Wallace wrote:Are there true "fundamentals" in economic theory?
Adam Smith wrote:The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations.
According, therefore, as this produce, or what is purchased with it, bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who are to consume it, the nation will be better or worse supplied with all the necessaries and conveniencies for which it has occasion.
Once upon a time; I played Ducks and Drakes; on Wemyss Bay; from the docks of Methil town.Wallace wrote:...my own birthplace in Kirkcaldy...
I tend not to take the word nation too literally nowadays, as I suspect today's world may be too complex for that idea to readily translate into a beneficial result.Wallace wrote:The quotation, as I understand it, defines the GNP of a nation and how it benefits the people within.
I don't agree...Wallace wrote:It doesn't, however, go into the specifics of why people in the nation cooperate with each other to produce the GDP. Therein lies the theory of money.
ISTM therein lies the [contemporary] theory of money (and economics):Adam Smith wrote:...those who are to consume it...
Interesting, in other words ants dance to a collective ant rhythm...the more ants dancing the more apparent the harmony of the rhythm.Wallace wrote:Why people cooperate with each other to do mutually-advantageous things may not be different from why animals do the same. For example, look at this website that shows cooperative behaviour among ants. Play with it for a while and then imagine that it is a human society where each person is exchanging a $20 bill with his neighbour. Look familiar?
I sincerely believe our lives are all about what Maslow said they are all about. If they are all about relationships, they are neither about survival or self-actualization. If they are not about survival or self-actualization, they probably about relationships.Wallace wrote:In the end, our lives are all about relationships. Money is only money.
mudLark wrote:Once upon a time; I played Ducks and Drakes; on Wemyss Bay; from the docks of Methil town.
mudLark wrote:During the Industrial Revolution economics were focused on defining and improving production in order to better equip the nation state for war. The application of Adam's theories as a tool, were successfully used by the British to defeat Napoleon.
Contemporary economics are focused on defining and improving consumption in order to avoid war. The hope of nuclear armed governments is that gradually economic activity will become a substitute for conflict. To be successful the end-state in this transformational idea has to be global, and result in greater equality of consumption, both within and between nation states.
He understands better than most that the survival of the many has been threatened by the greed and hubris of the few
Wallace wrote:Every time I switch on BNN, or watch someone from the financial industry talk about something or other, I hear the following statement: "The fundamentals are good"
So when I hear the pundits say "the fundamentals for cheese are good", what do they mean? Does it just mean that the pundits are bullish on the price of cheese?
Are there true "fundamentals" in economic theory? Or are we all part of an elaborate illusion, trapped within an eternally oscillating Ponzi scheme that expands when we buy into it and collapses when we don't?
Are we ... on the winning side?Wallace wrote:Perhaps we believe it simply because we are on the "winning" side.
Have you tried "If you could just move your leg that way"?WishingWealth wrote: and I was always shy to ask - is how do I initiate a position?
tidal wrote:I'm not sure where you are going with this,
but fwiw, I think that most investors are working off a broken paradigm,
But today we are dealing with complex systems
Oh, jeez, it's never worked for me....I just wondered if you've tried it.WishingWealth wrote:Nemo2: I would have appreciated a How To video.
Never too late to learn something.
Studebaker Hawk wrote:Isn't this subjective nonsense that allows you to dress up your hunches to a rationalized level of respectability?
I've always wonder about statements like "the deal has a 90% chance of success". Isn't that another way of saying "I have no fucking idea but I want to bet the ranch."?
One statement that comes back often - and I was always shy to ask - is how do I initiate a position?
I'm a bit of an old timer and I buy stocks, ETFs or stuff, sometimes with the intent to purchase more in time.
OTOH, the more savvy investors start/initiate a position.
How do I too?
Yeah, but it WAS simpler then, and it IS a whole hell of a lot more complex and inter-connected today. And from what we are learning about complex systems, and unexpected emergent behaviours at the level of various whole systems, well, let's just say it is not the world Ben Graham or Warren Buffett spent most of their careers in. Insights may be just as valid, just saying... a lot more unknown unknowns, and it is hard to see how this won't actually just compound as time goes on...Studebaker Hawk wrote:Ever was it so. Ever will the good ole days be a time when things were simpler.tidal wrote:But today we are dealing with complex systems
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], kirkwood and 5 guests