It is like a war

Pobby

Well I am glad to say that there are others like me out there.Sometimes it feels that I am playing a minor part in Animal Farm!

ZTD

Big_O wrote:

I'm afraid that article makes two major mistakes. The first is that all money, right back to Pre-Roman times can be described by that definition. Gold and silver have little inherent value (except to the electronics and a few other industries). I mean, we could go back to a barter system, but I think the modern method works rather better.

So why did the Romans and the Babylonians and those people before them choose gold as money so emphatically? Could it be that their electronics industries were more advanced than ours, and hence gold was more valuable?

No? Perhaps instead, there was another reason for it's inherent value.

My theory on it is this:

People took gold that they found and fashioned it into jewellry. This is before the advent of money and so before the advent of the specialisation of labour. So this was done as a hobby outside the main job of hunting/farming.

What good is jewellry? It makes you look more attractive. What good is that? It enables you have to more attractive mates. What is an attractive mate? (assuming it's not one wearing jewellry ) It is a mate with wealth and power (not wealth as in money - this is before money).

So what is jewellry worth then?

So if there is someone in your village that is good at making jewellry, would you give them extra fish you'd caught, or extra grain in order to possess that better jewellry? If so, then this jeweller may find they can get more stuff by making jewellry than by fishing. Congratulations, you've just invented division of labour.

So now you have this piece of jewellry which you've give a deer for. They you break your leg and can no longer hunt. So what now? Well if you paid a deer for it, someone else will pay a deer for it. Or perhaps a bag of corn. Congratulations, you've now just invented savings, the second-hand market and trade using an intermediate good.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Just as a final thought, if jewellry is worth X amount, what are the components worth - the gold, the silver, the gems etc? Something or nothing?

Which of those components are easiest to use if you're using them as money/savings?

ZTD

Big_O wrote:

The second, I take REAL issue with being an engineer. 'A device which produces more energy than is required to make it run' - Whaat? Haven't these people HEARD of the laws of thermodynamics??! That is quite clearly just not true. Or at least a distortion of the truth. To quote Homer Simpson, "In this house, young lady, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

Greater than unity devices do exists (apparently ). There is this description here which gave rise to this company here which sell real live water pumps/heaters. The video is cool :cool: . They too are engineers so shy away from "greater than unity" marketing.

Also Nikolai Tesla was reputed to have invented something which was >100% efficient, but of course you'd need to take a small pinch of salt before trying that out.

For the ultimate freebie, just take an area of free space. There are particles popping in and out with vast amounts of energy. But what's the work you could obtain from that? About zero. But you didn't ask for work, you asked for energy.

In fact that's the problem with all of these things, when the work you can get out of them is greater than the work you put into them, then I'd be interested. But energy alone is not enough. Until then, they're just curios.

ZTD

Big_O wrote:

And interesting article from The Fool - but for every articel predicting disaster...

http://money.guardian.co.uk/houseprices/story/0,,1886686,00.html

But hey, I'm no prophet. I wouldn't like to call it for definite either way.

I notice in that article, the following words "Using projections by Oxford Economic Forecasting, the National Housing Federation report predicted that property prices will go up by 40% in the next half decade."

So an assocation of landlords sees happy times ahead...for landlords! :rolleyes:

Try this one.

Big_O

'So why did the Romans and the Babylonians and those people before them choose gold as money so emphatically? Could it be that their electronics industries were more advanced than ours, and hence gold was more valuable?

No? Perhaps instead, there was another reason for it's inherent value.'

The main reason as I understand it, is that because gold is very unreactive (as well as being attractive) and does not tarnish, rot or otherwise decay (the same reason it's so popular in electronics) you could bury it for twenty years, unlike any other object and it'll still have its value. Other than this feature it has no more inherent value than modern cash, whether it's electronic, paper or coin (its various industrial uses aside).

Jewellery is worth more than a simple lump of gold because of the work put into it (the sam eas any manufactured good) - people of any era are willing to pay more for shaped and detailed gold. But isn't that simply an early consumer luxury? Albeit one that's value last for rather longer than a TV...

It's a cool machine and seems to have plenty of useful applications - but I simply don't believe it breaks any of the laws of thermodynamics!;) And whilst the area of air you mention may have 'free' energy from a financial point of view, it's not free from a physics point of view. That energy in that space has been in existance since the beginning of the universe and will exist (in one form or another) until the end of the universe. But I think that physics is a little off-topic....

Finally, ZTD - good article, great summary of the UK's housing stock. However, whilst I think it's correct from a national point of view, you can see both possible futures at work already in the UK. Overstock is already occurring in some old industrial cities and some rural areas where old property is effectively being left to rot (because there are few jobs there, few people want to live in the area) and subsequently falls in value even further due to its dilapidation. The South East and several other areas are experiencing the second as they are where the jobs are. The people already there stay, immigrants move in - both from overseas and from other parts of the UK - and the house prices go up. The only other comment I'd make is that new builds are at their lowest level for years, thus constraining the market in a way not mentioned in that artile. Unless I read it wrong it assumes a constant level of new-build at a 20th century average, which in my opinion is a false assumption.

Big_O

And whilst everything is about control, including everything we do - I like to think I'm fairly in control of my life:rolleyes: - I do not believe that the ones attempting to control us are shape-changing lizards disguised as the world's leaders who are addicted to ginger based drugs. I also do not believe that giving money to self confessed Son-of-God David Icke will save us from them...

Dolly_Smith

Try Jon Ronson's 'Them' if you haven't already - it's a great book (and explains a lot!)

Pobby

Just read this thread and thought it incredible. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=282329

As I have said before there are many reasons why people fall into trouble with debt and for many it is circumstances not always in there control.However,a 66% increase year on year is terrifying.How many of these were seduced into borrowing for a more glamorous lifestyle

---

my guess lots.

Today,one of my customers,a quite successful chap, late 20s was ranting about why he could not afford to buy a house.I am not saying that renting is a bad thing but given the fact that amatuer buy to letters are on the loose it is not a path for security.Wonder where the craziness will take us?

ZTD

Big_O wrote:

The main reason as I understand it, is that because gold is very unreactive (as well as being attractive) and does not tarnish, rot or otherwise decay (the same reason it's so popular in electronics) you could bury it for twenty years, unlike any other object and it'll still have its value. Other than this feature it has no more inherent value than modern cash, whether it's electronic, paper or coin (its various industrial uses aside).

The same could be said for lead. We are, after all, still digging up Roman citizens buried in lead coffins.

However, without the force of law, lead has never been used as money.

Lead is, of course, ugly.

Big_O wrote:

Jewellery is worth more than a simple lump of gold because of the work put into it (the sam eas any manufactured good) - people of any era are willing to pay more for shaped and detailed gold.

That's not quite true. Jewellery costs more because of the labour involved, but when you come to sell it, it will be weighed and valued on that basis - i.e. its value depends on its components. Hence my suggestion that trading in the components of jewellery would become more popular than the trading of jewellery itself. The most convienient parts being gold and silver.

Big_O wrote:

But isn't that simply an early consumer luxury? Albeit one that's value last for rather longer than a TV...

It doesn't really matter why it has intrinsic value, just that it does, and that intrinsic value is not in the consumption of the article - i.e. firewood will never become money.

Big_O wrote:

It's a cool machine and seems to have plenty of useful applications - but I simply don't believe it breaks any of the laws of thermodynamics!;)

So you believe something even when there is evidence against it? Is that not religion...? For something else "impossible" - there's this.

Humans simply don't know as much as the bravado leads you to believe.

Big_O wrote:

And whilst the area of air you mention may have 'free' energy from a financial point of view, it's not free from a physics point of view. That energy in that space has been in existance since the beginning of the universe and will exist (in one form or another) until the end of the universe.

That's not actually true. All of the space in the universe apart from a tiny little bit obviously did not exist since the beginning of the universe, as the universe is expansive. The point about this energy is that it does not wander in from somewhere else, but is created and destroyed in-situ due to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.

Obviously it could not have done this since the beginning of time because whatever region of space you could choose will not have been in existence since the beginning of time.

Big_O wrote:

But I think that physics is a little off-topic....

Makes a change from wandering into OT smut...

Big_O wrote:

The only other comment I'd make is that new builds are at their lowest level for years, thus constraining the market in a way not mentioned in that artile. Unless I read it wrong it assumes a constant level of new-build at a 20th century average, which in my opinion is a false assumption.

Not according to this. Unless you're talking about social newbuild.

Pobby

ZTD wrote:

I notice in that article, the following words "Using projections by Oxford Economic Forecasting, the National Housing Federation report predicted that property prices will go up by 40% in the next half decade."

So an assocation of landlords sees happy times ahead...for landlords! :rolleyes:

Try this one.

How do they predict this?So by 2011 the average price of a Uk house willbe approx. £240,000!Will this be supported by massive wage inflation?Already homes are unaffordable to buy for many,I don`t quite understand this.

The only way I see this happening is if the btl market gets even more highly geared.Rents will have to soar to support this.Consequently more people will rely on housing benefit putting even more strain on the tax payer.