Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robnhood who wrote (140184)	12/24/2008 3:28:47 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 314171

Exactly. You have grasped the essence of it. IOU one more dollar? Tricky. People give out IOU's and then replace them with other IOU's from some dead president of some republic! Now if and IOU was real, it would say, one donkey, or a chicken, or a wrench or something you could use. Money has the definition of specie that represents value. Value is represented a unitary segment of something useful. Money itself has only the use of representing that value. It is NOT the value itself, but the abstraction of that concept. In the end only life and its emotions and enjoyment thereof has any value. So unchain yourself from man's value system that has one in knots and worry, climb a stairway to the stars and revel in wonder at the universe and your place in it. Then you will have discovered some of that value. Money is not the Value for which Goods are exchanged, but the Value by which they are exchanged. -- John Law Aristotle defined money best. In various treatises he described it as a "means to an end" and a medium of exchange". This has been echoed throughout the ages. A more modern view of money is as managed supply of the representation of value. In this, Aristotle and Aquinas saw great danger. After John Stuart Mill the concept of marginal value came into being, although in some way it was always recognized it was never quantified. This revolves around the paradox of great necessity and luxury, or as it is show, diamonds and water. There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural." EC<:-}