Economics Questions

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

mickanomics — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:55:15 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
a generic un-owned abstract unit of the currency? or a particular unit of the currency owned by someone in particular?

The former.

I.e. I take an average price of goods form a survey of shop windows (all simulated on computer of course).

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

mickanomics — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:25:16 GMT

Lilburne:
Furthermore, while human actors do concern themselves with quantities, the subjective valuations of those quantities are ever in flux, so any function you set up, at best, can only represent a single complex of value scales only in existence for a fleeting moment in time.

I would indeed expect my sandwich model to come to a state of equilibrium which I'm fully aware does not correspond to real life. But I am also aware that this is a weakness in the model which I plan to fix in future more sophisticated versions. I can model the "insect tracking" (as discussed elsewhere) phenomena combined with "loans for speculation" which I would hope would result in a model that displayed booms and busts.

Lilburne:
Your eternal function is a chimera, because algebraic functions require constants, and there are no constant ratios in human action.

The model would indeed contain a few constants and, very importantly, a large amount of variables (in the computer programming sense of the word).

There are "constants" in human action. The strength of gravity, the number of hours in a day are (to a good approximation) constant and these have strong effects on human action. Less precisely, the number of hours people choose to sleep does not vary all that much, 6-9 hours per day covers almost everyone. The number of calories people try to consume (as a function of their body weight) is also not particularly variable. Things that are fairly constant in real life can be modeled as fairly constant in a computer. Things that are very variable in real life can be modeled as very variable in a computer.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

wilderness — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:02:55 GMT

liberty student:

with your PhD in neural networks

Is that serious? cause i thought it was physics over a month ago, and then i saw micka.. respond on another occassion it's in math. idk anymore. obviously in regards to this i could be simply malinformed.

i'm still waiting from the very beginning that micka.. came here to help central plan me getting a 20X20 swimming pool. i really haven't seen anything other than that kind of attempt from him since. i bring this up as micka... mentions he's searching for an alternative forum. maybe it's about time, but what is the equation of true time in the market place?

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

liberty student — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:58:46 GMT

mickanomics:
what I'm also after now is an alternative forum.

Maybe one where there are other people with PhDs who don't like to read?

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:56:53 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
is it the question, why did money have the precise 'quantity' of purchasing power as it did last tuesday at 10:05am?

mickanomics:
Yes (<cut>).

mickanomics:
(for) 1 unit..

a generic un-owned abstract unit of the currency? or a particular unit of the currency owned by someone in particular?

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:51:15 GMT

Giant_Joe:

mickanomics:

The purchasing power of money as a function of X, Y and Z.

Human action determines prices. Human action isn't math.

Furthermore, while human actors do concern themselves with quantities, the subjective valuations of those quantities are ever in flux, so any function you set up, at best, can only represent a single complex of value scales only in existence for a fleeting moment in time.

Your eternal function is a chimera, because algebraic functions require constants, and there are no constant ratios in human action.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

Pablo — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:49:49 GMT

mickanomics:

ziragt:
You may not think it is the LTV, but it is at least a variant, from what I can tell.

Absolutely 100% not.

You are asking us to determine prices for a good without knowing the individual preferences which every acting individual chooses. This is impossible. Individuals value different kinds of sandwiches entirely differently. Each person will apply a different value to each. Any theory attempting to start from any other point will invariably fail. Perhaps read a bit more about Austrian thought and some of its core theories.

I understand the excitement that comes with 'solving' these kind of situations. Unfortunately when starting with fallacious principles, you will never have a truly correct theory. You can design some amazing structures if you pay no heed to gravity.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

mickanomics — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:45:38 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
is it the question, why does money have any purchasing power at all?

No. (that may be a good and interesting question - but its not what I'm asking).

nirgrahamUK:
is it the question, why did money have the precise 'quantity' of purchasing power as it did last tuesday at 10:05am?

Yes (Although that question may be too ambitious in the first instance so I'd like to perhaps work out what it will be in a super simple model to start with and then gradually add details to the model).

nirgrahamUK:
im not sure whether you have questions concerning units of money i.e. '1 unit of currency', or about the sum of all money 'all the currency'

1 unit. (although of course the purchasing power of 1 unit may well be determined by the total amongst other factors).

... I seem to be getting drawn back in to this discussion after announcing that I would stop... what I'm also after now is an alternative forum.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

Giant_Joe — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:32:03 GMT

mickanomics:

The purchasing power of money as a function of X, Y and Z.

Human action determines prices. Human action isn't math.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

Sieben — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:29:55 GMT

mickanomics:

Snowflake:
Robinson Crusoe and his piles and piles of money...

The purchasing power of money as a function of X, Y and Z.

I'm going to let someone else correct him. It hurts my brain every time i start typing the response.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:29:37 GMT

there is no equation which determines the purchasing power of money. money has purchasing power to the extent that it can be used to buy things. to the extent that people are happy to trade it.

im not sure what question you are trying to answer to your own satisfaction..

is it the question, why does money have any purchasing power at all?

is it the question, why did money have the precise 'quantity' of purchasing power as it did last tuesday at 10:05am?

is it some other question?

im not sure whether you have questions concerning units of money i.e. '1 unit of currency', or about the sum of all money 'all the currency'

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

liberty student — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:25:18 GMT

mickanomics:
Suffice it to say that I agreed with 80% or more of everything I read in "economics in one lesson"....

What does that mean?

mickanomics:
I agree with 90% of everything Peter Schiff ever says.

90% of what Schiff says is just demagoguery and investment advice. It isn't economics.

mickanomics:
Discussing "the purchasing power of money" seems pretty fundamental to me.

The market determines purchasing power. How you could read HH and not understand that is beyond me. Maybe it is the 20% you don't agree with?

mickanomics:
Heeeeeelllpppp! I've been imprisoned!

With your PhD in neural networks I am sure you will be able to hatch an escape.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

mickanomics — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:23:07 GMT

Snowflake:
Robinson Crusoe and his piles and piles of money...

The purchasing power of money as a function of X, Y and Z.

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

Sieben — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:18:52 GMT

mickanomics:
Discussing "the purchasing power of money" seems pretty fundamental to me

Robinson Crusoe and his piles and piles of money...

Re: The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

mickanomics — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:16:07 GMT

liberty student:
Sorry Mick, but I don't think you have anything substantively Austrian in your arguments.

It would not be very interesting for me to put up posts saying I agree with this or that bit of AE. So I guess you don't get too see the parts I agree with. Suffice it to say that I agreed with 80% or more of everything I read in "economics in one lesson".... and I agree with 90% of everything Peter Schiff ever says.

liberty student:
You haven't yet begun to debate fundamental economic principles.

Discussing "the purchasing power of money" seems pretty fundamental to me.

liberty student:
Getting rid of you isn't a benefit. You might go somewhere else and tell people your ideas are 80% [sic] Austrian.

Heeeeeelllpppp! I've been imprisoned!