The people I like least

[Ban Kenobi]

I meant to say that wealth can only apply in relation to living people anyway.

I agree that wealth is only applicable to the living but this wasn't clear from your statement "The only valid way to measure wealth is by absence of need". It's still a strange definition even with the "you have to be a living human" caveat since people expend a considerable amount of effort obtaining things they don't really need.

[Dinner]

His weird definition of wealth was actually how the Inca measured wealth but they were a non-monitary society without the concept of money so I'd say currency kind of makes it obsolete.

[Fake Boris]

So, what you're trying to say, is that by not extracting them, we are still able to extract them in the future? Did you ever stop to consider for a moment that the reason we might want to extract them in the future is because they are more valuable when they aren't in the ****ing ground?

Whichever measure of value - mine or yours - they're more valuable in the ground.

Given inflation, increases in productivity, and rarefaction, the value of a preserved resource will augment over time.

[Fake Boris]

So, what you're trying to say, is that by not extracting them, we are still able to extract them in the future? Did you ever stop to consider for a moment that the reason we might want to extract them in the future is because they are more valuable when they aren't in the ****ing ground?

Whichever measure of value - mine or yours - they're more valuable in the ground.

Given inflation, increases in productivity, and rarefaction, the value of a preserved resource will augment over time.

[Felch]

So I can become wealthy be desiring objects? Thanks for the heads-up

Does having the things you want count as wealth? You don't need to eat fresh and natural food, the government could address your needs by feeding your some disgusting yet nutritious paste.

One of which is wrong.

Sides of an equation aren't like sides of an argument, they're not wrong. Adding more to society makes you more useful to society. Really it's the difference between what you add to society and what you take from it that determine your usefulness.

It provides us with the security of known reserves. It protects people against externalities without resorting to fiscal incentives and the expensive bureaucracy that comes with them.

So if we leave lumber at the mill and don't use it to build houses, we're better off than if we built houses out of it?

[Fake Boris]

I agree that wealth is only applicable to the living but this wasn't clear from your statement "The only valid way to measure wealth is by absence of need". It's still a strange definition even with the "you have to be a living human" caveat since people expend a considerable amount of effort obtaining things they don't really need.

My contention is that they do so on behalf of a misled incentive apparatus.

[Fake Boris]

I agree that wealth is only applicable to the living but this wasn't clear from your statement "The only valid way to measure wealth is by absence of need". It's still a strange definition even with the "you have to be a living human" caveat since people expend a considerable amount of effort obtaining things they don't really need.

My contention is that they do so on behalf of a misled incentive apparatus.

[Felch]

Hauldren Caulifielder and Felch probably think that I have never considered their POVs and that I am discovering its existence right now

We think you're a ******. But we both believe that anybody can learn the truth if they are patiently instructed.

[Hauldren Collider]

Whichever measure of value - mine or yours - they're more valuable in the ground.

Given inflation, increases in productivity, and rarefaction, the value of a preserved resource will augment over time.

You are giving me a headache. Good grief. You are going in a very tight circle here. Let's try this again:

So, what you're trying to say, is that by not extracting them, we are still able to extract them in the future? Did you ever stop to consider for a moment that the reason we might want to extract them in the future is because they are more valuable when they aren't in the ****ing ground?

QED

We think you're a ******. But we both believe that anybody can learn the truth if they are patiently instructed.

Yes, but that patience is quickly running out.

[Hauldren Collider]

My contention is that they do so on behalf of a misled incentive apparatus.

WTF is an incentive apparatus? The only incentive I observe is "I want things, so I work so that I can have things", which doesn't seem misleading? Last time I went to the store I was able to buy stuff with the money I earned.

[Fake Boris]

Does having the things you want count as wealth?

1) Again wealth is just absence of need. The relation between this and the sum of your property is determined by your character.

You don't need to eat fresh and natural food, the government could address your needs by feeding your some disgusting yet nutritious paste.

What do you mean?

Sides of an equation aren't like sides of an argument, they're not wrong. Adding more to society makes you more useful to society. Really it's the difference between what you add to society and what you take from it that determine your usefulness.

Any logical system is tautological, some are just more useful than others.

So if we leave lumber at the mill and don't use it to build houses, we're better off than if we built houses out of it?

[/QUOTE]

If you're satisfied with your house, you're better off not wasting time building a new one.

[Fake Boris]

Does having the things you want count as wealth?

1) Again wealth is just absence of need. The relation between this and the sum of your property is determined by your character.

You don't need to eat fresh and natural food, the government could address your needs by feeding your some disgusting yet nutritious paste.

What do you mean?

Sides of an equation aren't like sides of an argument, they're not wrong. Adding more to society makes you more useful to society. Really it's the difference between what you add to society and what you take from it that determine your usefulness.

Any logical system is tautological, some are just more useful than others.

So if we leave lumber at the mill and don't use it to build houses, we're better off than if we built houses out of it?

If you're satisfied with your house, you're better off not wasting time building a new one.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would say that you probably considered it long enough for your pinko teachers at Filosofer School to spoon-feed you some argumentative comebacks to what are otherwise straightforward observations about the economy and the way people behave.

And HC would be right about that.

[KrazyHorse]

If only some economist had studied the most socially beneficial path of nonrenewable resource extraction we might not have to rely on fakeboris to let is know that not using something leaves you with more than using it.

[Fake Boris]

WTF is an incentive apparatus? The only incentive I observe is "I want things, so I work so that I can have things", which doesn't seem misleading? Last time I went to the store I was able to buy stuff with the money I earned.

Do you understand how new units of currency are issued, and why?