[RE]

Claiming money is a constant source of value is not consistent with dialectical materialism.  Such a claim is Hegalian, and not Marxist.

AFAIK, neither Marx or Hegel invented a form of money that was constant in value either, nor have you given any example of such money or even proposed what it would be or how it would work.  My conclusion is this is a fantasy solution right up there with colonies on Mars.  Like Fusion Power, I'll reconsider my conclusion when I see a working model.

RE

[TDoS]

Do you make these ridiculous arguments because you are bored or something?
RE

Ridiculous argument? Did you intuit that your audience would automatically know that you really didn't mean it when you said money instead of economics? I have to ask...YOU know they aren't synonmous, right?

I was taught to write with a specific philosophy in mind. I thought my mentors had invented the idea, but apparently not. Once you start, it becomes easy to think the same way as you write. Makes it difficult to then contradict one's statements by things like definitions, facts, logic, history, etc etc, in a matter of seconds. Sorry to have thought about your statement the way I learned to write, but hey, give it a try, it does make one's writing and thinking of higher quality.

Turns out, my mentors were themselves plagarists of the idea.

[RE]

Did you intuit that your audience would automatically know that you really didn't mean it when you said money instead of economics?

Can you specify where I substituted the word "money" for "economics"?  I read back my replies to you, and they are quite clear.  I don't think anyone here besides you had any problem understanding the meaning.  I don't think you had any trouble either, you're just putting up a strawman argument.  If you really didn't understand the meaning, this is your problem with reading comprehension, not my problem with writing to the point I want to convey.  If you continue to have trouble understanding me, I suggest you find someone whose writing appeals to you more.  I'm not going to change it to suit you.

RE

[Knarf]

Do you make these ridiculous arguments because you are bored or something?
RE

Ridiculous argument? Did you intuit that your audience would automatically know that you really didn't mean it when you said money instead of economics? I have to ask...YOU know they aren't synonmous, right?

I was taught to write with a specific philosophy in mind. I thought my mentors had invented the idea, but apparently not. Once you start, it becomes easy to think the same way as you write. Makes it difficult to then contradict one's statements by things like definitions, facts, logic, history, etc etc, in a matter of seconds. Sorry to have thought about your statement the way I learned to write, but hey, give it a try, it does make one's writing and thinking of higher quality.

Turns out, my mentors were themselves plagarists of the idea.

I'm genuinely curious about the writing philosophy you mentioned. If you're comfortable, I'd love to hear more about it and understand how it has shaped your approach to writing and thinking. Perhaps there's more I can learn from your perspective to become a better communicator.

[Knarf]

Money is indeed a social construct, a human invention that serves as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Money is ultimately derived from real resources - labor, materials, energy, etc. - that are required to produce goods and services.

So, in a way, money is just a symbolic representation of the resources that underpin human society and the economy. And you're right that the value of money can fluctuate over time depending on a variety of factors, such as supply and demand, economic growth, and government policies.

So perhaps a better way to think about money is not as a constant, stable entity, but as a dynamic tool that facilitates the exchange of real resources and goods. In other words, money should be seen as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

[RE]

So perhaps a better way to think about money is not as a constant, stable entity, but as a dynamic tool that facilitates the exchange of real resources and goods. In other words, money should be seen as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

That is definitely a more realistic view, the problem is that people want it to also be a repository of saved wealth.  If they hold off buying a 50 lb bag of rice the day after they get paid until the end of the month, they want the pesos to still buy the bag on the 31st.  In Argentina right now, that's not happening.  200% inflation makes your money worthless really fast.  I lived in Brazil during a period of 1000% inflation.  Barter and alternative currency got you by for commerce.  Your paycheck you spent the day it was issued.  The average Brazilian couldn't save at all, rich Brazilians were paid in dollars.

With good responsible banking practices, inflation and deflation can usually be controlled to tolerable levels, Da Fed generally targets 2% and as long as the physical economy it represents is matching that, it works OK.  Problem is 1st bankers aren't always good responsible people.  LIAR and NINJA loans are a good example of irresponsible banking.  CMBS and CDOs also are easily abused and often mispriced.

Even if financial products aren't abused, there are long term problems which build up systemically, like the mispricing of large asset classes.  This happens often in stocks, where companies stock is valued way higher than the P/E ratio justifies.  In real estate it happens during periods of easy money when mortgages come cheap.  This happens because Bankers are trying to control the opposite problem of deflation.

In any case, when large economies get into deep debt problems, that's when TSHTF.  When a country like Argentina looks like it's not going to meet it's bond payments and default, big investors know it immediately.  Everybody who owns these bonds tries to unload them, and instead of trading atface value, they drop to say 10 cents on the dollar.   Argentinian currency issued on those bonds now takes 10X as many to buy a dollars worth of goods priced in dollars, which is most stuff.  Instant 1000% hyperinflation!  POOF! Havoc in the streets.

So, Javier campaigns on the promise to "dollarize" the economy and use the nice semi-stable FSoA dollar as their local currency.  The problem of course is Argentina doesn't HAVE enough dollars in the central bank safe to sprinkle out and start using.  Nor can he print dollars, nor will anybody give him $100B or so to get going with this.  Will somebody LOAN him this pile of dollars?  He already can't pay the $100sB he owes to the banks that loaned him money in the first place.  So right now he can't live up to his campaign promise.  I gave him 2 years max before he was deposed, J6P Pedro got out on the street in 45 days.  Unless the military props him up, cut his time down to weeks.

Of course, the FSoA can't  pay it's $37T debt either, but there is no danger of default since they keep issuing new debt which the banks keep buying, because if they don't the whole global economy would crash, not just a little pipsqueak country like Argentina.  We don't have hyperinflation yet either because all this new money isn't making it out into the real economy, for the most part.  It is driving up the price of some asset classes though, like housing and stocks.  When at some indeterminate point confidence is lost, people will try to liquidate and then you'll get a crash.    Don't know when, but it has to happen eventually.

Until then, you can just be glad you don't live in Argentina.

RE

[TDoS]

Turns out, my mentors were themselves plagarists of the idea.

I'm genuinely curious about the writing philosophy you mentioned. If you're comfortable, I'd love to hear more about it and understand how it has shaped your approach to writing and thinking. Perhaps there's more I can learn from your perspective to become a better communicator.

Unfortunately, it has disadvantages. It works best with the written word, particularly in situations when the work is published and you can expect any number of detractors to come out of the woodwork and attempt to convolute what you said with what THEY wanted to say. Write it correctly, and they can't. All they can do is change the subject, pretend you said something when you didn't (i.e. lie/make shit up), and to any objective thinking person it is all self evident.

The disadvantage is, it makes you more careful. Not just in the written world, but once you think this way, it then begins spilling out into talking and how you examine the way other people talk. Or argue their point, or how something is written.

When the wife says "I told you to go to the store, why did you turn left!" anad you answer "Because you didn't say which store to go to, and I'm headed to the one you mostly go to!" and the response is the equivalent of "What? You didn't read my mind? Not THAT store, but that other one!".

So then you get careful. And it doesn't help. "Honey, which store are we going to?" "The one I always go to of course!" "Honey, you have these 3 favorites, can you give me a hint?" "Oh, the one over near the movie theater!" "Honey, 2 of the 3 are near the movies theater."

A basic example, interpersonal, between two folks who know each other, and one pretends the other should be able to read their minds. I refuse to read minds. Because of the way I was taught to write. And then, by automatic extension, to think. Insidious it is. Works good in court though, depositions, makes you a friendly neighbor because you don't ever assume much of anything about folks. You might suspect...but you don't presume and then act/speak based on that presumption. You can ask questions to try and clarify the underlying uncertainty. Point out the incongruity maybe. Folks can get cranky when the incongruities get noticed. So you just get more...careful.

Oh yeah...and you aren't much fun at parties.