If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Is there anything wrong with the example i gave you?
Hmm ever done any work in sales?
One of the things you soon learn is that what you sell is feelings.
Of course feelings are commodities. People buy fire alarms so they will feel safe, buy rollercoaster tickets so they will feel excitement, go on holiday so they can feel adventurous. Feelings are the most bought and sold commodities on the planet.
All items and services are a means to an ends - that ends is how the buyer will feel when they obtain the item or have the service performed.
It's no surprise therefore that feelings can be directly traded as in my example. Feelings make a poor form of money of course, because they soon decay, unlike say gold or silver.
As for it being divorced from what we are discussing, well theres you making assumptions again.
Yep.
That's commodity fetishism. What of it?
Errrr...no. People are actually also buying things.
I guess if you want to look at it like that, yes.
That's not trade. That's being nice. Fuck all to do with the subject under discussion.
This is just nonsense.
You're completely mad. What we're discussing is how people access resources they need to live. Your example is just nonsense. The ramblings of a lunatic.
from Wikipedia
No, it's the basis of all trade, it;'s not a special case. It's always in effect.
Which they have no interest in, because all they want from the thing they buy is the feeling it gives them. If they can get the feeling without the thing, they'll take it, no question. No one buys (or indeed sells) anything in the absence of feeling. Ever.
No, it's trade. Both partied gain a profit, measured in a money that doesn't last very long it is true, but only to fulfill their individual needs. If they couldn't gain satisfaction as organisms they wouldn't bother.
Money can be anything, right?. So your payment can be in the money of feeling good through chemical release in the body. Why not?
That money of chemical release doesn't last long so it's a poor form of money compared to gold and silver, but money it is nonetheless.
I am discussing how ALL trade happens everywhere and at ALL times. It applies to how people access those resources they need (and how they decide they need them) because that's just a small subset of all trade.
Notice that as it's dependent on the basics of being human - that you do everything for feelings of one sort or another and no other reason it wipes out all other systems like communism because the fundamental self-centred nature of people must mean that it can never, ever happen any other way than through capitalism.
Because capital is made of money and money is any substance whatsoever. So everyone is a capitalist and always will be.
The only people who know how they feel and how to fulfill that feeling is the individual themselves, so the free market is not only the most moral system, it is also the only one that can even get close to actually making people happy.
I never said it was good money, only that it was type of money. I even said it was a crap type.
What's this got to do with your example on the bus?
This really doesn't make any kind of sense.
No. See my link above.
Do you really need this explained to you? Feelings cannot be stored and traded.
No its not, for the reasons stated.
You're just describing your own warped view of the world.
None of this makes any sense at all.
It is not a type of money, by any reasonable defintion of the word. Now I know that in klintcok land you have your very own special defintions of words that no one else can understand, but really. You're a nutter.
Man your thick.
The interaction on the bus was trade.
Man your thick.
You should read those links you post. - Theres a lot of shoulds and no has to be's money is anything you can use to trade with. Money can be anything. This misunderstanding of money is at the heart of your warped study of economics.
Only if no one has memory. Which they do have. You can store feelings in the memory. In my wonderful example the bloke stood up because of a feeling he knew he was going to get upon doing so. That is, he had a stored knowledge that he would get paid in for his actions(in feelings). In a sense he was trading with himself as well as the woman.
Which were.......erm......
Material reality....that place you can never seem to quite get to..
If money can be anything (and you have yet to show me how it can't, you've only shown how some things are better than others at filling the functions of money) then every action is a capitalist action.
n.
1. The business of buying and selling commodities; commerce. See synonyms at business.
2. The people working in or associated with a business or industry: a textile-exporting publication for the trade.
3. The customers of a specified business or industry; clientele.
4. The act or an instance of buying or selling; transaction.
5. An exchange of one thing for another.
6. An occupation, especially one requiring skilled labor; craft: the building trades, including carpentry, masonry, plumbing, and electrical installation.
7. The trade winds. Often used in the plural with the.
Now since we are talking about the first defintion - "The business of buying and selling commodities; commerce", please tell me how someone giving up their seat is in any way, shape or form "trade". In fact, it doesn't fit any of those defintions.
n., pl. -eys or -ies.
1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.
2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.
3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.
4.
1. Pecuniary profit or loss: He made money on the sale of his properties.
2. One's salary; pay: It was a terrible job, but the money was good.
5. An amount of cash or credit: raised the money for the new playground.
6. Sums of money, especially of a specified nature. Often used in the plural: state tax moneys; monies set aside for research and development.
7. A wealthy person, family, or group: to come from old money; to marry into money.
While you're at it, tell me how feelings fit into the defintion of money. All I've seen so far is some vague waffle about "storing feelings in memory".
The item for trade was the seat.
The payment was the good feelings (maybe bad feelings lessened if he was brought up that way).
The prenant woman offered her social position to the bloke and he traded his seat for her comfort and thus his own enjoyment.
All human transactions are trade of one sort or another.
Money is anything that can be used to trade with.
If you know that you are going to feel amazingly good when you have helped a mate achieve some goal, oh lets say blowing up a bunch of party balloons (imagine you have a fetish or something) then you will do it.
What you would say is that there is no trade or profit.
What I would say is that you expended your labour in expectation of the payment of feeling good once the work was over.
The effort of blowing up balloons (expenditure) was more than matched by your good feelings on completion (payment) and so you made a profit.
That the profit doesn't last becasue it's stored in a form of money that is missing one of the essentials for "good " money is neither here nor there. (i.e. it decays quickly, like all feelings do)
Why would you do this? because you had a memory or other mental construct that forewarned you that blowing up balloons would lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
from blags dict definition, the above explanation in relation to trading with emotions fails to fullfill the 'market' clause.
1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market
Nope. In no way, shape or form does that fulfil the definition of trade.
straws. at. clutching
Emotions can't be traded in any way as they are not physical objects, they are entirely subjective. I think its klintock's Asperger's (or whatever it is that is quite clearly wrong) that confuses him. He has to struggle to grasp what other people take for granted, thus he talks about emotions as things to be traded 'cos he's not actually sure what other people mean when they talk about feelings. Quite sad really.
The market is their interaction. It's a market with two people in it.
The guy trades his seat in exchange for the service of the woman sitting down on it, which will give him the feeling he is after.
Like I said about money before, a hundred quid has a different value to Richard Branson than it does to me or you. That is, all things have only subjective value.
The seat is worth less to the man than the service of the woman sitting on it, so he makes a profit. The woman gets to sit down so she makes a profit.
In every voluntary trade, there can be only winners.
Physical existence is not a prerequisite of trade or money. See modern banking. You can trade promises in the future, you can trade things that don't exist yet.
Also, apart from rules like the speed iof light and gravity, it's all subjective - see relativity.
No. Just no. There is nothing at all wrong with me. I certainly don't have aspergers or any of the autisitc spectrum disorders. What I do have is a great appreciation for material reality above and beyond concepts. It's not an appreciation that many people share, but meh.
But all these things will have some physical objectivity at some point that will have some kind of agreed upon equivalence. The idea that feelings can be used to trade is just absurd.
you<
>the point
Not appreciating that there is anything wrong is one of the indicators. Poor klintock.
No, you don't. What you have is an inability to understand symbolism, human interaction and emotion.
Really? People can ahgree on the basic shaope of the devil, or come up with a communal idea of what god might look like. Does that mean it exists in material reality?
Nope. Just means that we have (yet another) group who are putting concepts above facts, same as those who believe in the state or god or pixies at the bottom of the garden. Now, these things can be useful but usefulness isn't reality.
Ok, so we seem to have moved the debate on a quite a way from the economics (obviously because you can't keep up or something and have moved on to this "aspergers" crap. Why not go back to the bit where you started to lose the plot and go from there.
By all means suggest an example like I asked you to a hatful of times, and I will patiently explain where your thinking is flawed. That way you can insult me some more when your brain gives up as we leave the realms of what you red in a book and move onto the real world.
Alright then, lets say I am suffering from aspergers syndrome, schizophrenia and oh fuck it, I am colour blind and in a smelly wheelchair. My statements might still be correct, even by accident. So, if you wish to disagree with my statements, you had better find logical ways around them in and of themselves as opposed to this shoot the messenger halfwit idiocy you have descended to.
I understand all three, my whole point is that none of them neccesarily have the slightest to do with what actually happens in the real world.
Never! :eek:
No, I have a real problem with assuming i understand when i realise that I might not. So I usually go and check. The great thing about checking your intuitions about what other people think and feel (i.e. empathy) is that you quickly realise that almost everyone gets it wrong most of the time. A useful thing for you to do would be to go against your intuitions for a week or so and see what results you get.
As for having problems with logical thinking, your the last person on earth to talk about it. You think with your emotions and then find out you were right.
Oh I grasp what others are on about, especially yourself.
Now, move on back to the debate we were having before you decided to go down patronising twat avenue. Ta.
Btw, do you know what the physical characteristics of one on one empathy are?
You're a fucking lunatic.
*puts klintock back on ignore*
I think you have.
To be fair to you mate, you do quite well at thinking until we get anywhere near your religion (what is it again, communarian libertinism?) or any of the fundamental premises of it. Then you get all antsy because deep down you know the stuff you believe in is a huge pile of stinking shit.
No doubt it's total and utter unfeasibility allows you to hold onto your injured sense of entitlement and also allows you to blame your problems on vast external forces. They'd have to be vast, obviously, because a huge ego like your own could only countenance being held back by titanic, colossal, overwhelming and unfair forces far far beyond your control.
I'd go to the shops for a pint of milk if only those damn capitalists didn't stop me!! etc etc
*shrug*
Cya then. :wave:
fairy nuff.
Though if I were writing the dictionary definition to include the above interpretation, I'd be more inclinced to use 'a' rather than 'the', as the the suggests to me that their is a specific market being refered to.
ETA: but, thinking about it, the 'the' could equally be reflecting back to the earlier mentioned exchange, which would therefore make your interpretation valid (in my own little head)
ETAagain: But, back to the bus trade, doesn't there need to be another thing involved in the trade, an external 'medium', which is the money? Scratches head...
Edit AGAIN: ignore the above, you've already answered that the money here would be the 'chemical release'. Must pay closer attention before posting...