents of the area will push prices for such services up as well.Getting a cleaner in a smaller less shall we say dynamic and overpriced city can be easier than in a big one, cheaper, too.

Abhorsen said:

Do you perhaps mean durability? Fungible means that the good or commodity isn't special, and is equivalent to another similar thing.

Click to expand...

More like a mix of durability and convertibility into other assets, I'd include mortgaging and renting out there, too.And converting it into some form of home business.
Sure, houses go down in a downturn, but gold does so, too.
And declines in prices in shitty areas take a while to happen, so somebody with a bit of foresight could cash out.

Abhorsen said:

Having a butler/bodyguard is also a status symbol.

Click to expand...

A megayacht probably trumps that, and at some point bodyguards probably become a necessity, as do butlers if status symbols like yachts and mega-houses are required.
And it is also a question of how much the rich person's time is worth.
No sense doing a 20$ an hour work if you can do 2000 an hour, I suppose.
For example I always thought that it might be very effective to have some form of hotel-like set-up for long-term occupation, with the ownership structure being something akin to shareholder-resident, with some of the money going towards other investments so that domestic services could be provided.
With maybe some of the apartments being rented out with the same perks applying.
Also, I am pretty sure that Bertie got more hooch thanks to his overpriced car than thanks to Jeeves, if anything Jeeves probably made damned sure to limit poor Bertie's chances in that regard because he'd have to do more cleanup.

Abhorsen said:

You don't seem to understand how wealth works, which is a surprise to absolutely no one. Spoilers: money is wealth. Wealth is a person's net worth... which includes money.

Click to expand...

Money is not wealth, it is transferable debt used to increase the liquidity of the economy. It has been this case since precious metal coinage was abandoned for paper money, and doubly so since the gold standard has been abandoned.

Abhorsen said:

No, installation/software contracting isn't an edge case. It is textbook service industry

Click to expand...

Appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. Many textbooks are written by fuckwits.

Abhorsen said:

Another flaw in your definition: If I buy a company, that then goes bankrupt a few days later, and all I'm left with is an empty building, by your definition I'm wealthier than I was before the purchase, cause money isn't wealth, but an empty building is.

Click to expand...

To the surpise of no one, your argument is a fallacy based on pretending not to know what a bankruptcy is. You don't have any wealth, such as empty buildings or other capital, because it was ceased by the debt owners.

Abhorsen said:

No, it's very wise as it allows people to specialize in what they do best. There's a reason successful companies focus instead of trying to do everything. And yes, it does make the company wealthier than they would be, as they are able to do more with less now, increasing their profitability/cutting costs.

Click to expand...

Productivity is what creates wealth, costs reduce it. Reducing costs does not create new wealth, it only allows you to take advantage of wealth that would otherwise be lost. Thinking otherwise is what leads to the stupid cost cutting measures that large corporations are often mocked for.

Agent23 said:

many statements

Click to expand...

You make some good points, but I think we are getting more and more off topic. Open a new thread?

Meanwhile, onto someone who doesn't make good points:

Doomsought said:

Money is not wealth, it is transferable debt used to increase the liquidity of the economy. It has been this case since precious metal coinage was abandoned for paper money, and doubly so since the gold standard has been abandoned.

Click to expand...

"I don't like basic definitions used by economists, so I'm going to invent my own language of make believe".

Doomsought said:

Appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. Many textbooks are written by fuckwits.

Click to expand...

And now we know he doesn't understand basic idioms. Not a literal textbook. Read this like "classic case of".

Doomsought said:

To the surpise of no one, your argument is a fallacy based on pretending not to know what a bankruptcy is. You don't have any wealth, such as empty buildings or other capital, because it was ceased by the debt owners.

Click to expand...

No, a company bankruptcy doesn't mean everything goes away. There are 3 types of bankruptcy in US law, only one (chapter 7) is a near total liquidation. Now ending up with just an empty building is unlikely, but it's a possibility. Regardless, if you can't get this through your head, presume that someone stole everything but the building, and all the workers quit. You have the building and the rights to the name (which we'll call near worthless). Are you now wealthier?

Doomsought said:

Productivity is what creates wealth, costs reduce it. Reducing costs does not create new wealth, it only allows you to take advantage of wealth that would otherwise be lost. Thinking otherwise is what leads to the stupid cost cutting measures that large corporations are often mocked for.

Click to expand...

Here we go again, making up definitions again. Also, not understanding that a penny saved is a penny earned.

Abhorsen said:

You have the building and the rights to the name (which we'll call near worthless). Are you now wealthier?

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure this is exactly how Donald Trump made money off a few of his bankruptcies. Shed a failing company for valuable real estate.

Abhorsen said:

Here we go again, making up definitions again. Also, not understanding that a penny saved is a penny earned.

Click to expand...

You aren't actually countering my arguments. You are just pushing the big lie.

Doomsought said:

Money is not wealth, it is transferable debt used to increase the liquidity of the economy. It has been this case since precious metal coinage was abandoned for paper money, and doubly so since the gold standard has been abandoned.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, was gold useful for when it was currency?

You know why Fiat currency works? Because EVERY CURRENCY EVER IS FIAT.

Unless you are literally trading in food\water, your currency is fiat.

Doomsought said:

I am pretty sure this is exactly how Donald Trump made money off a few of his bankruptcies. Shed a failing company for valuable real estate.

Click to expand...

I specified an empty building. Should I point out that it's not worth the money? Seriously, if I spend $5M on a yard of land in a random Scottish forest, am I wealthier? No. I'm not. I can call myself a lord though.

Doomsought said:

You aren't actually countering my arguments. You are just pushing the big lie.

Click to expand...

It's not a lie. It's a basic definition of what wealth is. For example:
What do you know, the opening paragraph basically equates it with net worth.

Seriously, the idea that cash isn't wealth is basically absurd. And your thinking that cash is somehow debt is similarly dumb: you can't turn it to someone for a guaranteed something. It's not a promissory note.

Abhorsen said:

What do you know, the opening paragraph basically equates it with net worth.

Click to expand...

You are just repeating what I disagree with, without every confronting why I say it is wrong. Modern economists measure wealth wrong, and it is causing problems.

The most obvious example is executives do very stupid things because they thing cost cutting makes money, and end up sacraficing the investments that make them moeny in the process.

Abhorsen said:

I specified an empty building. Should I point out that it's not worth the money? Seriously, if I spend $5M on a yard of land in a random Scottish forest, am I wealthier? No. I'm not. I can call myself a lord though.

Click to expand...

You are getting into straw man territory here.

ShadowsOfParadox said:

You know why Fiat currency works? Because EVERY CURRENCY EVER IS FIAT.

Click to expand...

Fiat currency is extremely useful because it provides a massive degree of liquidity, but like most incredibly useful things it is also dangerous. It works until you pretend that it isn't a promissory note and delude yourself into believing that it has intrinsic value, then you get hyper-inflation.

Doomsought said:

You are just repeating what I disagree with, without every confronting why I say it is wrong. Modern economists measure wealth wrong, and it is causing problems.

The most obvious example is executives do very stupid things because they thing cost cutting makes money, and end up sacraficing the investments that make them moeny in the process.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm criticizing you for coming up with your own stupid definitions. If you have an issue with something, don't muddy the definitions of words by inventing new meanings. That's why racism means nothing anymore.

Also, cost cutting does make money. It's one of many ways money is made: finding a cheaper way to do something.

Doomsought said:

You are getting into straw man territory here.

Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out that your opinion is stupid. Money isn't part of wealth is stupid. So me demonstrating the absurdity of it will lead to absurd places.

Abhorsen said:

Also, cost cutting does make money. It's one of many ways money is made: finding a cheaper way to do something.

Click to expand...

If you have no income, cost cutting cannot create income. Cost cutting can never get you past net zero. It does not create. It merely ameliorates. You need to spend, invest in materials and capital, in order to create income.

While leadership matters circumstances and institutions matter more. A good leader with shitty institutions is basically fucked.

Doomsought said:

If you have no income, cost cutting cannot create income. Cost cutting can never get you past net zero. It does not create. It merely ameliorates. You need to spend, invest in materials and capital, in order to create income.

Click to expand...

? Yes it can? You again don't know what you are talking about. If you are selling donuts at $1, and it takes you $1/donut to produce all inclusive, if you cut costs to $0.50, you are now making a profit.

And people invest in order to cut costs all the time. That's what most investment is in. For example, Walmart investing in automated checkout lines in order to cut employees, and thus cut costs. A company investing in a machine to cut the cost of production. A company investing in a new design of packaging that uses less materials in order to cut the cost of packaging.

You again show you have no idea what you are talking about.

Abhorsen said:

? Yes it can? You again don't know what you are talking about. If you are selling donuts at $1, and it takes you $1/donut to produce all inclusive, if you cut costs to $0.50, you are now making a profit.

Click to expand...

You are being deliberately obtuse, or you are just too stupid to know the difference between income and profit after trying to lecture me about the definitions of words. If you are not selling donuts, you cannot cut costs to create income. Because cost cutting does not create. If you are selling donuts for 1 dollar / pastry, you cannot cut costs to get more than one dollar of profit per pastry, because cost cutting does not create. It only makes you lose less.

Efficiency.

Not Cost Cutting.

Efficiency improvments are when you get more for less, and that's good.

Cost cutting might improve efficiency, but if you cut the cost of the most useful people for the least, you're not spending as much, but your efficiency over all goes down.


Sometimes, a company is so crap, you're better off shutting it down and rebuilding from the ground up. Empty building can be better than full, easy.

Doomsought said:

You are being deliberately obtuse, or you are just too stupid to know the difference between income and profit after trying to lecture me about the definitions of words. If you are not selling donuts, you cannot cut costs to create income. Because cost cutting does not create. If you are selling donuts for 1 dollar / pastry, you cannot cut costs to get more than one dollar of profit per pastry, because cost cutting does not create. It only makes you lose less.

Click to expand...

The depth of ignorance here is astounding. Producing and selling something at no profit isn't wealth: it's literally worthless to you. You create wealth by investing in ways to cut costs so that you can provide stuff at a profit and a reasonable price.

Abhorsen said:

The depth of ignorance here is astounding. Producing and selling something at no profit isn't wealth: it's literally worthless to you. You create wealth by investing in ways to cut costs so that you can provide stuff at a profit and a reasonable price.

Click to expand...

I have two complete counter arguments:

First: Something that is inefficient can be improved upon, but you cannot improve upon nothing.

Second: it is perfectly possible to create wealth without making a profit, that is what happens to the victims of debt slavery.

If money was wealth, you could make everybody in the world wealthy by having the money printing machine go brrrr. Quite evidently it doesn't work that way.

OTOH, if you gave every last human on earth an empty building, and provided every person with food for a lifetime, you could actually eliminate housing and food insecurity in an eyeblink*. Clearly one acts like wealth and the other does not.

*Obviously there're edge cases like the mentally ill homeless so it wouldn't technically work that way, this is an economic spherical-camel example.

Money has to potential to become wealth, but it is not wealth yet. To conflate the two is the same exact fallacy that makes certain idiots want to tax unrealized stock gains.

@Abhorsen @Doomsought we're established that you are, in fact, meaning different things by the same word.

Next thing someone is going to open the question as to what does or doesn't count as money.

Doomsought said:

the same exact fallacy that makes certain idiots want to tax unrealized stock gains.

Click to expand...

The English nobility deposed king John for good reason.

Doomsought said:

It works until you pretend that it isn't a promissory note and delude yourself into believing that it has intrinsic value, then you get hyper-inflation.

Click to expand...

...Dude, you literally said that Gold wasn't Fiat Currency.

Except it WAS.

ShadowsOfParadox said:

...Dude, you literally said that Gold wasn't Fiat Currency.

Click to expand...

It isn't. Gold has intrinsic value which has been recognized by litterally every civilization that has known of its existence. It is rare, beautiful and resists tarnish.