Philosophy Now Forum

If only there was some maniac who thought all production and consumption had "intrinsic market value" to be found. That guy would then be able to provide a way of counting this shit.

Of course if he were trying to forget that absurd notion, he would avoid trying this.

FlashDangerpants wrote:If only there was some maniac who thought all production and consumption had "intrinsic market value" to be found. That guy would then be able to provide a way of counting this shit.

Of course if he were trying to forget that absurd notion, he would avoid trying this.

Anybody who says that manufactured goods have no intrinsic market value is obviously so out of touch with reality that he should be considered a danger to himself and others, and should be closely monitored if not involuntarily committed to the nearest mental health facility.

bobevenson wrote:..., and should be closely monitored if not involuntarily committed to the nearest mental health facility.[/size][/b]

Oh how we wish this was true.

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:If only there was some maniac who thought all production and consumption had "intrinsic market value" to be found. That guy would then be able to provide a way of counting this shit.

Of course if he were trying to forget that absurd notion, he would avoid trying this.

Anybody who says that manufactured goods have no intrinsic market value is obviously so out of touch with reality that he should be considered a danger to himself and others, and should be closely monitored if not involuntarily committed to the nearest mental health facility.

You theory includes an amount of time, and posits that all goods made, bought and sold within that time have measurable fixed values. So you can measure all the goods that could have been made in that time. And you could measure the value of that. You can measure the goods actually made versus the goods that could potentially have been made.

Yours is a theory of capacity utilisation. You're just too lazy to propose how it should be counted. You are too shit to even specify a meaningful time frame.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:..., and should be closely monitored if not involuntarily committed to the nearest mental health facility.[/size][/b]

Oh how we wish this was true.

You're turning on your friend Dangerpants, huh?

FlashDangerpants wrote:Yours is a theory of capacity utilisation.

Capacity utilization has absolutely nothing to do with unemployment, and my analysis proves it.

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Yours is a theory of capacity utilisation.

Capacity utilization has absolutely nothing to do with unemployment, and my analysis proves it.

Then it was a mistake to have a theory that divides potential production by actual production. That is a ratio of actual production to the capacity to produce. A capacity utilisation theory, that is what it is. That is all it is.


It is nothing more than that.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Yours is a theory of capacity utilisation.

Capacity utilization has absolutely nothing to do with unemployment, and my analysis proves it.

Then it was a mistake to have a theory that divides potential production by actual production.

Well, my friend, you have it backwords. It's actual production divided by potential production, not the other way around, and it's only the free-market intrinsic value of production that counts in determining the true unemployment percentage.

bobevenson wrote: You're turning on your friend Dangerpants, huh?

Hmm...let me think, now who here is more likely to be incarcerated in a mental institution. Someone who appears to have studied economics or someone who is apparently an agnostic and has a voice in their head that they claim is a divine 'God' who has selected them to be a prophet? Difficult.

Bob you wouldn't understand contex, nuance, irony or humour, if they were a herd of purple spotted elephants who'd just trampled you.
p.s.
And please don't bother telling me how to spell.

Arising_uk wrote:Bob you wouldn't understand contex, nuance, irony or humour, if they were a herd of purple spotted elephants who'd just trampled you.
p.s.
And please don't bother telling me how to spell.

Can I tell you it's grammatically incorrect to put a comma after "humour"?

bobevenson wrote: Well, my friend, you have it backwords. It's actual production divided by potential production, not the other way around, and it's only the free-market intrinsic value of production that counts in determining the true unemployment percentage.

That's a distinction without difference. Your theory depends on a comparison between potential and actual production. Between the capacity to produce and the proportion of that capacity which is being produced. It is a capacity utilisation theory.

Every one of your theories so far has got bogged down by some foolish error you made early on, which you should be able to shrug off and easily move past. Yet you cannot because you are a prisoner of absurd pride.

Just admit you have a capacity utilisation theory, stop pretending it explains or even counts unemployment, and perhaps I will let you off lightly.

bobevenson wrote: Can I tell you it's grammatically incorrect to put a comma after "humour"?

No need to shout about it.

FlashDangerpants wrote:... Yet you cannot because you are a prisoner of absurd pride.

That's a bit kind. It's becsuse he's a monomaniacal megalomaniac more like.