Time Value of Money

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye, if something was valued in how many hours it took to make it means somebody would get paid more for making a sh*tty product that took twice as long as someone who made a better product taking half that time. Isn't there something counter-initiative about this?

I'm not saying any of this. I'm saying that whatever value a thing has, that value has been created by labor.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You might not, and that's fine, because like I said, value is relative - you might feel that morally, it is more valuable to compensate working harder to a greater degree than working smarter, and that's fine. You'll just lose money in the long run doing that. But that may not be important to you.

You are so full of it. You don't believe that value is relative at all. Anyone who has been around here knows that.

[Flip McWho]

I wouldn't say that working harder takes longer. Working smarter is apart of working harder. The harder and smarter worker deserves to be rewarded more than the worker who takes his time. Otherwise this just incourages laziness and inefficiency.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The monetary system was created so that people could consume goods and services without doing any work.

No it wasn't. Currency was invented so people didn't have to carry 10 shoes, 6 hats, 4 chickens, and a goat to barter with.

[Moral Hazard]

"Magic' is not a rebuttal. It's a cop out, try again.

[David Floyd]

But now you are of course talking about stockpiles of money. This is not the way Adam Smith defined wealth. He defined wealth as the production of goods and services, and specifically called the stockpile of money, not wealth, and therefor nothing of true actual value.

Without money, you can't produce goods and services, can you? There'd be no way for you to obtain materials, and in any case no one to pay for the finished good or the service.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Kid. Everyone is trying to tell you that labour has no inherent value. The value is decided by what the market is willing to pay for it and what the labourer is willing to accept.

I don't care about this at all. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Stick to the subject - time value of money.

[Moral Hazard]

Kid:
Define value and a way to measure it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Without money, you can't produce goods and services, can you? There'd be no way for you to obtain materials, and in any case no one to pay for the finished good or the service.

Point?

edit: not that I agree with this. Just want to stick to relevences.

[Flip McWho]

I'm not saying any of this. I'm saying that whatever value a thing has, that value has been created by labor.

No, because labour is only a fraction of the value. The price of the thing is created through the interaction of the market. The value of the product is decided by all the factors that go into the making of the product. In an ideal world the price and value will coincide but that isn't always the way and as such prices will reflect this and meet at a happy equilibrium.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


No, because labour is only a fraction of the value. The price of the thing is created through the interaction of the market. The value of the product is decided by all the factors that go into the making of the product. In an ideal world the price and value will coincide but that isn't always the way and as such prices will reflect this and meet at a happy equilibrium.

Again. Circular argument.

[David Floyd]

You are so full of it. You don't believe that value is relative at all. Anyone who has been around here knows that.

I believe that for you personally, your definition of value is perfectly acceptable, even though I, and most others, think it's stupid. That's why my definition of value fits reality - most people hold that same perception, because most people want to make money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Define value and a way to measure it.

Not relevent. Talking about what creates value, not measuring it.

[Flubber]

Somebody else should ask him if there is a time value of work-- See if that person gets ignored LOL

[Moral Hazard]

Define value with out a way to measure it. You can't talk about creating something if you don't tell us what it is. You obviously have a very different definition than the rest of us.