NortonH

The spending of money

Recommended Posts

When you spend money what is it you are actually doing?

In reality money is just a coupon which allows you to consume some energy. Without energy available your money is worth nothing. If you spend a load of money then somewhere a lot of energy has been consumed. The link is pretty clear to anyone who has ever worked in business and understands the concepts of 'conserved quantity', 'joule' and 'watt'.

(Please note: If this message is to hard to refute then please just shut down all discussion.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth and value are social constructs. Energy is also an invented concept, but it’s physical, not social. 

Your connection is nonsensical. It’s also nonsequitur. 

You may as well be asserting something like, “because bananas are yellow, today is Thursday.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, iNow said:

You may as well be asserting something like, “because bananas are yellow, today is Thursday.”

I do not think that that sort of comment adds to the discussion.

If you care to discuss the topic then please do. If you plan to just troll the thread until you successfully get it closed down then I will leave you to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NortonH said:

When you spend money what is it you are actually doing?

In reality money is just a coupon which allows you to consume some energy. Without energy available your money is worth nothing. If you spend a load of money then somewhere a lot of energy has been consumed. The link is pretty clear to anyone who has ever worked in business and understands the concepts of 'conserved quantity', 'joule' and 'watt'.

!

Moderator Note

You still need to provide evidence of it

 
1 hour ago, NortonH said:

(Please note: If this message is to hard to refute then please just shut down all discussion.)

!

Moderator Note

Trying to distract from the fact that you are making bald assertions, and doing it so poorly, is not amusing. You are violating the rule about soapboxing. Stop it.

(and don't violate the rule about staying on topic by responding to this in the thread)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some said that working you are selling your time of life. Some person life time is cheap, other person life time is more expensive. It's correlated to how well somebody is educated. At the same time when education cost money, it creates endless loop. Poor people can't afford sending their offspring to school, so poorness is inherited in the next generations. Hard to break this loop.

 

It reminds me the movie "In Time".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/

In the movie authors moved even further and made equation money = time. Time of life. Literally.

 

 

ps. I wish the all people the best education (without addition "..which one they can afford")..

 

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

You still need to provide evidence of it

I have tried in the past to establish the link between conserved quantities. This has relied on my being allowed to define some concepts in finance which mirror energy conservation principles in physics. My attempts have been met with trolling and banning but they are still on the board and have not been refuted.

A currency is only worth what it can buy and a currency which can be immediately converted to (ie BUY) a liter of petrol is more valuable than one which cannot. This is clearly demonstrated in the various countries around the world. If you have the choice of a USD or a Zim Dollar it is clear which one is better. Even in screwed up countries like Nigeria the currency has value simply because it can easily be exchanged for energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NortonH said:

I do not think that that sort of comment adds to the discussion.

If you care to discuss the topic then please do. If you plan to just troll the thread until you successfully get it closed down then I will leave you to it.

Neither does this fabricated line in your opening post......

4 hours ago, NortonH said:

If this message is message is to hard to refute then please just shut down all discussion.)

 

Money, is as defined here.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

"Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context.[1][2][3]The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.[4][5] Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered as money.

Money is historically an emergent market phenomenonestablishing a commodity money, but nearly all contemporary money systems are based on fiat money.[4] Fiat money, like any check or note of debt, is without use valueas a physical commodity. It derives its value by being declared by a government to be legal tender; that is, it must be accepted as a form of payment within the boundaries of the country, for "all debts, public and private".[6]

The money supply of a country consists of currency (banknotes and coins) and, depending on the particular definition used, one or more types of bank money (the balances held in checking accounts, savings accounts, and other types of bank accounts). Bank money, which consists only of records (mostly computerized in modern banking), forms by far the largest part of broad money in developed countries".

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beecee said:

Money, is as defined here.....

Great. You have found a dictionary definition so now use it.

Tell me why the currency in Zimbabwe is useless and why Nigeria has a reasonably strong, convertible currency.

Why does the Saudi currency have value even though they produce nothing other than oil and hot camels?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Great. You have found a dictionary definition so now use it.

I found a accepted definition, as opposed to a definition fabricated by someone with an obvious agenda.

Quote

Tell me why the currency in Zimbabwe is useless and why Nigeria has a reasonably strong, convertible currency.

 

In a word hyper inflation.

but hey, google is your friend......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_dollar

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, beecee said:

In a word hyper inflation.

And what might be the cause of that?

Would it be to do with the fact that increasing amounts of increasingly worthless money is needed to buy a fixed amount of energy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NortonH said:

And what might be the cause of that?

Would it be to do with the fact that increasing amounts of increasingly worthless money is needed to buy a fixed amount of energy?

 

Probably a myriad of many things. read the article. 

But as I'm sure you know, whatever the point your pushing is, that this is simply flogging a dead horse: We could not operate without money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beecee said:

But as I'm sure you know, whatever the point your pushing is, that this is simply flogging a dead horse: We could not operate without money. 

If you don't even understand what my point is but still argue then that demonstrates clearly that your ONLY purpose on this thread is to bicker and squabble and contribute nothing. No problem. I can use the guff you spout to illustrate my points.

If you have a lot of money around and little in the way of goods for it to buy then you get inflation simply because the exchange of one for the other results in a price measure. All the money exchanges maps to all the goods exchanged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NortonH said:

If you don't even understand what my point is but still argue then that demonstrates clearly that your ONLY purpose on this thread is to bicker and squabble and contribute nothing. No problem. I can use the guff you spout to illustrate my points.If you have a 

I believe we have enough evidence of threads that you started on this forum, [and subsequently were closed for spamming,] unsupported claims on a science forum, aggressive remarks and implied conspiracies, to see that it is you wanting to bicker and squabble, because you  are not allowed a free hand to do what you want and say without a shred of scientific evidence.

 

Quote

If you have a lot of money around and little in the way of goods for it to buy then you get inflation simply because the exchange of one for the other results in a price measure. All the money exchanges maps to all the goods exchanged.

Again there are many aspects that contribute to inflation: Again you need to brush up on accepted definitions and meanings and not make up your own.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NortonH said:

Please note: If this message is to hard to refute then please just shut down all discussion.

You don't need to worry about that.

 It's easy to refute;  My electricity bill gives me an exchange rate of about three times as many pound per joule as my gas bill does.

 

Incidentally, pointing out, and illustrating the concept of non sequeters is not troling, it's science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It's easy to refute;  My electricity bill gives me an exchange rate of about three times as many pound per joule as my gas bill does.

Gas and electricity are different products and so I contend that the cost of each of them is a good measure of the energy that has gone into getting them to you house. Not sure why you think you have refuted that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Gas and electricity are different products and so I contend that the cost of each of them is a good measure of the energy that has gone into getting them to you house. Not sure why you think you have refuted that.

When was the last time you'd seen an energy bill? Regardless of what commodity it is, the energy value is clearly stated in whatever units are in use in the country, such as kWh in Australia. From comparing couple energy bills you can easily see that the same amount of money can buy you a different amount of "energy".

Also, just to remind you that energy is not a "thing", it's a property of a physical object. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NortonH said:

When you spend money what is it you are actually doing?

In reality money is just a coupon which allows you to consume some energy.

Hmmm I see the discussion went in a different direction but for me the premise is flawed. What if I'm a psychologist, the catholic church, a stripper?  I get paid. Where's the energy relationship. And if you say that I need electricity to power the lights in my office, I swear to God....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

When was the last time you'd seen an energy bill? Regardless of what commodity it is, the energy value is clearly stated in whatever units are in use in the country, such as kWh in Australia. From comparing couple energy bills you can easily see that the same amount of money can buy you a different amount of "energy".

Also, just to remind you that energy is not a "thing", it's a property of a physical object. 

Pavel Cherepan, if indeed that really is your name, you seem to have made exactly the same mistake as John Cuthber. That is sad because I have already explained once where John went wrong.

If you order a dozen bottles of Perrier Water and try to burn them like gas you will get ZERO energy. Are you saying that that means that there was NO ENERGY consumed in the process of making the bottles, filling them with purified aerated water and delivering them to your doorstep?

For the second time on this thread I point out that the cost of the product is related to the energy that went into producing the product not what you can later extract from it.

 

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Hmmm I see the discussion went in a different direction but for me the premise is flawed. What if I'm a psychologist, the catholic church, a stripper?  I get paid. Where's the energy relationship. And if you say that I need electricity to power the lights in my office, I swear to God....

If you are providing a service and someone wants that service provided then they have to pay. What they pay you ends up being consumed as energy. Eventually even strippers and psychologists need to eat. Good psychs can earn top dollars and buy expensive cars etc. ALL the goods consumed represent energy consumed.

Of course if i am wrong then surely someone can show me how it is possible to produce things without consuming energy. Your best bet might be to try and point to the vast sums paid for a couple of brush strokes by Picasso but that is as close as you can get to refuting what I write and even that is not immediately clear.

 

2 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

Also, just to remind you that energy is not a "thing", it's a property of a physical object. 

Energy is a conserved quantity, that is all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terms money, wealth and currency are very very closly linked together, although each has its own links to other aspects of society.

In economic modelling of societies I would also agree that the economic concept of money is linked to energy.

However the money supply and the energy supply are different things and in some cases the link is much stronger / weaker than in others.

 

For instance in societies where there is a surfeit of energy ( an example would be those where money was measured in camels) the link is extremely weak.

In others; I recently went to some lectures at the University of Dundee studying the sadly delterious economic effect of the introduction of 'money' to societies in South Pacific islands where it had not perviously existed.

 

So I would hope that modern socio-economics had moved on from (over) simplifications to more complex models capable of dealing with these types of society.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It thought the consensus was that time is money, not energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, studiot said:

For instance in societies where there is a surfeit of energy ( an example would be those where money was measured in camels) the link is extremely weak.

I think it's wrong example. Energy from the Sun is absorbed by plants, which are consumed by animals, which are sold. I would say it's not extremely weak, if you can describe entire path so easily..

It would be harder if you would try describing selling of some immaterial "object". Knowledge? Information?

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, studiot said:

For instance in societies where there is a surfeit of energy ( an example would be those where money was measured in camels) the link is extremely weak.

Can you give an example of a country where 'money is measured in camels'? I know of no such place. The value of a currency is determined by how much energy it can get you.

 

12 hours ago, Strange said:

It thought the consensus was that time is money, not energy.

Here we are trying to discuss science, not idiom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Can you give an example of a country where 'money is measured in camels'? I know of no such place. The value of a currency is determined by how much energy it can get you.

 

No.

It is a pity you did not read my post properly or you would not have asked that question, nor made the unfortunate second statement following it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

No.

It is a pity you did not read my post properly or you would not have asked that question, nor made the unfortunate second statement following it.

 

 

 

I did read your post. You mentioned countries where money is measured in camels. You said that in such countries the link between money and energy is very weak. I would like to know which country you are talking about but now you admit that you know of no such country.

So I repeat my original statement. The value of money is directly related to the energy it can get you. If you think I am wrong then please give an example we can discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.