"The Psychology of Progressive Hostility"

[Farmer]

I don't give a stuff if someone disagrees with me. It's of no concern whatsoever. It's the soundness, rationality and factuality of the argument presented that is my only concern.

If anyone succeeds in debunking any of my arguments, or revealing flaws or inaccuracies, I'm overjoyed because I will have learned something. Got it?

Yet this doesn't happen, as has been demonstrated numerous times when people post very reputable sources to back up their statements and you just dismiss them.  Or you resort to extreme examples.  I certainly haven't read every single one of your posts, but I don't recall you ever conceding anything regardless of the amount of facts and the quality of the sources.  You deny them all.

[Ray]

Yet this doesn't happen, as has been demonstrated numerous times when people post very reputable sources to back up their statements and you just dismiss them.  Or you resort to extreme examples.  I certainly haven't read every single one of your posts, but I don't recall you ever conceding anything regardless of the amount of facts and the quality of the sources.  You deny them all.

I'm concerned with demonstrable, objective facts, not the so-called 'quality' of the source, which can be very subjective, unless the source has factually and objectively been proven to be unreliable or fraudulent, of course.

[Farmer]

I'm concerned with demonstrable, objective facts, not the so-called 'quality' of the source, which can be very subjective, unless the source has factually and objectively been proven to be unreliable or fraudulent, of course.

Peer reviewed with primary data - that's the gold standard.  Yet I've frequently seen you question them with lines like "I don't think so" or "I don't agree" or by wheeling out an extreme case or minority view.  So, sorry, the subjectivity going on is from you as cognitive bias.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Debating you, Ray, on money=energy!? Now, that would be foolish.

P.S. Oh, wait! Is that what “m” in E=mc2 stands for?

[Ray]

Debating you, Ray, on money=energy!? Now, that would be foolish.

P.S. Oh, wait! Is that what “m” in E=mc2 stands for?

Slobodan,
You do realize, don't you, that when I use the word money, in this context of its fundamental relationship with energy and the uses of that energy, I'm actually referring to the concept of the true value of money, in reality, not the inflated, or distorted, and/or manipulated value of money, which always occurs to some extent, everywhere, most of the time.

It's only when that distortion becomes extreme, that we have a economic collapse.

[Farmer]

Define money, Ray.  Properly, not in the vague terms you just did.  Very exact definitions exist and are used constantly - pick one.

[Ray]

Define money, Ray.  Properly, not in the vague terms you just did.  Very exact definitions exist and are used constantly - pick one.

As I understand, there is no single precise definition of money or the money supply. However, a broad definition that makes sense to me, is that for something to qualify as money it must be something that is widely accepted as a medium of exchange for goods and services. A Van Gogh painting, a Richard Mille watch, or a printed photograph, do not qualify as money.

All goods and services, without exception, require an energy input, and that energy input is usually related to the price of the product or service, except when the product or service is used for 'exclusivity' purposes to feed an inflated ego. 

[pegelli]

All goods and services, without exception, require an energy input, and that energy input is usually related to the price of the product or service, except when the product or service is used for 'exclusivity' purposes to feed an inflated ego. 

Energy is just one of the factors determining the price of a product. Other raw materials as well as the skills/time to make the product are a major factor as well.

And I also think you're confusing the price of a product at which it is sold vs. the cost to produce it.

[Ray]

Energy is just one of the factors determining the price of a product.

It is indeed, as I've already mentioned. The other factor is the degree of efficiency of the use of that energy. These two factors, which always work together, are the basis of all human activity.

Other raw materials as well as the skills/time to make the product are a major factor as well.

These other factors are not separate from energy requirements. 'No energy' equates to 'no raw materials'. One cannot dig up iron ore without an expenditure of energy. One cannot transport it to the smelting factory without an expenditure of energy, and that expenditure of energy is passed on to the buyer of the steel product, whatever the use it is put to.

Likewise with skills. Energy is required to build schools and fund teachers. Energy is required for the student to learn his skill, travel back and forth to the school or college, manufacture his computer, and provide food so he can survive.

And I also think you're confusing the price of a product at which it is sold vs. the cost to produce it.

No I'm not. The competitive free market encourages greater efficiency of the use of energy. China is an example of a country that has excelled in this respect. It seems to have combined the latest, most sophisticated technology, with wages that are lower than those that are typical in the West.

By paying lower wages, their products require less energy to produce. The next stage, which is already in place, is to develop sophisticated robots that can do most of the current jobs done by humans, at a lower cost, which equates to a lower consumption of energy, and a lower price in the market.

[pegelli]

I'm concerned with demonstrable, objective facts

Why don't you bring some on your energy=price story? At this moment it's a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ray, it takes too much energy to debate you

[Ray]

Why don't you bring some on your energy=price story? At this moment it's a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts.

Better still, why don't you give me just one example of a product or service, or any part of the often long and convoluted process of the production of the final product or service, that does not require an input of energy.

If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise. Are you asking me to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ? 

[Ray]

Ray, it takes to much energy to debate you

Try taking some PQQ ( PyrroloQuinoline Quinone), Slobodan. It's claimed to help the Mitochondria in our cells create energy more efficiently. 

"Mitochondria are often referred to as the powerhouse of the cell. They are small structures within a cell that are made up of two membranes and a matrix. The membrane is where the chemical reactions occur and the matrix is where the fluid is held. Mitochondria are a part of eukaryotic cells.

The main job of mitochondria is to perform cellular respiration. This means it takes in nutrients from the cell, breaks it down, and turns it into energy. This energy is then in turn used by the cell to carry out various functions."

[Farmer]

As I understand, there is no single precise definition of money or the money supply. However, a broad definition that makes sense to me, is that for something to qualify as money it must be something that is widely accepted as a medium of exchange for goods and services. A Van Gogh painting, a Richard Mille watch, or a printed photograph, do not qualify as money.

All goods and services, without exception, require an energy input, and that energy input is usually related to the price of the product or service, except when the product or service is used for 'exclusivity' purposes to feed an inflated ego. 

Try again.  There are numerous, well defined and accepted definitions.  Choose one to work with instead of making things up.

[pegelli]

If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise. Are you asking me to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ? 

That's not what you said earlier, now you're changing the story.
You said:

Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy

So in your original words what you call "everything else" (bolded above for clarity) is also energy, which is exactly the part I say is "a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts"

So while I agree that 2 + 2 = 4 (no need to prove that to me) it has no relation to your original statement

[Ray]

That's not what you said earlier, now you're changing the story.

I'm not changing the story. I'm merely elaborating. It's not what I said earlier, word for word, although I sometimes do repeat things for the benefit of those who missed what I wrote earlier, perhaps because they didn't have the time to read the entire thread.

Also, I sometimes rephrase concepts and elaborate for the benefit of those with an apparent  lack of comprehension skills. 

I don't see any contradiction in my following two statements.

(1) Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy.

(2) If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise.

So in your original words what you call "everything else" (bolded above for clarity) is also energy, which is exactly the part I say is "a combination of personal feelings, oversimplification, smoke and mirrors and totally void of demonstrable objective facts"

Surely it's personal feelings that are in the category of 'smoke and mirrors'. If you think any part of my argument is 'smoke and mirrors', then please give me a specific example of such an issue which I might have failed to consider, and I'll examine it to see if it's relevant. Perhaps I'll learn something. 

To elaborate, if the price of energy (coal, oil, electricity, and so on) increases, then the production costs must also increase if everything else remains the same. By 'everything else' I mean everything else which is relevant to the production process, such as, the same machinery, the same processes, the same personnel who are paid the same wages, the same transport trucks, the same company profits, and so on.

In reality, of course, nothing remains the same. An increase in the price of fuel will often stimulate an increase in efficiency through a reorganization of the production processes, in order to keep the wholesale price of the final product the same, or even cheaper despite the increase in fuel costs.

Sometimes the Government might step in and subsidize the fuel costs for a particular industry in order to make the exports of the product competitive. In other words, the increase in fuel costs might be passed on to the general tax payer.

This is the basis of my argument, that the true and undistorted value of money must relate to the true cost of energy in combination with the efficiency of the uses of that energy.

If you think my argument is flawed, then by all means provide some specific examples which might appear to falsify my hypothesis, and I'll examine them impartially and rationally. 

[JoeKitchen]

Better still, why don't you give me just one example of a product or service, or any part of the often long and convoluted process of the production of the final product or service, that does not require an input of energy.

If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise. Are you asking me to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 ? 

One of the very first proofs I can remember seeing in college (I have degrees in pure mathematics) was that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and it was completely legitimate. 

If you really want to start throwing around 2 + 2 = 4 and fool around with number theory to help justify your premise, I recommend you also specify the base and number system you are working in too. 

 

And to answer your question, I would love to see an original proof written by you that 2 + 2 = 4. 

If possible, please write it in LaTex. 

[Ray]

One of the very first proofs I can remember seeing in college (I have degrees in pure mathematics) was that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and it was completely legitimate. 

If you really want to start throwing around 2 + 2 = 4 and fool around with number theory to help justify your premise, I recommend you also specify the base and number system you are working in too. 

 

And to answer your question, I would love to see an original proof written by you that 2 + 2 = 4.

It's you who is fooling around. If you have a legitimate proof that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, then explain the concept so we can all learn, and explain how it is relevant to the processes of money exchanged for goods and services, and the energy used in the production of the goods and services.

[JoeKitchen]

It's you who is fooling around. If you have a legitimate proof that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, then explain the concept so we can all learn, and explain how it is relevant to the processes of money exchanged for goods and services, and the energy used in the production of the goods and services.

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. 

Even so, this assumes you are working within a Abelian group such that the additive operation is what we would consider the normal addition every knows of and that the set associated with that group is at least the natural numbers. 

So, as you can see it is not so simple to assume that 2 + 2 = 4.   

Amazing what happens when you change the base axioms of any mathematical system, and also that so many people just assume that the math they are taught is absolutely true.  It is not; it is only true if you choose to believe the base axioms, which is a choice not a requirement. 

Anyway, you brought it up.  You through around the idea that since 2 + 2 = 4 is so obvious, you can use it to back up you idea that money equals energy.  But like I just showed, 2 + 2 = 4 is not always true, so it has no baring on your premise. 

[pegelli]

I don't see any contradiction in my following two statements.

(1) Whatever the price of the product, and whatever your reason for buying it, the money you use to buy the product represents energy.

(2) If the price of energy rises, but everything else in the production process remains the same, then the cost of production must also rise.

I agree with your statement (2)

However the contradiction lies therein that if "the money you use to buy the product represents energy" (your exact words) there is no "everything else" in the price that remains the same, because everything is already represented by energy (according to your statement (1))

My statement is that there is an "everything else" part in the price which is not represented by energy (or the efficient use thereof), which you denied in your post # 348 in response to my statement.


So in order to get an objective/clear answer from you:

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

A: Yes
B: No

If you say answer A is correct we agree
If you say answer B is correct we disagreee

However if you say answer B is correct you have not given any objective and verifiable facts that support statement (1). It's your feeling or belief, but no more than that.

If you think my argument is flawed, then by all means provide some specific examples which might appear to falsify my hypothesis, and I'll examine them impartially and rationally. 

This is turning the word on its head, there's no obligation for me to find examples if you haven't even begun to give verifyable facts (supported by figures and calculations) that what you are saying makes any sense in the base case.