Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
"A.I.G. Suing US Government for $306 Million"
I Read This
May 24, 2018, 05:44:46 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18
  Print  
Author Topic: "A.I.G. Suing US Government for $306 Million"  (Read 54405 times)
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #240 on: May 04, 2009, 02:09:16 EDT »

Insurance is actually a net gain due to psychological factors (aversion to risk).

I think I've made this point before about how silly I find theoretical economics at times, because people do not behave like automatons.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #241 on: May 04, 2009, 07:19:47 EDT »

Lies. Lies and deceit.
LTV assumes material value separate from human desire (there is a use-value but it is separate).  Meaning in LTV if someone wants something they don't want it doesn't change the material value, this also means zero effort to acquire brings zero material value.   

See, you reached for idiocy when you should have reached for curiosity. You assumed about what I was labelling a lie and failed to assume correctly.

A more eloquent description of what lies you were telling are as follows:
Not that that is a very interesting special case, as it cannot ever actually occur without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Your reply to this was, as they mostly are, a non-sequiteur.
You are assuming all effort exerted reflects labor value in LTV.  For example sun light from the sun is free to humans even though energy is being spent as no human labor is required to acquire sun light (you just lay down in it).

And how much money did you pay for your last sun bath?
Yet LTV assumes that which requires no effort to acquire has no exchange value regardless of utility. 

Failing to see how your point isn't Pyrrhic.
With sun bathing we have use-value with little effort to acquire with its value the effort to acquire like LTV states.  If you live in a region were you can easily sun bathe most of the year you'd value sun bathing less then those living a region were you can't easily sun bathe most of the year, that would value sun bathing less then those that live in regions that can't sun bathe.

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #242 on: May 04, 2009, 09:54:23 EDT »

Lies. Lies and deceit.
LTV assumes material value separate from human desire (there is a use-value but it is separate).  Meaning in LTV if someone wants something they don't want it doesn't change the material value, this also means zero effort to acquire brings zero material value.   

See, you reached for idiocy when you should have reached for curiosity. You assumed about what I was labelling a lie and failed to assume correctly.

A more eloquent description of what lies you were telling are as follows:
Not that that is a very interesting special case, as it cannot ever actually occur without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Your reply to this was, as they mostly are, a non-sequiteur.
You are assuming all effort exerted reflects labor value in LTV.  For example sun light from the sun is free to humans even though energy is being spent as no human labor is required to acquire sun light (you just lay down in it).

And how much money did you pay for your last sun bath?
Yet LTV assumes that which requires no effort to acquire has no exchange value regardless of utility. 

Failing to see how your point isn't Pyrrhic.
With sun bathing we have use-value with little effort to acquire with its value the effort to acquire like LTV states.  If you live in a region were you can easily sun bathe most of the year you'd value sun bathing less then those living a region were you can't easily sun bathe most of the year, that would value sun bathing less then those that live in regions that can't sun bathe.

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes, you have effort to acquire over utility.  If you can quantify use-value then LTV gives you a labor value/use-value ratio (like in video game guides).
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #243 on: May 04, 2009, 23:32:13 EDT »

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...

QFT. Also SFT.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #244 on: May 05, 2009, 00:26:15 EDT »

One more use of your smokescreen digression shit and I will accept your concession for the entire discussion.
Then why do you confuse oxygen pressure with air pressure?  It is related to what I'm talking about as the process of breathing (one just takes in more air to blow more air)is how one creates air pressure without tools.

Continued digression noted, blanket concession accepted.

Or do you really not know anything about things like partial pressures and the composition of air?
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #245 on: May 05, 2009, 01:19:52 EDT »

One more use of your smokescreen digression shit and I will accept your concession for the entire discussion.
Then why do you confuse oxygen pressure with air pressure?  It is related to what I'm talking about as the process of breathing (one just takes in more air to blow more air)is how one creates air pressure without tools.

Continued digression noted, blanket concession accepted.

Or do you really not know anything about things like partial pressures and the composition of air?
Yes but that doesn't disprove my point, at the end of the day it is still LTV that determines the value of breathing at different modes of production not MVT.  Natural selection can be better explained with LTV then with MTV by using energy accounting, you can't really explain how life forms evolved with maximization of marginal utility like you can with energy accounting that is based on LTV.
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #246 on: May 05, 2009, 01:20:59 EDT »

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...

QFT. Also SFT.
?
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #247 on: May 05, 2009, 23:21:15 EDT »

"Quoted For Truth. Also Sig'd For Truth."
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #248 on: May 06, 2009, 00:52:48 EDT »

Continued digression noted, blanket concession accepted.

Or do you really not know anything about things like partial pressures and the composition of air?
Yes but that doesn't disprove my point

Actually it does, and besides you have conceded the discussion.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #249 on: May 06, 2009, 10:23:12 EDT »

Continued digression noted, blanket concession accepted.

Or do you really not know anything about things like partial pressures and the composition of air?
Yes but that doesn't disprove my point

Actually it does, and besides you have conceded the discussion.

No it doesn't as both acts are valued in the labor it requires to produce.  Creating air pressure is valued by required effort as is the act of bringing oxygen into ones body.   I also didn't conceded this discussion.
Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #250 on: May 06, 2009, 22:04:58 EDT »

Continued digression noted, blanket concession accepted.

Or do you really not know anything about things like partial pressures and the composition of air?
Yes but that doesn't disprove my point

Actually it does, and besides you have conceded the discussion.

No it doesn't as both acts are valued in the labor it requires to produce.  Creating air pressure is valued by required effort as is the act of bringing oxygen into ones body.   I also didn't conceded this discussion.

Yes you did concede:  I warned you that if you kept up that smokescreen digression garbage after having been called on it and having been corrected multiple times it would be a concession.

You only started going on about air pressure after I happened to describe what you want out of breathing being the ~20kPa of oxygen that is present in the air around you, (the oxygen being about 20%(v/v), and the total pressure being about 100kPa).  The example at hand, which you brought up, being breathing air.

If you want to engage in argument, learn how to do so honestly.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #251 on: May 07, 2009, 09:11:58 EDT »

Continued digression noted, blanket concession accepted.

Or do you really not know anything about things like partial pressures and the composition of air?
Yes but that doesn't disprove my point

Actually it does, and besides you have conceded the discussion.

No it doesn't as both acts are valued in the labor it requires to produce.  Creating air pressure is valued by required effort as is the act of bringing oxygen into ones body.   I also didn't conceded this discussion.

Yes you did concede:  I warned you that if you kept up that smokescreen digression garbage after having been called on it and having been corrected multiple times it would be a concession.

You only started going on about air pressure after I happened to describe what you want out of breathing being the ~20kPa of oxygen that is present in the air around you, (the oxygen being about 20%(v/v), and the total pressure being about 100kPa).  The example at hand, which you brought up, being breathing air.

If you want to engage in argument, learn how to do so honestly.
No I described air pressure to expand my example.  Even with getting ~20kPa out of oxygen you have labor value dictating the method.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #252 on: May 07, 2009, 13:25:37 EDT »

Wait, so breathing deeply is as valuable as a blowjob?

It's gonna be a good weekend.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #253 on: May 07, 2009, 15:32:23 EDT »

Wait, so breathing deeply is as valuable as a blowjob?

It's gonna be a good weekend.

In LTV you have material value (expressed in labor) and utility and I wouldn't say that breathing deeply has the same utility as a blow job.  LTV looks at material value as LTV views non-equivalent exchange as not something that effects value but simply as a unequal distribution of value.  For example if I sold you a brand new car for 2 cents it doesn't change the value of the car (not even if that was the market price) it simply is that I'm not selling the car for its full material value causing unequal exchange of value.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #254 on: May 08, 2009, 18:44:05 EDT »

So what's your best guess on the value of a blowjob?

What should I exchange to give it fair value?
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!