[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Wed Jun 19 01:34:34 UTC 2002


> > Nobody is saying a person chooses whether or not to be 
> hungry.  What you
> > value is based on your choices and priorities.
> 
> Eating is priority number 2.

Yes.

And material goods are way down the list compared to basic survival.

I was aiming to compare priorities way down the list among the material
goods, where changing the order doesn't have the immediate impact of killing
you in the short term.


> I wonder why he is thinking about that while he passes 4.5 
> billion to stand
> an army over the airports railways highways and waterways?

Probably about whether it improves his approval ratings or not.  :)  But
anyway...

> Big dots here for the perceptive,  or even for the not so perceptive.


> Gold is good for looking
> > pretty, being easily molded, and a good conductor.  (Beyond 
> that it is
> > useless, unless we choose it as a medium for trade.)  So far those
> physical
> > properties have been sufficiently desireable to enough 
> people that it IS
> > useful as common currency.   Everyone wants it, so it 
> works. But what if
> > no-one wanted it anymore?  Or what if anyone could just 
> make more at will?
> > How does that differ from other forms of currency?
> >
> 
> All irrelevant,  please keep the focus.

Ah, but that IS my focus.  (For now anyway.)  The entire premise of the
importance of gold relies on its continued high value in trade.

(No, it doesn't effect fiat or other sorts of money based/not based on a
valuable commodity... I'm asking why that commodity has to be gold or
silver... or does it?)

Basically, I'm willing to look at that stuff... as soon as we explore what
makes a commodity valuable.  And whether those variables are subject to
change or not.  And if they do... then what?


> > Let's find this starving Serb.  Offer him a meal, or the 
> equivalent value
> in
> > gold, and see which is chosen.
> 
> Meal first, gold second.

Yes.  Survival first.  Material good (which may be tradeable for continued
survival second.)

>  But if he finds out you cheated him 
> via fraud and
> the gold was 2/3 tin you are still a criminal.

Yes, but only if the gold is more valuable than the tin.  If not, he'd
probably bless me for my generosity.  (Of course that isn't the case right
now.  But that's not my point.)


> > Even better, find the person he is choking, and offer him a 
> big bag of
> > gold... or the immediate return of his (normally free) air supply.

I'll admit, I'm just playing this one for the sound of it.  It does sound
good though, doesn't it?

> Don't cheat him or take his food and he won't choke you.

As does this. :)


But what if neither is true?  Maybe someone else stole his food.  And
someone else is choking him. Maybe I was supposed to meet him to give him
the gold in return for that food.  Which is sitting there where I could just
take it, since the robber is busy choking him.

What do I do?

Do I make the fair trade that I came for?  Gold for food?  And walk away?

Or do I put down the gold in favor for a big rock (probably more valuable
than gold at the moment), and crush the robber's skull?  (Saving a life,
preventing a crime, and so on.  Well, I killed a dude.  But maybe I just hit
him hard enough to knock him out.)

What is my point?  Nothing really, this time.  That stories are fun to make
up and tell, and can be tore apart to no end by both sides.  (As I'm sure
mine can be.  That's fine, I had fun making it up anyway.)


> In other words,  don't mess with his private property,  
> defraud him, or
> injure him and he'll have no claim at Law

Except that I might be a scumbag if I willing allowed someone else to
succeed doing any of that to him, in a case where I could have easily
prevented it.

There's more than two humans on the planet that deal with each other, so
interactions may involve many more variables than that.







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list