Brexit process

[Little John]

Answer the question.

Or, can't you?

Or, even more pathetically, won't you?

[vtsnowedin]

Answer the question.

Or, can't you?

Or, even more pathetically, won't you?

You know the answer you want. Wont you tell us?

[Little John]

I may be wrong. Which is why I have asked you.

Don't you know the answer? It's really okay not to know the answer to something you know.

It's really not okay, however, to pretend not to know the answer or to be willfully ignorant of it because you are afraid of what else that answer may require you to think about..

Where did the money come from V?

[vtsnowedin]

I may be wrong. Which is why I have asked you.

Don't you know the answer? It's really okay not to know that answer to something you know.

It's really not okay, however, to pretend not to know the answer or to be willfully ignorant of it because you are afraid of what else that answer may require you to think about..

Where did the money come from V?

Your asking if I know where the disposable income of a million customers came from? There are as many possibilities for answer as there are customers. The majority would be from their paychecks but that is not the false point you are trying to get to. So get on with it or admit your first rant about a fixed wealth pie is wrong.

[Little John]

So, you have stated where the money for those customers has directly come from. Well done. Go to the top of the class.

Okay, shall we try a little harder now? Where do you think the money that they used to pay for the product originated?

We both know you are avoiding answering this question. It is as blatantly obvious as it is pathetic and in continuing to pretend you are stupid, you are making yourself look... well.... stupid.

Where did the money come from V?

[stumuz1]

And if the banks print it out of thin air, in the absence of actual economic growth underpinning that printing, what happens to its exchange value at the systemic level?

To be very clear what we are talking about here.

Do you mean money( A store of wealth recognised by the party you wish to trade with)

or

Do you mean currency (A swap system which may comprise, inter alia, sea shells, crops, pretty daughters, strong sons, beer,or printed paper printed by a strong organisation habitually used to obedience)

Spoiler alert:

Either one you choose brings you to Adam Smith

[Little John]

And if the banks print it out of thin air, in the absence of actual economic growth underpinning that printing, what happens to its exchange value at the systemic level?

To be very clear what we are talking about here.

Do you mean money( A store of wealth recognised by the party you wish to trade with)

or

Do you mean currency (A swap system which may comprise, inter alia, sea shells, crops, pretty daughters, strong sons, beer,or printed paper printed by a strong organisation habitually used to obedience)

Spoiler alert:

Either one you choose brings you to Adam Smith

You are going to need to explain the essential difference there for me please Stumuz. I must be missing something in the distinction you have provided.

To paraphrase:

Your definition of money: a store of wealth in some material form that is universally recognized as such (otherwise known as a store of exchange value). Being universally recognized as such, it may be used in exchanges for other goods and/or services.

Your definition of currency: a swap system involving something in a material form that is universally recognized as such (otherwise known as a store of exchange value) and, in being so, allows for the exchange of other goods and/or services.

I don't see an essential difference between those two definitions other than currency is a form of money that is typically mandated by a government. I am happy to be shown there is one. But, you are going to need to spell it out more explicitly.

[stumuz1]

Money is essentially a belief system. Something you (subjectively) believe has some value.
Money has included gold, fancy baubles and the like. A farmstead. But it has to be in addition to your needs.Excess wealth.

Currency is something that has a common swap value. Fags in prision, gin, favours of some kind, fiat currency.

To me, some thin prison roll ups hold no value. To others they do.

What is essential for governments and their paymasters banks to survive, is they must get people to believe the printed paper is worth something. (which it isn't)

[vtsnowedin]

You are confusing money and wealth which are two entirely different things. Money is merely a medium of exchange. While wealth is the accumulated assets of the individual, or collectively the world, only a portion of which is the currency of the day.
My discussion is about wealth and the currency it is enumerated in and it's supply has nothing to do with the argument.

[stumuz1]

Money is merely a medium of exchange..

Medium of exchange, that would be currency.

While wealth is the accumulated assets of the individual, or collectively the world, only a portion of which is the currency of the day.

I'm in good health, I'm wealthy. I have everything I need, I'm wealthy. Assets are something you think is worth something. Back to the belief system.

My discussion is about wealth and the currency it is enumerated in and it's supply has nothing to do with the argument.

For you.

[Little John]

You are confusing money and wealth which are two entirely different things. Money is merely a medium of exchange. While wealth is the accumulated assets of the individual, or collectively the world, only a portion of which is the currency of the day.
My discussion is about wealth and the currency it is enumerated in and it's supply has nothing to do with the argument.

There is no confusion. Wealth may indeed be seen as the accumulated assets of an individual. However, in an economic system that employs money as a system of universal exchange, money may be used as a store of universal exchange value such that it can be exchanged, at any time, for those material assets you mention.

Meanwhile V, care to tell us where the money used to purchase that product originates? Or, to be more specific, where its exchange-value originates?

[Little John]

Money is essentially a belief system. Something you (subjectively) believe has some value.

Money has included gold, fancy baubles and the like. A farmstead. But it has to be in addition to your needs.Excess wealth.

Agreed

Currency is something that has a common swap value. Fags in prision, gin, favours of some kind, fiat currency.

Agreed

To me, some thin prison roll ups hold no value. To others they do.

To me gold, fancy baubles and the like hold no value. To others they do.

What is essential for governments and their paymasters banks to survive, is they must get people to believe the printed paper is worth something. (which it isn't)

Agreed. However, I still fail to see the distinction between money and currency as you have defined them other than one is coercively mandated by government and the other is mandated by common consent (though "common consent" may be seen as a form of coercion for those who do not hold the common consensual view as to what is a commonly recognized acceptable form of universal exchange), In all other respects, they are functionally identical.

I am not suggesting that FIAT money as compared to non-FIAT money is a trivial, non-issue. Far from it. But, in terms of the functional use of both money and currency as you have defined them, I still fail to see what essential distinction of usage you are drawing between them.

When you talk about "currency", are you really just referring to FIAT money? Because, of course, there are major issues surrounding FIAT money. But, that is a slightly tangential issue to the one I am trying to get V to recognize here. Or, at least, it certainly will become a significant issue if , at some point, it becomes possible for V to actually understand and acknowledge what money is and what are the ultimate foundations to its exchange value. But, we are not even past that starting gate yet.

[stumuz1]

Agreed. However, I still fail to see the distinction between money and currency as you have defined them other than one is coercively mandated by government and the other is mandated by common consent

Money is a store of wealth, but, that wealth is subjective. Its a belief system

(though "common consent" may be seen as a form of coercion for those who do not hold the common consensual view as to what is a commonly recognized acceptable form of universal exchange), In all other respects, they are functionally identical.

You've hit the nail on the head with common consent.

You and I are not interested in a fancy bauble for roll ups swap.

Once the general populace get their head around this hidden in plain view concept. Capitalism will crash and no-one will go to work.

However, that will never happen.

[vtsnowedin]

You are confusing money and wealth which are two entirely different things. Money is merely a medium of exchange. While wealth is the accumulated assets of the individual, or collectively the world, only a portion of which is the currency of the day.
My discussion is about wealth and the currency it is enumerated in and it's supply has nothing to do with the argument.

There is no confusion. Wealth may indeed be seen as the accumulated assets of an individual. However, in an economic system that employs money as a system of universal exchange, money may be used as a store of universal exchange value such that it can be exchanged, at any time, for those material assets you mention.

Meanwhile V, care to tell us where the money used to purchase that product originates? Or, to be more specific, where its exchange-value originates?

You are trying to avoid the topic of discussion by bringing in the unrelated subject of money supply and insulting my intelligence. As I have already explained to you're deliberate stupidity the source of the money used to buy the finished product is of no consequence because the value that that money contained now resides in the phone or other object invented.
Now do you still want to argue that the wealth of the world is a zero sum game with every gain balanced by an equal and opposite loss or will you swallow your arrogant pride and admit that the total wealth of the world keeps growing.

[Little John]

You are confusing money and wealth which are two entirely different things. Money is merely a medium of exchange. While wealth is the accumulated assets of the individual, or collectively the world, only a portion of which is the currency of the day.
My discussion is about wealth and the currency it is enumerated in and it's supply has nothing to do with the argument.

There is no confusion. Wealth may indeed be seen as the accumulated assets of an individual. However, in an economic system that employs money as a system of universal exchange, money may be used as a store of universal exchange value such that it can be exchanged, at any time, for those material assets you mention.

Meanwhile V, care to tell us where the money used to purchase that product originates? Or, to be more specific, where its exchange-value originates?

You are trying to avoid the topic of discussion by bringing in the unrelated subject of money supply and insulting my intelligence. As I have already explained to you're deliberate stupidity the source of the money used to buy the finished product is of no consequence because the value that that money contained now resides in the phone or other object invented.
Now do you still want to argue that the wealth of the world is a zero sum game with every gain balanced by an equal and opposite loss or will you swallow your arrogant pride and admit that the total wealth of the world keeps growing.

So, you don't think that understanding where the money comes from to purchase the goods and services in an economy is important in terms of a broader understanding of the source of wealth accumulation, maintenance etc.

Right

There are only three types of people who could assert that with a straight face. Ideologues, hypocrites or ignoramuses and I don't think you are an ignoramus. Though, I am prepared to stand corrected.