Financial security?

[FlashDangerpants]

Nobody is financially secure. It's an illusion as there are thousands of factors in this world.

PhilX

Explain.

Use that pea brain of yours.

PhilX

Why not just explain your thesis like a smart person would? I'm only going to misrepresent you anyway and you'll whine about that.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Bring up your best examples of financial security to continue discussion.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

Bring up your best examples of financial security to continue discussion.

PhilX

Kayla's examples are sufficient. All you did with those was say you didn't agree, without showing any reasoning. Now show your work, don't be pathetic about it.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Bring up your best examples of financial security to continue discussion.

PhilX

Kayla's examples are sufficient. All you did with those was say you didn't agree, without showing any reasoning. Now show your work, don't be pathetic about it.

Until you produce your examples, then I regard what you've said as hot air.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

Ok, if you don't want to let me know the cunning trap you have laid out fgor me, I guess I'd better wander in there and take a look...

Basic financial security is still a person's feelings of security about their finances when they have enough money to pay their bills and a reasonable belief that they will continue to have that. The belief becomes more reasonable when that person has decent savings sufficient to cover unexpected expenses such as loss of employment leading to a few months of non work. More reasonable still is their position if they have a rock solid CV and know they can find a good job easily, but they keep that little bit of extra savings so they can take their time about it if the company that employs them goes belly up in the night.

If they live in a modern country with universal healthcare they might consider topup insurance to cover loss of earnings in case of illness. If they live in America then they musty do whatever you people do to keep your health insurance in cases of lost jobs. Owning property is optional, but I suppose as long as itis properly insured it adds to your financial security later in life once the loans used to acquire it are paid off.

That seems enough to me. Now if you are going to demand something else before you reveal your big surprise, you are going to have to provide some detail on how I can best walk into your cunning trap for you. Don't make it boring and lame after all this buildup.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Everything can change. For example, you can have all the money that exists. Inflation will deflate that money so that's not security in the long run. Insurance isn't inexhaustible, even with reinsurance. You're saying that security is a state of mind which is saying if you feel secure, you must be secure (if you believe that, I have a Brooklyn Bridge I can sell you).

This is the tip of the iceberg.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

Everything can change. For example, you can have all the money that exists. Inflation will deflate that money so that's not security in the long run.

No you can't. If one person holds all the money that exists the velocity of money hits zero and inflation is literally impossible as there are no prices being paid in the market any more. Your example only holds true if that one person keeps buying something from themselves at ever greater prices until one day they exchange their entire monetary wealth with themselves for a cracked thimble and half a dry biscuit. But as that exchange is meaningless, so is the inflation example.

Next.

Insurance isn't inexhaustible, even with reinsurance. You're saying that security is a state of mind which is saying if you feel secure, you must be secure (if you believe that, I have a Brooklyn Bridge I can sell you).

Well it seems like it is now your turn to define what financial security is. Obviously you intend to define it in impossible terms. Unfortunately that would be boring and lame, so I demand that you spice it up in some manner.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

That's spectacular news. I'm sure this is going to be a wonderful topic.

[Philosophy Explorer]

FDP said:

"No you can't. If one person holds all the money that exists the velocity of money hits zero and inflation is literally impossible as there are no prices being paid in the market any more. Your example only holds true if that one person keeps buying something from themselves at ever greater prices until one day they exchange their entire monetary wealth with themselves for a cracked thimble and half a dry biscuit. But as that exchange is meaningless, so is the inflation example."

Your reasoning is flawed. The money (presumably) is kept on deposit at the bank which then loans out the money leading to construction and other forms of business activity.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

FDP said:

"No you can't. If one person holds all the money that exists the velocity of money hits zero and inflation is literally impossible as there are no prices being paid in the market any more. Your example only holds true if that one person keeps buying something from themselves at ever greater prices until one day they exchange their entire monetary wealth with themselves for a cracked thimble and half a dry biscuit. But as that exchange is meaningless, so is the inflation example."

Your reasoning is flawed. The money (presumably) is kept on deposit at the bank which then loans out the money leading to construction and other forms of business activity.

PhilX

So then the construction company has money and the person you said has all the money actually has a contract to repay instead. Is the contract for repayment in money? Isn't it impossible under this example for the construction compmany to have any money to pay the interest with? So where does the inflation come from? And how does it change the money that the one guy has which is all the money in the world to be less valuable as money than it was before?

Do you really have a strong enough grasp of monetary theory for this example to work out well for you? Are you a big reader on the subject of economics?

Perhaps you should give up on your first and hopefully worst example and move onto the next one. You have thousands of factors and an entire iceberg to work through after all.

[Philosophy Explorer]

FDP said:

"No you can't. If one person holds all the money that exists the velocity of money hits zero and inflation is literally impossible as there are no prices being paid in the market any more. Your example only holds true if that one person keeps buying something from themselves at ever greater prices until one day they exchange their entire monetary wealth with themselves for a cracked thimble and half a dry biscuit. But as that exchange is meaningless, so is the inflation example."

Your reasoning is flawed. The money (presumably) is kept on deposit at the bank which then loans out the money leading to construction and other forms of business activity.

PhilX

So then the construction company has money and the person you said has all the money actually has a contract to repay instead. Is the contract for repayment in money? Isn't it impossible under this example for the construction compmany to have any money to pay the interest with? So where does the inflation come from? And how does it change the money that the one guy has which is all the money in the world to be less valuable as money than it was before?

Do you really have a strong enough grasp of monetary theory for this example to work out well for you? Are you a big reader on the subject of economics?

Perhaps you should give up on your first and hopefully worst example and move onto the next one. You have thousands of factors and an entire iceberg to work through after all.

After the bank lends it money. The contract to repay the bank would be in money. Inflation deflates the value of money. The inflation comes from the money the construction company spends on materials and workers.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

After the bank lends it money. The contract to repay the bank would be in money. Inflation deflates the value of money. The inflation comes from the money the construction company spends on materials and workers.

Your entire response there requires that the guy you said owns all the money in the world doesn't have all the money in the world. Otherwise, the construction company cannot recieve profit from its sales, and the money for the interest payments does not exist.

Face facts, you are making a fool of yourself. You don't understand enough monetary theory for what you are doing here and you don't need to do it anyway. Just move onto your next example, this is stupid and lame. Plus I already did an inflation conversation for about 20 pages with Bob once, I can't be bothered doing it again with some other idiot who'se just bullshitting as they go.

[Philosophy Explorer]

After the bank lends it money. The contract to repay the bank would be in money. Inflation deflates the value of money. The inflation comes from the money the construction company spends on materials and workers.

Your entire response there requires that the guy you said owns all the money in the world doesn't have all the money in the world. Otherwise, the construction company cannot recieve profit from its sales, and the money for the interest payments does not exist.

Face facts, you are making a fool of yourself. You don't understand enough monetary theory for what you are doing here and you don't need to do it anyway. Just move onto your next example, this is stupid and lame. Plus I already did an inflation conversation for about 20 pages with Bob once, I can't be bothered doing it again with some other idiot who'se just bullshitting as they go.

Looks like you're practicing up on your ad homs. You're helping to make my case for me because you're showing how interconnected the world is thereby saying nobody is truly financially secure since it depends.

Next example.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

After the bank lends it money. The contract to repay the bank would be in money. Inflation deflates the value of money. The inflation comes from the money the construction company spends on materials and workers.

Your entire response there requires that the guy you said owns all the money in the world doesn't have all the money in the world. Otherwise, the construction company cannot recieve profit from its sales, and the money for the interest payments does not exist.

Face facts, you are making a fool of yourself. You don't understand enough monetary theory for what you are doing here and you don't need to do it anyway. Just move onto your next example, this is stupid and lame. Plus I already did an inflation conversation for about 20 pages with Bob once, I can't be bothered doing it again with some other idiot who'se just bullshitting as they go.

Looks like you're practicing up on your ad homs. You're helping to make my case for me because you're showing how interconnected the world is thereby saying nobody is truly financially secure since it depends.

Next example.

PhilX

You don't know what Ad Hominem means. It's boring that we have to keep telling you that and still you won't learn. You have therefore ignored the condition about not being stupid and lame, so let's just wrap this stupid conversation up.

Your definition of financial security is clearly designed to be impossible to meet. But that is not how anybody else understands the term, people tend to to have resonable expactations of financial security in the terms bother Kayla and I describred before, but they do understand that when there is a war or something, their security goes up in smoke. So you are working on a unique personal alternative meaning, one which requires infalibility, which the proper use of this term does not and is therefore incomaptibile with the phrase "financial security" which already has a well unstood meaning in the public domain. And that's it, that's the entire trick that you set up so carefully laid bare. Waste of time.

Now I know that you are going to repsond furiously, and I know that all you really want is the feeling of being a winner you get by having the last word even when it's stupid. So be my guest, have your public wank now.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Your entire response there requires that the guy you said owns all the money in the world doesn't have all the money in the world. Otherwise, the construction company cannot recieve profit from its sales, and the money for the interest payments does not exist.

Face facts, you are making a fool of yourself. You don't understand enough monetary theory for what you are doing here and you don't need to do it anyway. Just move onto your next example, this is stupid and lame. Plus I already did an inflation conversation for about 20 pages with Bob once, I can't be bothered doing it again with some other idiot who'se just bullshitting as they go.

Looks like you're practicing up on your ad homs. You're helping to make my case for me because you're showing how interconnected the world is thereby saying nobody is truly financially secure since it depends.

Next example.

PhilX

You don't know what Ad Hominem means. It's boring that we have to keep telling you that and still you won't learn. You have therefore ignored the condition about not being stupid and lame, so let's just wrap this stupid conversation up.

Your definition of financial security is clearly designed to be impossible to meet. But that is not how anybody else understands the term, people tend to to have resonable expactations of financial security in the terms bother Kayla and I describred before, but they do understand that when there is a war or something, their security goes up in smoke. So you are working on a unique personal alternative meaning, one which requires infalibility, which the proper use of this term does not and is therefore incomaptibile with the phrase "financial security" which already has a well unstood meaning in the public domain. And that's it, that's the entire trick that you set up so carefully laid bare. Waste of time.

Now I know that you are going to repsond furiously, and I know that all you really want is the feeling of being a winner you get by having the last word even when it's stupid. So be my guest, have your public wank now.

Again you have failed to persuade. Whining about having the last word is so childish on your part. There is no security because it depends on factors that are unpredictable and beyond your control. Your ad homs only prove you can't put up good arguments when you are losing.

PhilX