The Gaming Den

sabs wrote:The Value of Goods change. There is no 'standard' you can use that won't fluctuate.

Agreed.

Counter Hypotheses: Printing money is just that, printing money, done carefully, with an eye out for inflation and hyperinflation, it is not stealing.

"Done carefully" is quite the assumption. In utopia, all things are perfect, after all, and I acknowledge in a perfect world, yes, paper currency is perfect.

That said, I agree with you, we really want stability, as much as possible in an imperfect world.

(discussion that when you find more of a commodity, the value of that commodity can drop, causing devaluation if used as a standard)

Again, completely agreed. This is why whether the standard you use is fiat, paper, or gold, or whatever, it's a good idea to pick a commodity which is relatively stable. So, following your argument so far, we're in agreement we should use something stable, as opposed to unstable.

Which, in your opinion is more possible:

1) Many thousands of high yield gold mines open up, we discover another primitive civilization with vast quantities of gold, or the Earth is pelted with massive amounts of golden asteroids?

or

2) Some guy runs a printing press for a few minutes, or a government simply runs trillion dollar deficits, or with a wave of a hand trillions in dollars are digitally transferred to banks? (There are many other ways a fiat currency can be devalued, I pick only a few recent examples)

Now, I grant some of the possibilities in 1) have happened before (albeit in the relatively distant past), but, with the Earth nearly completely mapped out, I for the most part find it unlikely we'll see much repetition.

On the other hand, what happens in 2) is quite common, and I can see much of it happening again. How do you feel about the likelihood of 2), as opposed to 1)?

As an aside, before Fukushima, the highest yielding gold mine in Japan was actually their sewage treatment plant that services the heavy industrical sector (yielding on the order of a few miligrams per ton of sewage). And, yes, they filter out the gold because it's profitable to do so.

Doom wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: There are property rights and property rights.

I acknowledge that if you don't accept that people own their things, everything past that point in the OP is meaningless.

Dude: shut the fuck up. Ownership doesn't have consistent meaning. It doesn't fucking matter whether I or anyone else believes in ownership or even property rights, because the real question is which property rights you're actually talking about. Property rights aren't an on-off lightswitch, there is a wide variety of extremely different theories of the rights and responsibilities of property and ownership.

There are very few people who think that property rights extend to forbidding the government from handing out fines for noise complaints after 22:00 at night. There are even less people who would do anything but laugh at the assertion that your property rights over a pizza shop you own extend to protecting you from having the value of your pizza shop reduced by some other fucker opening up his own damn pizza shop on his own damn property.

So if you want to make an argument that starts with a fucking axiomatic assertion that you have a right to have the relative exchange value of the things you own not change over time, prepare to be laughed at. By well, everyone. And I mean straight back to Adam Smith and David Hume. I can't even think of a theory of property that includes a guaranty that other people can't have less demand for the things you own as time goes on.

By way of apology, I mention I was raised in American society; the primary religion here has a specific moral injunction against theft ("Thou shalt not steal")

Oh come on. It has a specific injunction against making statues and it doesn't have an injunction against rape. The people of modern society do not even know what the ten commandments are. Which is a damn good thing actually, because those are pretty horrible rules to live your life by.

and the legal system here has a truly frightening array of laws regarding theft.

Oh fuck no. If you base your argument about what society deems to be moral on what the law of the land actually is, you are stuck in a recursive loop where you are unable to make a coherent argument against any practices of the government. The appeal to authority is not an appeal you want to make. Since by the same argument the fact that we live in a society that condones inflation in its legal statutes proves it to be a moral institution on those grounds.

1) Do you assert then, that "inflation is good" is an axiom (so that discussion of anything bad about inflation is irrelevant)?

No. I don't consider it to be an axiom. I consider "real growth is good" to be an axiom for the purpose of this discussion. I am an industrial progressivist, and I'll cop to that one. If you could show a way for real growth to be higher in a sustained fashion without inflation, you would win the argument.

2) Do you assert that misers are bad, because they impede inflation (again, by axiom 1, arguments about how much are irrelevant)?

No. Miserly activity actually causes spikes in inflation. Because misers tend to stop being misers when there is a reason to do so. So misers flood the currency market at times inconsistent with determined monetary policy. That's not an axiom though, that's just observed reality. People hoarding resources cause semi-predictable crashes in the relative value of those resources when they stop hoarding. If that resource is currency, that translates into inflation.

As it happens, constant or predictable inflation does not bother me at all, because it does not harm real economic growth. I don't like unpredictable inflation, because it causes supply and demand shocks which do affect real economic growth.

So I hate hoarders empirically, not axiomatically. You could potentially come up with hard data to refute that point, but we're talking pretty basic economics shit here, so I think you are very unlikely to do so.

-Username17

So guy runs a printing press for a few minutes = FORGERY. It's illegal and it should be. Only the Government is allowed to print money

You do realize that Banks don't even need to have digital money transfered to them, with the current cash reserve rules, they can just INVENT electronic money to loan out, out of whole cloth.

You want to talk about inflation? What about the fact that Wall Street lost:
8.3 Trillion dollars in 1 year. That's over 1/2 of the GDP of the entire US Economy. They've been /creating/ money to loan out for decades. With no care about inflation, or the effect on the economy.

The US Government is MUCH less likely to just print out cash in excessive numbers. And what if we find Gold on the moon? In giant quantities. Or what if we finally figure out how to create Gold from some other material.

sabs wrote:Or what if we finally figure out how to create Gold from some other material.

We do. That should be "create Gold from some other material which is not even rarer and more valuable".

Edit: "with less energy costs than the gold's actual value"

sabs wrote:So guy runs a printing press for a few minutes = FORGERY. It's illegal and it should be. Only the Government is allowed to print money

Well technically every dollar bill is currently a Federal Reserve Note, and technically the FED isn't a part of government. It is technically a bank note of the Federal Reserve. "In the United States, commercial banks were authorized to issue banknotes from 1863 to 1935."

Details, details.

I view 1863-1935 in the US to be basically one large giant Filthy Rich Gangbang of the US.

It's the height of stupidly rich people taking the US out back for a quick round of violation.

FrankTrollman wrote:So if you want to make an argument that starts with a fucking axiomatic assertion that you have a right to have the relative exchange value of the things you own not change over time,

Yes, that would be silly. My assertion had nothing to do with value, changing in value, or anything of the sort...my assertion was simply that the stuff you own is yours, and this includes money (whose value, whatever that word means, is never constant). Please, show me in the OP where I made an assertion that there is any right that what you own must stay at a fixed perceived market value, or any other value, and I will, as you ask, shut up.

To reiterate: I do NOT say the value of the stuff you own must be fixed. I do NOT say there are not legitimate reasons you can forfeit the right to the stuff you own. I do NOT say alot of things.

I simply assert that you own the things you own, as an axiom. It seems circular enough that agreement follows clearly, but you've found some room for confusion, which we need to clear up first.

So, again, I summarize: do you, or do you not, believe that the stuff that you own is what you own?

Oh come on. It has a specific injunction against making statues and it doesn't have an injunction against rape. The people of modern society do not even know what the ten commandments are. Which is a damn good thing actually, because those are pretty horrible rules to live your life by.

I agree it is a most imperfect moral code. I wasn't talking about rape. I wasn't talking about building statues. I wasn't talking about what people know. I wasn't talking about alot of things.

I was talking about theft. Can we take it easy on the straw men, a bit?

Oh fuck no. If you base your argument about what society deems to be moral on what the law of the land actually is,

Again, simply explaining why I believe the current society we live in believes people can own things. I acknowledge my society is imperfect (gee whiz, I compared it to Aztec human sacrifice). Calm down, please.

condones inflation in its legal statutes proves it to be a moral institution on those grounds.

Exactly! This is exactly why it's good to know what inflation does, and to define better what it is we're talking about.

No. I don't consider it to be an axiom. I consider "real growth is good"

Ok, so only inflation that causes real growth is good? I can certainly agree with that; there are many forms of inflation, after all. No true Scotsman could disagree with your belief.

I trust by this, that the booms caused by money printing, you consider bad, due to the busts that inevitably come after? I definitely would hear your thoughts on this.

No. Miserly activity actually causes spikes in inflation. Because misers tend to stop being misers when there is a reason to do so. So misers flood the currency market at times inconsistent with determined monetary policy. That's not an axiom though, that's just observed reality.

Ok, now this is a completely different argument, and I see the point here. But how do know, with certainty, that the 'spike in inflation' caused by releasing x amount of money isn't offset by the deflation caused by holding x amount of money?

I mean, all sorts of activities cause benefits at one point, and penalties at others....should not both be weighed?

If that resource is currency, that translates into inflation.

Agreed, but if adding money causes inflation, subtracting money causes...? There seems to be a double standard here.

As it happens, constant or predictable inflation does not bother me at all,

A beautiful, utopian theory. Yes, if inflation was perfectly well defined, and perfectly predictable, I'd have no problem whatsoever, either. All things are good in utopia, after all.

because it does not harm real economic growth. I don't like unpredictable inflation, because it causes supply and demand shocks which do affect real economic growth.

So, under the assumption that misers always release all their money/whatever in a shock, then, yes, it follows that they can cause problems. I agree.

It's curious, that it's always wrong to approach an inflation supporter by pointing out what happens at extremes, but any arguments against the goodness of inflation are immediately taken to extremes. Quite the double standard.

Anyway, my argument has never been that misers are all good, all the time.

What happens if there are misers that do not fit your extreme description? Many misers know better than to do this (as something of an example, but a great extreme, China has hoarded a ridiculous amount of US money...and they know full they can only divest themselves of it slowly).

At best, misers have the potential to do harm, this I absolutely agree. But so do spendthrifts, and so do middle-of-the-roaders, and so do lots of other forms of behavior.

sabs wrote:I view 1863-1935 in the US to be basically one large giant Filthy Rich Gangbang of the US.

Yes, they were wonderful times, weren't they?

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

Doom wrote:Yes, that would be silly. My assertion had nothing to do with value, changing in value, or anything of the sort...my assertion was simply that the stuff you own is yours, and this includes money (whose value, whatever that word means, is never constant). Please, show me in the OP where I made an assertion that there is any right that what you own must stay at a fixed perceived market value, or any other value.

No. Goddammit, stop being so fucking thick. You can't derive anything from that. Period. At all. Because what ownership means is not only legally and culturally defined, it's also subject to change and doesn't actually have an agreed upon meaning even within philosophical schools. There is no country on Earth that recognizes an individual's ownership of land extending into the skylines that airplanes use.

Since no one agrees on what ownership means, you can't get anywhere in an argument on the morality of an action by claiming that it does or does not violate rights of ownership. At best you can argue in the opposite direction: that some interpretation of ownership or another is good or bad because what becomes permissible or impermissible is good or bad.

Your moral argument about inflation is dead before it even leaves the house. Because it relies on other people recognizing the same meaning of ownership as you do, and I can absolutely guaranty that there isn't a single person on the planet who does.

-Username17

tzor wrote:

sabs wrote:I view 1863-1935 in the US to be basically one large giant Filthy Rich Gangbang of the US.

Yes, they were wonderful times, weren't they?

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

I'm okay with that, it's a free country, you're allowed to be wrong.

sabs wrote:I'm okay with that, it's a free country, you're allowed to be wrong.

That's true, you are.

FrankTrollman wrote: No. Goddammit, stop being so fucking thick. You can't derive anything from that. Period. At all. Because what ownership means is not only legally and culturally defined,

Ok, from this point of view, then, misers aren't bad, because what a miser is, also has no precise legal or cultural definition. Fair enough.

Doom wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: No. Goddammit, stop being so fucking thick. You can't derive anything from that. Period. At all. Because what ownership means is not only legally and culturally defined,

Ok, from this point of view, then, misers aren't bad, because what a miser is, also has no precise legal or cultural definition. Fair enough.

You know what? This sort of dishonest asshattery will not stand. You're going on ignore for a while. Maybe you'll learn to actually make an argument in a week or two.

-Username17

Heh, just using your same argument, Frank. I'm not sure why it's valid for you, but not for me.

Can someone help me out by telling me what I did that was dishonest?

You got that in before I put you on ignore, so I'll respond.

Whether miserly behavior is good or bad is supposedly the conclusion of this discussion. You can talk about things that have vague definitions in your conclusions all you want. You're even supposed to, since defining those things is part of what a persuasive argument is about.

But your shit about ownership - which is unmitigated shit - is one of your fucking premises. You can't use something that no one in the entire history of the world will ever agree with you on the definitions of as one of the premises of your fucking argument if you want to get anywhere.

What constitutes laudable thriftiness and what constitutes disdainable miserliness is of course culturally defined. But that doesn't actually matter, since your argument is supposed to be about the actual goodness of some level of hoarding irrespective of what the cultural expectations about such behavior are. Chumping out on your conclusion by claiming hard core moral relativism and radical skepticism to nihilistically deny the truth or falsehood of your own conclusions is a coward's way of wasting our fucking time.

Just as using an undefined variable (the true meaning of "ownership") as the foundational premise of your argument is fucking retarded and won't ever get you anywhere, refusing to acknowledge the existence of defined argumentation space when you get to your conclusions is asshattery of the first order.

And that is why you are going on ignore for a week or two.

-Username17

Doom also cut off the end of the sentence, leaving a butchered quote that lacked an important part of the meaning of the original.

it's also subject to change and doesn't actually have an agreed upon meaning even within philosophical schools.

But, 'miser' is ALSO subject to change and there is no agreed upon meaning.

I mean, c'mon, philosphers not agreeing? That's a big deal? Snipping off that part changes nothing, sorry.

What, exactly is the definition of a miser? How much money, exactly? A guy with $500 laying around would be a miser a century ago, maybe...now, it's not even a month's rent. I'm absolutely positive philosophers do not agree on what exactly a miser is.

Thank you for your response, Frank, although I still disagree.

Frank wrote:Whether miserly behavior is good or bad is supposedly the conclusion of this discussion.

Yes, it is. I had to define 'good'. Why don't you have to define 'miser'?

But your shit about ownership - which is unmitigated shit - is one of your fucking premises.

"You own what you own" is shit...a tautology, maybe, but shit. A wrong tautology. Interesting. I'll have to consult the philosophy professor, I mus tbe confused.

I agree with you, though, the premises should be defined. What's the universal definition of miser we all can agree on?

"Misers are bad" is a fucking premise, too. Nobody in the entire history of the world will ever agree with me on any exact definition of miser, any more than they would on ownership.

What constitutes laudable thriftiness and what constitutes disdainable miserliness is of course culturally defined.

Neat. But, no. What's the definition of 'miser', then, and how exactly is this definition any more precise and permanent than 'ownership'? My grandmother hoarded 20 pounds of silver coins. Is she a miser? How about if it was 50 pounds? 100? 5? Where's the line between laudable and disdainable? Quantify this, please. Otherwise, it's no different than the line between owning land and the skyline above the land.

And, I'm sorry, Frank, but "misers are bad" is the very first line. If we're going to dissect things to the point that we can't use the word 'ownership' because there is no universal definition, then, yes, we can't use the word 'miser' for the same reason.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miser

It's a continuous variable; ownership, on the other hand, is generally used as a discrete variable.

In other words, someone might meaningfully ask "how miserly is that person?", but not "how owned is that money by someone?" unless ownership were treated as a continuous variable, such as from 'part of the commons' to 'mine, mine, my precious!"

Uh, that doesn't answer the question at all.

At least with legal definitions, I can tell if someone owns something. "How owned" is easy to answer for most cases. Here, we're talking about how owned is the money guy has in his hand that the law says he owns.

How miserly does a person have to be before he's a miser?

Doom wrote:How miserly does a person have to be before he's a miser?

I think this is, ultimately, subjective.

What might not be subjective is how miserly someone can be without hurting society too much.

I agree completely (well, 'too much' is subjective, too, and the whole point of the OP is the miser also provides benefits)

Miserliness, like pornography, like ownership, is quite subject to opinion.

This is why I had to use a circular reference for ownership, rather than than define ownership, and then say the miser owns his money. Any definition I give for ownership is vulnerable to some jackass saying "that's not the definition I want to use!".

Whatever 'owns' means, a guy owns what he owns (granted, I initially phrased it as 'you own your things', but this is still circular).

Frank is within his rights to hyperjackass and argue that even a tautology is invalid if the very words are taken to not have universal unchanging definitions. But, if you take things to that level, then no discussion is possible, as no words mean anything. There's nothing dishonest about that. Once you play the 'words have no meaning' card, then, indeed, words have no meaning. For those that believe words have meaning, of course, the argument still works.

Doom, you are being stupid.

Yes, Tautologically, you own the things you own.

But there is no reason to believe that "The things you own" are any particular things, except because you decided they are.

In this society, if your argument is that the government can't take your shit away from you if you own it, then in fact, you don't own anything, because the government has explicit right to seize anything and everything you own for any number of reasons.

The truth or falsity of a tautology is not at issue, it's the relevance to the discussion.

Since we know that the government can take your money because they feel like it, and it's called taxes, and we know they can take your house just because they want to build a highway, what the fuck is it that makes you think they can't just take your pile of money by instituting a Miser Tax?

Oh right, nothing. So what the fuck does "You own the things you own" mean in the context of this discussion?

It doesn't mean that other people can't take your money if you don't spend it, so what does it contribute to this discussion?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

The concept of what defines property is far and fucking away from the subject at hand, i.e. misers and a moral value. If you want to get into that, start up yet another thread. I think at this point we've destroyed most if not all of Doom's arguments that "misers are good" or "misers help people." Hoarding money or commodities is, in general, bad.

There are a few specific instances where you can point out that hoarding is good or possibly beneficial: keeping a (limited) amount of currency or material in reserve as insurance or to control the supply of money/a commodity in circulation works and can benefit people - but it can also be subject to abuse.

There are also instances where hoarding can be fairly harmless. Collector's coins, that kind of thing. But even here, it's a matter of degree. Grisham's Law - bad money drives out good - is essentially based on the human hoarding instinct. When two items are of the same nominal value but one has greater perceived value, people will tend to keep the latter. When that happens on any kind of scale, the effect on the economy as a whole is negative.

Every other instance of miserliness is just bad business. Money needs to be flowing for the economy to work; hoarding causes it to stagnate by reducing the amount of money available. Money that sits alone tends to reduce in value - it is not an investment of any sort. There are exceptions, but those mainly apply to goods or material rather than the actual nominal value of the currency.

Doom:
"You own what you own" is a tautology, much like "You snorple what you snorple" is. Both are true, and hold true for any definition of "own" or "snorple". Until it is agreed what exactly it means to "own" something and what rights owning something (in this case currency) confers upon you for owning it, then we cannot discuss whether it is moral, practical or reasonable to support the right to own and hoard currency, for the exact same reason that we cannot discuss the implications of a right to "snorpleship" with relation to currency. So I ask you: What exactly do you mean when you say "own"?

Once that's pinned down, then it becomes possible to assess whether or not a right to own currency is a social good.

Technically, your credit card doesn't belong to you - it's the bank's (says so on the back). So I can totally understand the idea of money not being yours to own, but it's yours to possess for the purpose of engaging in commerce.

I don't know what the law actually is, though.