Socialist landslide in Portugal!

[Heresson]

What you're saying about why the voters went against the Spanish government doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with Bin Laden, which was the issue taken with your original post.

So it seems, from your last post, you are reversing course and saying it wasn't Bin Laden who ushered the socialists into power, but rather longstanding public disapproval of the conservative government's policies and actions. That's precisely the point we've been making.

Then we agree.
Except for the "ANYTHING" part.
Doesn't Usama have anything to do with attacks on soldiers in Iraq? Or even (with emphase that I doubt any links between him and Saddam) with the invasion?

Your definition of "cowardice" is virtually meaningless. By that standard, voting for any side is done out of cowardice, in some form or another. Big insight there.

No. Voting on conservatives wouldn't be cowardice.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because, comrade, as I stated before, exchange value is not an inherent property of things. If you had all the turnips in the world and no one wanted them, you would not be wealthy. You'd be poor with a lot of turnips. On the other hand, if I created a chegitz credit, which was nothing more than a slip of paper and/or some cells in a ledger, and everyone wanted them, I'd be wealthy.

Stock equals wealth because people act as though it does. And if people act as if you are wealthy, you are.

You are confusing personal wealth with the total sum of wealth in the economy. aneeshm said that wealth would be destroyed if the stock market went down. If he means people's personal wealth then he is correct. If he means the total wealth of the economy that depends on whether or not the same amount of work is done as before. If money is destroyed and the same amount of work is done then the existing money will be more valuable or more money can be printed. Again, it's very simple. Money is not wealth. It's value is only the things it can buy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
Then we agree.
Except for the "ANYTHING" part.
Doesn't Usama have anything to do with attacks on soldiers in Iraq? Or even (with emphase that I doubt any links between him and Saddam) with the invasion?

Um, no, the attacks on soldiers in Iraq have been overwhelmingly the product of Baathist resisters. While AQ has infiltrated Iraq since the invasion and has undoubtedly been causing trouble, they aren't by any means the driving cause behing the violence.

And despite the attempts to link AQ and Iraq (which are bogus), the war was fought on the notion Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Spain certainly didn't join the war effort over any sort of link to AQ, but on the Bush Administration's claims about Iraq's weapons capability.

No. Voting on conservatives wouldn't be cowardice.

You mean a conservative government that joined a war effort because of fearmongering over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Most amusing you'd think this. Of course, this also doesn't count the fearmongering Aznar's government engaged in by trying to pin the blame on ETA.

Conservatives rely on fear more than anything else to get elected - fear of social change, fear of foreigners, fear of gays, fear of equality, fear of other nations, fear of taxes, fear of regulation...

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, no, the attacks on soldiers in Iraq have been overwhelmingly the product of Baathist resisters. While AQ has infiltrated Iraq since the invasion and has undoubtedly been causing trouble, they aren't by any means the driving cause behing the violence.

I didn't say they were responsible for all, or even most, of the attacks.

And despite the attempts to link AQ and Iraq (which are bogus),

With which I agree all of the time...

the war was fought on the notion Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Without the WTC tragedy, there wouldn't have been invasion in Iraq, even if the alleged weapons existance of mass destructions present there was more important reason.

Spain certainly didn't join the war effort over any sort of link to AQ, but on the Bush Administration's claims about Iraq's weapons capability.

It's not "war effort".

You mean a conservative government that joined a war effort because of fearmongering over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Most amusing you'd think this. Of course, this also doesn't count the fearmongering Aznar's government engaged in by trying to pin the blame on ETA.

Conservatives rely on fear more than anything else to get elected - fear of social change, fear of foreigners, fear of gays, fear of equality, fear of other nations, fear of taxes, fear of regulation...

Bah. Some fears are justified, and some terms You're using are not the same for everyone.
It's not about conservatives in general, anyway. It's about going out of Iraq. Imagine that every state participating in stabilisation mission left. Do You think it'd be good for Iraq? And I think that whatever the causes of victory of socialists were, the terrorists will claim the withdrawal from Iraq their success.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You are confusing personal wealth with the total sum of wealth in the economy.

You can't seperate the two. The economy includes paper wealth.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You can't seperate the two. The economy includes paper wealth.

Did you read the rest of my post?

Here's the equation of exchange

MV=PY

M=money supply
V=velocity of money (number of times it's used)
P=price level
Y=output

MV and PY both equal total income, but MV + PY /= income.

Similarly money wealth = production capability wealth.

Income is the return on wealth. Wealth is what produces that income. When you say that money wealth plus production wealth equals total wealth you're wrong because you are doubling your answer. It's just as bad as saying that MV + PY = income.

edit: This would be like saying that your income is equal to your paycheck plus all of the products that you bought with it. Your paycheck is only worth one or the other.

[chequita guevara]

But without money wealth, those products can't be bought, and so become worthless. This is why wealth disappears during a recession.

[Kidlicious]

If the level of consumption, present and future, doesn't change will you agree that no wealth has been destroyed? If the stock market crashes but there is not recession then no wealth has been destroyed. Money wealth is just a claim on productive resources and future consumption.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


You've realy enlightened me

Clearly somebody had to.


Your analysis of the Spanish electorate's intentions and previous voting history was so lacking in detail it could have been inscribed on a grain of paella rice using the blunt end of a tree trunk.


Either you've just jumped to conclusions (bombing plus change of government equals chain of causality) or you're indulging in a spot of wish fulfilment. Of the two, I'd say the latter, because the former would imply the use of some form of logic, which appears to be sadly lacking in your post.

Of course, you could have just been signed up as a roving European reporter for Fox News, in which case all falls into place.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If the level of consumption, present and future, doesn't change will you agree that no wealth has been destroyed? If the stock market crashes but there is not recession then no wealth has been destroyed. Money wealth is just a claim on productive resources and future consumption.

Correct, but in capitalism, that's not gonna happen.

[Kidlicious]

Probably not, but socialists are more capable of keeping things on track when asset prices decline. Sometimes.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The money hasn't come from anywhere, yet. Money doesn't appear until someone pays for the stock. Like any other commodity, value is only realized when someone actually pays for the item or service.

What I was trying to say is wealth/value gets created from thin air in the stock market. Yes, money does not appear until somebody else pays you for a share of a stock, but that just means the share is money equivalent.

The interesting thing here is a publicly traded company can issue new shares. Since these shares can be exchanged for money, it's just like printing money. Viola - wealth/value from thin air.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Your money only has value when it is exchanged. Until you use it in the act of exchange, it is only potential wealth, just like the value bound up in any other commodity. If the government falls, your money loses its value. Inflation causes your money to lose its value. Where did the wealth go? The same place stock wealth disappears to when stock prices collapse.

Nowhere

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Both you and comrade kicidicous are fetishising the exchange value of tangible goods.

Tangible goods - at least a subset of these - have intrinsic value. People will always need food, clean water, and air. It'd be good to have a shelter also. What about tools? They are good to have. Thus, some items will always have exchange value. While money, as you pointed out, becomes worthless when a government collapses.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You are forgetting the wealth is not an inherent property of an object, but an assigned property and one which measures the relationships between human beings. The fact that these relationships are ephemeral, intangible, and subject to conscious change doesn't mean they aren't socially real.

Wealth is not real because it is just an abstract concept. It's like human rights, freedom, and democracy. I gather we are probably just quibbling about definitions here.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Clearly somebody had to.


Your analysis of the Spanish electorate's intentions and previous voting history was so lacking in detail it could have been inscribed on a grain of paella rice using the blunt end of a tree trunk

Either you've just jumped to conclusions (bombing plus change of government equals chain of causality) or you're indulging in a spot of wish fulfilment. Of the two, I'd say the latter, because the former would imply the use of some form of logic, which appears to be sadly lacking in your post.

Of course, you could have just been signed up as a roving European reporter for Fox News, in which case all falls into place.

Molly bloom showing his primitiveness

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Tangible goods - at least a subset of these - have intrinsic value.

Which is not pertinent to a discussion of wealth and/or exchange value.

And it's not a quibble of definitions, it's how capitalism works.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


Molly bloom showing his primitiveness

Don't start insulting people to cover up the absence of your argument.

All it does is reveal its inherent ill-thought out shabbiness.