Originally Posted by deprav
I wasn't getting upset because you weren't agreeing with me, that would be silly. I was getting upset because you and turtle were answering like condescending douchebages.
It's not that I didn't think it, both are viable point of views depending what perspective you adopt. The world isn't just one unique truth.
If you place yourself in the "present social situation" (don't really know how to put that) of our civilization and how it is actually working then yes, money is true, it exists and influence our lives as economics measure it.
If you take a step back and place yourself in an exterior perspective and considere life is suffiscient to itself, in the absolute, money (and therefore economics because they go along) doesn't make sense.
The thing is to balance both point of views to reach a "humanist" middle ground. Between primal state of life and overwhelming laws of wolrdwide exchange flux that we created.
So long as we can compare things, economics will exist. Economics is not the study of currency.
Currency makes sense from any perspective. You will have to explain further what you mean by "step back and place yourself in an exterior perspective". It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, currency is a convenient and lucid solution to abstraction of wealth.
Examining the difference between primal and modern humans? Even in primal humans a mate must be chosen by some criteria. An indigenous species of Australian birds called the 'bower bird' builds nests to attract mates. While these birds do not have the cognitive abilities to perform introspective studies, one could say that principles of economics do exist even in nature. When you look at territory owned by magpies then it's obvious that a concept of 'wealth' does exist in nature.
Thus our dependence on wealth abstraction as opposed to material wealth is not particularly relevant.
Before you start reading this post, or wish to respond to it:
Grab a glass of water, and find a comfy chair.
Now, consider the differences between the area called Psyco-economics (not sure of the correct english term, perhaps Behavioral finance...) which is the study of economics with the use of using psychology, and the area called Economics.
Pseudo-science : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
And here comes the big wall of text!
Please, can't you listen to your own words now, or is it that you have redefined/defined material already in your mind and for some reason do not wish to share this with the rest of us, and could you give a reason to why you choose to stick with this definition?
Moving on one step we can then conclude that objectivity is not what we are discussing at all, rather the opposite, as you agreed on:
So, if I do not trade, does that mean that my property is worthless or that they have an infinite worth? They stand outside of your world of trade, are they non-existent in your world then?
If I refuse to adhere to your credit, but I trade wit someone who in the majority of this world have/carry a lower creditability than you, if I decide to only give you an unfair price on that bottle of water when I give it away for free to the one beside you, then what is the credit?
- Notice the use of the word credit in this sentence; am I discussing creditability, or "the other" form of credit? What If we start using creditability when we mean creditability?
As deprav then moved on; Most theories that are not natural laws are just "jibberish", they can be changed over a day, and as such in difference to the natural sciences, they are psuedo-science as they only apply in the fix moment of when they where written and as such only function on the selection of both time and space studied and described...
You pretty much agree with deprav that it is a Pseudo-science, just like saying that just cause the one gas; methane, is flammable, all gases are flammable... Now, in science, you would if you want to describe the conditions of this exothermic reaction state what circumstances you need in order to set it ablaze, however economic theories have yet to develop to the level where we can bind it into reality.
If you ask me, an deprav I believe, we both argue and hope you will accept that we are not wrong in believing: that it is a Pseudo-science, by our definition: not a science.
Christianity is my new science, comprende'?
"The study of the person called Turtlenecks, turtleneckology, is my new science, comprende'?
A good answer to the question in the first post!
However, you went on and shot yourself in the foot:
Moral values? Are they nor values, or valuable assets?
You just hand-wave away any value that is not in the form of coin...
The use of basic economics,
Right back at you, I believe Economics to be a Pseudo-science
(Note, somehow you managed to get me pissed, hence the reason why I had to leave the computer in order to come back and finnish the post, GJ!)
Economics is nothing without psychology. It could in theory be the study of supply and demand, and some very basic principles, but without psychology its as worthless as a religious person using the bible as a reference when arguing a point.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
It's called a psuedo-science for a reason.
And it will still be a psuedo-science.
Sorry Skolfe, I do believe we deviate a bit from what you wished to discuss...
Grab a glass of water, and find a comfy chair.
Now, consider the differences between the area called Psyco-economics (not sure of the correct english term, perhaps Behavioral finance...) which is the study of economics with the use of using psychology, and the area called Economics.
Pseudo-science : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
And here comes the big wall of text!
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Examining the difference between primal and modern humans? Even in primal humans a mate must be chosen by some criteria. An indigenous species of Australian birds called the 'bower bird' builds nests to attract mates. While these birds do not have the cognitive abilities to perform introspective studies, one could say that principles of economics do exist even in nature. When you look at territory owned by magpies then it's obvious that a concept of 'wealth' does exist in nature.
Thus our dependence on wealth abstraction as opposed to material wealth is not particularly relevant.
Please, can't you listen to your own words now, or is it that you have redefined/defined material already in your mind and for some reason do not wish to share this with the rest of us, and could you give a reason to why you choose to stick with this definition?
What I believe you aim at Cow
Moving on one step we can then conclude that objectivity is not what we are discussing at all, rather the opposite, as you agreed on:
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Worth is established merely by being trade-able.
Credit is not concrete, it is merely agreed on. In any trade you essentially agree that the value is fair.
So, if I do not trade, does that mean that my property is worthless or that they have an infinite worth? They stand outside of your world of trade, are they non-existent in your world then?
If I refuse to adhere to your credit, but I trade wit someone who in the majority of this world have/carry a lower creditability than you, if I decide to only give you an unfair price on that bottle of water when I give it away for free to the one beside you, then what is the credit?
- Notice the use of the word credit in this sentence; am I discussing creditability, or "the other" form of credit? What If we start using creditability when we mean creditability?
Originally Posted by deprav
I did just look it up, it's still "technical giberish to justify/explain some absurd concepts human mind created under the influence of abstract auto-suggested needs we developped in a society disconnected from reality" ;p Economics ain't a science obeying to natural laws, it's a science WE made and defined and which we now follow the rules as they were immuable truth... Economics is a belief.
As deprav then moved on; Most theories that are not natural laws are just "jibberish", they can be changed over a day, and as such in difference to the natural sciences, they are psuedo-science as they only apply in the fix moment of when they where written and as such only function on the selection of both time and space studied and described...
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Economics is not a 21st century invention, and it has never been regarded as demon-science. If I explained these concepts to someone 1000 years ago they would probably understand.
International trade has existed for thousands of years (there exists evidence from 4000 years ago, for example - and I doubt that is the earliest).
The idea that currency can be compared by the price of common goods is a very simple one.
You pretty much agree with deprav that it is a Pseudo-science, just like saying that just cause the one gas; methane, is flammable, all gases are flammable... Now, in science, you would if you want to describe the conditions of this exothermic reaction state what circumstances you need in order to set it ablaze, however economic theories have yet to develop to the level where we can bind it into reality.
If you ask me, an deprav I believe, we both argue and hope you will accept that we are not wrong in believing: that it is a Pseudo-science, by our definition: not a science.
Yep, I said it right there "...it's a science WE made...", i.e not obeying to natural laws, like physics, or chemistry etc... because it's the study of a concept WE invented (i.e money)
Originally Posted by Turtlenecks
False dichotomy. Science and belief are not direct opposites (it's not 'one or the other'). You have a incomplete understanding of both concepts. I'll break it down for you so you don't have to do much additional reading.
Christianity is my new science, comprende'?
"The study of the person called Turtlenecks, turtleneckology, is my new science, comprende'?
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
The concept of 'value' is as much a part of human identity as 'humanity' itself is.
A good answer to the question in the first post!
However, you went on and shot yourself in the foot:
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Value means value. Currency is merely one measure of value.
Moral values? Are they nor values, or valuable assets?
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Your arguments are completely invalid and you just hand-wave away the entire field of economics...
You just hand-wave away any value that is not in the form of coin...
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
I think you don't understand the concept of value,
The use of basic economics,
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
probably evolution as well, plus you seem to subscribe to some pretty out there theories.
Right back at you, I believe Economics to be a Pseudo-science
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Economics is more reliable on a macro scale than psychology, so even if you can explain things in terms of psychology it's not useful.
(Note, somehow you managed to get me pissed, hence the reason why I had to leave the computer in order to come back and finnish the post, GJ!)
Economics is nothing without psychology. It could in theory be the study of supply and demand, and some very basic principles, but without psychology its as worthless as a religious person using the bible as a reference when arguing a point.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
The scientific proses is very trustworthy.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
It's called a psuedo-science for a reason.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
So long as we can compare things, economics will exist. Economics is not the study of currency.
And it will still be a psuedo-science.
Originally Posted by Skolfe
Do you think that the use of a Fiat Currency [(money that's only worth what people believe it to be)] could substantially impact the value of actual worthwhile material?
Sorry Skolfe, I do believe we deviate a bit from what you wished to discuss...
Now doing recoloring for people not in the clan as-well, PM for more info!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to bother clarifying all the instances where you misunderstand what me or Cow said, but I will engage in responding to your main argument - You believe economics to be a psuedo-science.
I believe a lot of your misunderstandings result from your incorrect definitions.
Can you clearly state the criterion for pseudo-science?
I believe a lot of your misunderstandings result from your incorrect definitions.
Can you clearly state the criterion for pseudo-science?
I had to find the mental ressources to write this twice 'cause I accidentally pressed "previous page" before I wanted to post D: So I might have forgotten some stuff I wrote in the first version, but nvm, i'll clarify if you need me to.
Once again, I didn't say Economics was the study of currency
stop doing that thing when you imply things I never said. Tho yes I should have said :
"If you take a step back and place yourself in an exterior perspective and considere life is suffiscient to itself, in the absolute, economics (and therefore money because they go along) etc..."
Yes it does seem hard to explain that perspective I'm trying to show you. It would involve a discussion distant from the original post. But basically, to percieve what I'm trying to expose, you have to considere the concepts of symobiosis and synergy as essential to evolution of Life.
What I called "primal state of life" (that you further in you answer understood as "primitive humans") is the fact that Life as we know it is an intricacy of many factors relying on each others and evolving together, without concept of value; each factor being of equal importance for Life to be as it is. It's a constantly changing balanced phenomenon.
From there there's no value, no economics, no currency, no wealth, just plain simple Life shapping itself. Those human concepts can even appear as absurd, unnecessary, or even wrong, like a burden pulling down our understanding of the world and setting boundaries to our mental capacities (but then again, kinda off topic considering the o.p). [That's what I meant in some earlier post by "we lost it", from that point of view, we're a crazy specy, destroying the environnement that made our existence possible.]
And that's between those two extremes that we need to find a just middle-ground : between the impartiality of primal Life that will keep rolling without us, and the subjectivity of the human mind and our daily issues.
Once we reached this middle ground, maybe we could "cure" ourselves from our "addiction" to money/currency, and reconsidere it under a more "realistic" and reasonnable angle.
That's anthropomorphisme, you subjectively attribute human concepts to other animals' behaviour that we don't know the origins of. Or I'm not sure what you implied.
__________________________________________________ ___
Edit : woops, didn't see Smoggy's answer, nor turtle's.
Turtle > google pseudo-science it will cut a lot of unnecessary blablablah (oh actually he put a link to wikipedia for pseudo-science)
So long as we can compare things, economics will exist. Economics is not the study of currency.
Once again, I didn't say Economics was the study of currency
stop doing that thing when you imply things I never said. Tho yes I should have said :"If you take a step back and place yourself in an exterior perspective and considere life is suffiscient to itself, in the absolute, economics (and therefore money because they go along) etc..."
Currency makes sense from any perspective. You will have to explain further what you mean by "step back and place yourself in an exterior perspective". It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, currency is a convenient and lucid solution to abstraction of wealth.
Yes it does seem hard to explain that perspective I'm trying to show you. It would involve a discussion distant from the original post. But basically, to percieve what I'm trying to expose, you have to considere the concepts of symobiosis and synergy as essential to evolution of Life.
What I called "primal state of life" (that you further in you answer understood as "primitive humans") is the fact that Life as we know it is an intricacy of many factors relying on each others and evolving together, without concept of value; each factor being of equal importance for Life to be as it is. It's a constantly changing balanced phenomenon.
From there there's no value, no economics, no currency, no wealth, just plain simple Life shapping itself. Those human concepts can even appear as absurd, unnecessary, or even wrong, like a burden pulling down our understanding of the world and setting boundaries to our mental capacities (but then again, kinda off topic considering the o.p). [That's what I meant in some earlier post by "we lost it", from that point of view, we're a crazy specy, destroying the environnement that made our existence possible.]
And that's between those two extremes that we need to find a just middle-ground : between the impartiality of primal Life that will keep rolling without us, and the subjectivity of the human mind and our daily issues.
Once we reached this middle ground, maybe we could "cure" ourselves from our "addiction" to money/currency, and reconsidere it under a more "realistic" and reasonnable angle.
An indigenous species of Australian birds called the 'bower bird' builds nests to attract mates. While these birds do not have the cognitive abilities to perform introspective studies, one could say that principles of economics do exist even in nature. When you look at territory owned by magpies then it's obvious that a concept of 'wealth' does exist in nature.
That's anthropomorphisme, you subjectively attribute human concepts to other animals' behaviour that we don't know the origins of. Or I'm not sure what you implied.
__________________________________________________ ___
Edit : woops, didn't see Smoggy's answer, nor turtle's.
Turtle > google pseudo-science it will cut a lot of unnecessary blablablah (oh actually he put a link to wikipedia for pseudo-science)
Last edited by deprav; Mar 27, 2013 at 04:43 AM.
Originally Posted by Smogard49
It's called a psuedo-science for a reason.
But it isn't a pseudo science.
Don't post links that you haven't read.
Don't post in threads that you don't understand.
Both of these things are bad form, and against the rules. Please educate yourself and then return.
"Economics is not a real science because I don't think so" is not tolerable.
I bet you think mathematics, computer science, physics and biology aren't real sciences either...
Originally Posted by deprav
[/I]economics (and therefore [I]money because they go along) etc..."
But they don't. Money may be something under the umbrella of economics, but they don't 'go along'. That's like saying "biology (and therefore dogs)", completely ignoring that biology is a vast field which covers many organisms - and concepts and theories governing their mechanics and development.
Originally Posted by deprav
What I called "primal state of life" (that you further in you answer understood as "primitive humans") is the fact that Life as we know it is an intricacy of many factors relying on each others and evolving together, without concept of value; each factor being of equal importance for Life to be as it is. It's a constantly changing balanced phenomenon.
From there there's no value, no economics, no currency, no wealth, just plain simple Life shapping itself. Those human concepts can even appear as absurd, unnecessary, or even wrong, like a burden pulling down our understanding of the world and setting boundaries to our mental capacities (but then again, kinda off topic considering the o.p). [That's what I meant in some earlier post by "we lost it", from that point of view, we're a crazy specy, destroying the environnement that made our existence possible.]
As previously stated, I don't think that idea of separating life from reality is reasonable. Recall the examples of the bower birds and magpies. There are a million other species that exhibit territorial or possessive behaviour.
You asked me to consider this perspective with respect to symbiosis and synergy - this is at the very heart of economics. Please consider economics as being on the same level as physics - it's a universal truth.
Taking again the example of PPP, we can apply it to territorial areas of the magpie. In a fertile area the magpies may have a smaller territory, in a less fertile area the magpies may need a larger area. The concept of PPP lets us compare them, and show that the two areas - though different sized - are of equivalent value.
Originally Posted by deprav
Once we reached this middle ground, maybe we could "cure" ourselves from our "addiction" to money/currency, and reconsidere it under a more "realistic" and reasonnable angle.
Once again, money is a wealth abstractor, it is reasonable to want to horde it. In psychology it is called "super normal". In the wild humans want to horde food, clothes, tools, resources and land. Money enables any and all of these things - it's far more than primal humans have ever had access to. Hoarding valuable things is hard coded in to our brains.
Originally Posted by deprav
That's anthropomorphisme, you subjectively attribute human concepts to other animals' behaviour that we don't know the origins of. Or I'm not sure what you implied.
I am sure that the many animals of the world are thankful that we also subject them to the human concept of "gravity" - lest they fall in to space.
