Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All I can tell you is how they shouldn't be. They should not be created in the public sector and then privatized. That means money or raw land should tend not to grow in value or accumulate in too few hands. . It also goes for "gold standards" which is yet another publicly sanctioned asset class in the private sector.
By becoming a superstar you have not created something from nothing. The status creates the value. The talent creates the status. The potential creates the talent. I would bet that others could have the potential to do the same thing, could have taken that potential and created a specific talent, That talent could have created the status and that status would have created value for individuals that follow the person.
For those that never went on to greatness and either had no idea that the tallent was there or could care less about it then that is like having oil in the ground that is un tapped. It is only thru the devlopment and growth of the talent that a value can grow along with it. If that work never goes into the process then nothing of value will be created. You can not create it out of nothing.
By becoming a superstar you have not created something from nothing. The status creates the value. The talent creates the status. The potential creates the talent. I would bet that others could have the potential to do the same thing, could have taken that potential and created a specific talent, That talent could have created the status and that status would have created value for individuals that follow the person.
For those that never went on to greatness and either had no idea that the tallent was there or could care less about it then that is like having oil in the ground that is un tapped. It is only thru the devlopment and growth of the talent that a value can grow along with it. If that work never goes into the process then nothing of value will be created. You can not create it out of nothing.
By chance or by intent, your argument is a fallacious one
Those ways of producing the false appearance of an argument which depend on language are six in number: they are ambiguity....
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations
In the context I am quite clearly referring to financial assets which are not to be conflated with talents because talent is not equal to asset in this context:
A talent:
* cannot be aliened( A concept first introduced by Marx aka alienation of labor from its object)
For example John Forgery was alienated from his own music such that even though he possessed the talent to produce it, his work with CCR was a commodity object owned by someone else. This cannot happen with "talent" alone. His collection of music became an alienated asset.
'What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?" He replies: "First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself...
-Marx
Marx said this in the context that commodities are rather easy to alienate from the producer unlike say a dancer who is clearly present. It is much easier to act as a proxy in the former case.
* is not fungible.
To wit:
Sneakers allow MJ's talent to be alienated from him because I can retain his sneakers which is objectified by humans...for what ever reason. He thus produced an asset that competes with himself, albeit weakly in that case, much like someone listening to a musical recording competes with the live performance of even the very same artist. However it is not very liquid because it is not fungible. MJ could make a fungible asset by offering to show up to a party by issuing a million tokens and then agreeing to show up upon receiving 100k of them back. That would:
Alienate and make fungible his talent as a commodity asset used in third part exchanges.
That is what fiat money, and more importantly, debt is with a sovereign power behind it.
And why is this important?
Most people seem to understand that when our dear sovereign goes into debt, it may be very disruptive. What most fail to realize is how economically disruptive it is when it goes out of debt.
Most people seem to understand that when our dear sovereign goes into debt, it may be very disruptive. What most fail to realize is how economically disruptive it is when it goes out of debt.
You have a talent for saying such incredible things while describing the most simple that most all fail to grasp!
“Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.â€
Marshall McLuhan
Most people seem to understand that when our dear sovereign goes into debt, it may be very disruptive.
Why would people believe that sovereign debt might be "very disruptive", while corporate debt is simply a sign of healthy capitalism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
What most fail to realize is how economically disruptive it is when it goes out of debt.
When sovereign debt is increasing, the government is taxing money out of the private economy and borrowing more, while spending all of it back into the private economy again. When the sovereign is reducing debt, it is taxing money out of the private economy, not borrowing anything, spending less than what it taxed, and returning the surplus to the private economy by buying down debt. In either scenario, everything starts in the private economy and returns to it. Where do all the supposed negative externalities come from?
Why would people believe that sovereign debt might be "very disruptive", while corporate debt is simply a sign of healthy capitalism?
I am not sure what you are getting at, and I would dispute that corporate debt is a healthy sign of capitalism when debt financing is written off as an expense while equity financing is punished. Its a sign of tax policy. Corporate debt is also not comparable to sovereign debt with the closet thing being commercial paper.
Quote:
When sovereign debt is increasing, the government is taxing money out of the private economy and borrowing more, while spending all of it back into the private economy again.
We follow a completely different paradigm. The government creates money when it goes in to debt, just like MJ creates liquidity when he creates tokens or goes into debt. When the government goes into debt what is it taxing? Where is the flow of goods and services? The government taxes when it spends.
Quote:
When the sovereign is reducing debt, it is taxing money out of the private economy, not borrowing anything, spending less than what it taxed, and returning the surplus to the private economy by buying down debt. In either scenario, everything starts in the private economy and returns to it. Where do all the supposed negative externalities come from?
When the sovereign reduces debt it destroys the money supply and private savings in nominal terms. Did you not take note of my comment that if MJ issued 1 million tokens and decided to show up and redeem them he would reduce the money supply by 10%? Someone must lose their asset and if the economy is running on only 900k of his tokens prices must fall or business must cease.
The question is are we or are we not on a chartalist money system yes or no? If your answer is no then into what commodity is the note convertible?
That is beside the fact that sovereign debt can be accepted AGSG(As Good As Gold) even under metal systems to some degree. My definition of money comes from inflation:
Inflation = too much money chasing too few goods and services.
Hence if it chases goods and services, its money. I see government debt chasing goods and services all the time.
How is selling a signed basketball selling your skills? The direct sale of skill would be if I needed him to shoot a basket. I don't have a signed wrench from the best plummer in town. I suppose if you want to use an unrefined unsophisticated approach like many modern economic approaches take, you can just call it a day. MJs skill cannot be used in exchange by a third party. See the difference between an artist and a ballet dancer? If the dancer sells their skill then their skill will not be used in the fashion of the carry trade. An artists painting could be used to buy a house a hundred years later. Tickets to the game might be used as a short term expiring currency reminiscent of Silvio Gessell's stamp script. But I hardly seeing it working its way into a more permanent source of liquidity.
Maybe not signing a basketball but let's not use that as as straw man.
Anyways, say I have zero assets, zero savings, absolutely nothing.. I help a neighbor clean his house for $20 an hour. I do work for 2 hours and make $40. Voila, I've created assets ($40) out of nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
