"The Psychology of Progressive Hostility"

[Ray]

Well if you worked in a base 3 number system, 4 is not even a numeral that exists, so in that instance 2 + 2 can not equal 4 due to the absence of a 4.  Same thing with a base 4 system too, which only has numerals 0, 1, 2, and 3.  (Base 2 would not make sense since the numeral 2 does not exists in a base 2 system.)  You need to go up to a base 5 system for 2 + 2 = 4 to be correct. 

Wow! I think you deserve first prize for the most bleedingly obvious statement that has ever been made. 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in a numerical system in which the number 4 does not exist. Wow! Who would have thought that? 

I suppose in your next post you will try to debunk my argument regarding the connection between money and energy by stating that it is not true in circumstances where money does not exist.

Well done! Top marks! 

[Ray]

Is there a part of a product price which is not represented by energy or the efficient use thereof?

Of course there is. I've never claimed that the price of something represents energy. The price of something is just a notification on a billboard, or in an advertisement, or on a website, or on a tag in a shop.

It's the money paid for the product that represents energy. If an idiot spends a million dollars on a wrist watch, only a very small proportion of that money is needed to cover the production and marketing costs, and provide a reasonable profit. The vast majority of the money is effectively a donation towards a wealthy lifestyle of the owner of the business.

However, if the owner of the business, who receives a million dollars for a watch, uses the main portion of that money more sensibly than the person who bought the watch, then that's fine.

The purchaser of the watch feeds his ego, and the recipient of the money paid for the watch, which might be 100 times the production cost of the watch, feeds starving people in undeveloped countries, or restores degraded land through reforestation, or spends the money on some other useful project of benefit to mankind.

If that happens, I have no criticism. Got it?

[pegelli]

Of course there is. I've never claimed that the price of something represents energy. The price of something is just a notification on a billboard, or in an advertisement, or on a website, or on a tag in a shop.

It's the money paid for the product that represents energy. If an idiot spends a million dollars on a wrist watch, only a very small proportion of that money is needed to cover the production and marketing costs, and provide a reasonable profit. The vast majority of the money is effectively a donation towards a wealthy lifestyle of the owner of the business.

However, if the owner of the business, who receives a million dollars for a watch, uses the main portion of that money more sensibly than the person who bought the watch, then that's fine.

The purchaser of the watch feeds his ego, and the recipient of the money paid for the watch, which might be 100 times the production cost of the watch, feeds starving people in undeveloped countries, or restores degraded land through reforestation, or spends the money on some other useful project of benefit to mankind.

If that happens, I have no criticism. Got it?

Read my post # 347, to which you disagreed on all points in your post 348

Now you're agreeing to everything I said there, i.e there are parts of the product cost unrelated to energy and you are swapping the definitions of the price paid by the consumer "the price" with the cost for the producer "the cost". What you call "price" is actually the cost for the producer.

[pegelli]

Also, I sometimes rephrase concepts and elaborate for the benefit of those with an apparent  lack of comprehension skills. 
...
(1) Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy.

I've never claimed that the price of something represents energy. The price of something is just a notification on a billboard, or in an advertisement, or on a website, or on a tag in a shop.

The problem is not the lack of comprehension skills of the readers here, maybe it's the lack of clear definition skills that's getting you.

In the first statement you say the money used to buy a product represents energy, in the second you refute your own statement.

Since you claim to be a master of impartial and rational reasoning I hope you now see that you better stick to one story and don't change it along the way, or in simple terms (might be easier to understand) "if you're in a hole, stop digging"

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Seems to me the OP theme has been exhausted already many pages ago. Since the last several pages have nothing to do with the OP and are, frankly, quite silly, I am closing the thread. Those who wish, can, of course, always open a new thread on energy and money.