Holy Rollers
It had nothing to do with what value my dog gives me
every hour of every day. He staring at me right now, warming
my heart, giving me immeasurable value.
Very cute little guy.
But it's not a straw man, it's a thought experiment. If you say that yes I would spend $500 on medical care but I would put him down rather than spend $1000 then it is clear that you value fluffy somewhere between $500 and $1000. If you don't agree with this then we are never gonna agree on anything. But then Bob unfortunately I can't remember the last time you admitted you might be wrong on something....
Quote: MathExtremistWe wouldn't need a medium of exchange. My chicken would always be worth three loaves of bread, etc. so there would be no need for a unit of currency to act as middleman.
Of course, value is always subjective. That's why arbitrage can exist.
You are close, i would say that there would be no trade. The closest thing we have to intrinsic value is money itself. Just like we never trade one $20 bill for another $20 (or for $19 or $21) it would be very difficult to find many opportunities to trade.
Quote: bigfoot66But it's not a straw man, it's a thought experiment. If you say that yes I would spend $500 on medical care but I would put him down .
If my dog could be saved I would never have him
put down. Ever. I would mortgage my house, I
would sell personal possessions. My wife jokes about
it sometimes. She'll say 'if times get tough we'll just
sell the dog' and then laughs because she knows my
response.
Quote: FrGambleThe $500 an AP wins from a casino was also worth $500 to the casino. There has been no creation of value because it is the same money just now in different hands.
And the $500 the casino wins from me is also worth
$500 to me. There has been creation of value in that
transaction either.
How do you like those apples?
No doubt Bob is using the dog picture as a concept of a dog, rather than his actual dog :)
(http://www.cheap.co.uk/pet-insurance/bichon-frise.htm)
Quote: thecesspitNote that dog is from a UK Insurance page, and probably isn't actually a picture of Bob's dog.
I'll bet you a million dollars you can't tell the
difference between that dog and my dog. They
are identical. When I take him to the breeder
for a stay when I'm gone, I absolutely cannot
tell him apart from the other Bichons. Even
when I call him they all come running. She
uses colored collars to tell them apart. I have
no way of uploading pics of my own.
What took you so long? That was up for 15min
before you spotted it. Did you wake up from a
sound sleep with a 'feeling'?
*Edit* Actually even between those two people the overall concept of wealth should stay constant. Both people over value the other's item and as a result before and after the exchange there is still just as much wealth in the system.
Quote: kulinPerhaps between those two people's entire concept of wealth, value has been created momentarily
You've hit on something very important. Value is often
in the eyes of the beholder. I have attended hundreds
of auctions in my day. No matter what the price guide
value of something, an objects value that day is
only what people are willing to pay.
Example. 10 years ago I went to a liquidation of an
old music store. I mean 75 years old. In the basement
they had a treasure trove of old stuff. One was a small
box of telegraph keys. Maybe 8 of them. Me and another
guy went back and forth and I got them for $150.
I had no idea of their worth and sold them all on Ebay.
The best one went for $4500.. So what was the true
value on the box? The day I bought them, it was $150.
I got more than that. Who knows what the buyers will
sell them for. Value is not something that can be nailed
down.
Quote: kulinAs much as I think Bob is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I do think there is something wrong with the idea that value is created when two people value something differently. It feels like something that might be dependent upon frame of reference. Perhaps between those two people's entire concept of wealth, value has been created momentarily but any 3rd party would still value the two objects the same way before and after the trade.
*Edit* Actually even between those two people the overall concept of wealth should stay constant. Both people over value the other's item and as a result before and after the exchange there is still just as much wealth in the system.
It is counter intuitive but it is another one of those economic miracles that the market can make everyone wealthier (or at least 'better off') by simply allowing people to trade. I am going to bed but tomorrow I will post a story that shows how wealth can be increased even as the stock of goods is DECREASED in a system!
Quote: kulinAs much as I think Bob is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I do think there is something wrong with the idea that value is created when two people value something differently. It feels like something that might be dependent upon frame of reference. Perhaps between those two people's entire concept of wealth, value has been created momentarily but any 3rd party would still value the two objects the same way before and after the trade.
*Edit* Actually even between those two people the overall concept of wealth should stay constant. Both people over value the other's item and as a result before and after the exchange there is still just as much wealth in the system.
It is counter intuitive but it is another one of those economic miracles that the market can make everyone wealthier (or at least 'better off') by simply allowing people to trade. I am going to bed but tomorrow I will post a story that shows how wealth can be increased even as the stock of goods is DECREASED in a system!
Quote: EvenBobYou've hit on something very important. Value is often
in the eyes of the beholder. I have attended hundreds
of auctions in my day. No matter what the price guide
value of something, an objects value that day is
only what people are willing to pay.
Example. 10 years ago I went to a liquidation of an
old music store. I mean 75 years old. In the basement
they had a treasure trove of old stuff. One was a small
box of telegraph keys. Maybe 8 of them. Me and another
guy went back and forth and I got them for $150.
I had no idea of their worth and sold them all on Ebay.
The best one went for $4500.. So what was the true
value on the box? The day I bought them, it was $150.
I got more than that. Who knows what the buyers will
sell them for. Value is not something that can be nailed
down.
It can be nailed down to the penny but it is relative, subjective, and not constant.
Quote: bigfoot66You are close, i would say that there would be no trade. The closest thing we have to intrinsic value is money itself. Just like we never trade one $20 bill for another $20 (or for $19 or $21) it would be very difficult to find many opportunities to trade.
Trade is simply an exchange of goods/services for other, presumably different goods/services. Under the hypothetical where everything has intrinsic value, there is still not uniformity of purpose. I can't eat a bicycle and I can't get to work on a fish, so I might want to trade one for the other. But that still points to the impossibility of intrinsic value, because having two bicycles is not as valuable to me as having one bicycle and a fish. And then one might ask how much a fish needs a bicycle...
Quote: bigfoot66It can be nailed down to the penny
Yes, I nailed it at $150. But that didn't last long.
Quote: MathExtremistTrade is simply an exchange of goods/services for other, presumably different goods/services. .
At one time, salt was a currency. Roman soldiers were
paid in salt and they exchanged it for good and services.
Whats salt worth today. I spread it on the driveway in
the winter.
Quote: MathExtremistTrade is simply an exchange of goods/services for other, presumably different goods/services. Under the hypothetical where everything has intrinsic value, there is still not uniformity of purpose. I can't eat a bicycle and I can't get to work on a fish, so I might want to trade one for the other. But that still points to the impossibility of intrinsic value, because having two bicycles is not as valuable to me as having one bicycle and a fish. And then one might ask how much a fish needs a bicycle...
You are exactly right. It is difficult to think of examples that are not self defeating. Imagine I am very hungry but have a only house full of books, you are bored and have only hamburgers, and the 'intrinsic value exchange rate' is 1 book to 2 hamburgers. You might imagine that we would be eager to make the trade. But the fact that we are even considering to drive across town to make the trade shows that I indeed value the burgers more than the book and you vice versa, thus defeating the idea of intrinsic value. Again, we would not drive across town to buy two $10's for a $20....
Quote: EvenBobNo no no, there is not a whit of difference in the
casino taking my $500 because they have the edge,
and me taking their $500 because they have the
edge. No difference, none, zero.
If I create no value because I have the edge, they sure
as hell create no value because they have the edge. It
can't be any other way. The casino and I are equal in
every detail. They force me to play at their edge in certain
games, I force them to play at my edge in my game.
How is it your game? Is it your cards? Your table? Your shoes? Your permits? Are you paying the dealer? (Hell, you're probably not even tipping the dealer.) Then it's not your game.
Quote: kulinAs much as I think Bob is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I do think there is something wrong with the idea that value is created when two people value something differently. It feels like something that might be dependent upon frame of reference. Perhaps between those two people's entire concept of wealth, value has been created momentarily but any 3rd party would still value the two objects the same way before and after the trade.
*Edit* Actually even between those two people the overall concept of wealth should stay constant. Both people over value the other's item and as a result before and after the exchange there is still just as much wealth in the system.
Intuitively this seems true. How can moving a radio from a store shelf to the nightstand of some guy's apartment make society wealthier? Heck, I am even arguing with Bob that transfering $500 from the casino's wallet to the AP's wallet does not create value. What's going on here?
The answer is long but I will post my opinion in a couple hours. Would love to read what some other board members think in the meanwhile, I have explained all the needed concepts already in this thread.
The casino offers BJ and they have a built in
edge. That seems to be fine with everybody.
I go to the casino and I have a BJ game that
gives me the edge. I'm told if I win I have
created no value, I'm a drag on the economy.
I contribute nothing to society.
But the casino is doing exacty what I do. Playing
a game where they have the edge. Are they a
drag on the economy? Are they creating value?
Are they making a conrtibution to society?
If I'm not, how can they?
(*I know this isn't true in practice; the fact that it isn't is, IMO, the best excuse for card counting, but it's one I haven't heard from Bob. In any case, there are better ways to protest.)
Quote: 24BingoThey have a game, whereas you have a strategy,
No, my game is exactly the same as their game,
only better. They didn't invent the game, it doesn't
belong to them. Just because its in their house
doesn't mean they get to win. How ridiculous.
Quote: 24BingoNo, you'd rather steal candy from an infant...
Really? Comparing card counting to stealing from a baby? Wow...
Quote: AcesAndEightsReally? Comparing card counting to stealing from a baby? Wow...
Yes, I saw that. He really thinks the casinos are
as innocent as new born babies. Babies of
Satan, maybe.
Quote: bigfoot66That's right, when the Casinos do it, it is virtuous, when you do it, it is nuetral. Funny how that works...
When the casino wins, you can hear angels singing.
When an AP wins, the minions of hell squirm with
delight. Is that about the size of it?
Quote: EvenBobWhen the casino wins, you can hear angels singing.
When an AP wins, the minions of hell squirm with
delight. Is that about the size of it?
I think that about sums it up.
Quote: EvenBobWhen the casino wins, you can hear angels singing.
When an AP wins, the minions of hell squirm with
delight. Is that about the size of it?
No. You keep introducing morality into this. I am making an economic argument, not a moral one. Economically a profitable casino is benefiting society and CREATING VALUE FOR ITS CUSTOMERS in the way that it wins money from them. An AP does not create value IN THE PROCESS of winning money from the casino. Where the customer has fun and gets a kick out of the process of gambling, the casino is gets no such value out of dealing cards to a counter.
Quote: bigfoot66Economically a profitable casino is benefiting society and CREATING VALUE FOR ITS CUSTOMERS.
No no, there you go again, letting the other party
do something with the money and call it good,
yet you stop the AP cold from that. You say what
an AP does with the money is irrelevent, yet what
the casino does IS relevent? You can't have it both
ways.
An AP winning $500 from the casino and the casino
winning $500 are identically the same at the instant
the chips change hands. Thats all we're concerned about.
Thats the reason the court upheld that AP's don't cheat.
They have just as legitimate a game as the casino does.
Quote: bigfoot66You win through atrition Bob, I just can't keep doing this.
If your gonna debate bob you better pack a lunch and maybe some dinner too.
And the winner by TKO eeeevvvvNNN Bobbbbbbb!!!
Quote: FleaStiffMe no get it.
If he filmed Bible-thumping Card Counters who took the casinos for millions... why can't he get his paltry sum from the now-rich Bible thumpers he filmed?
I don't know if this was answered before but where did you hear that?
Quote: bigfoot66You win through atrition Bob, I just can't keep doing this.
My goal isn't to win. This issue is very personal
to me, I need it clarified when people attempt
to denegrate AP's. So far the issue of AP's being
a drag on the economy has not been proved.
As far as not creating value, they create just as
much value as the casino does when it wins, why
should we expect the AP to create more than the
casino.
This discussion has helped me immensely in how
to react in the future when AP's are looked down
on for what they do.
Quote: bigfoot66threw in the towel so we would not waste more time here. .
I don't think you wasted your time. You did a
good job trying to defend your position. But
to denegrate an AP and not do the same to the
casino just isn't fair. They are equal when they
win.
Quote: AcesAndEightsReally? Comparing card counting to stealing from a baby? Wow...
Don't play that game. You know what I meant.
Quote: EvenBobNo, my game is exactly the same as their game,
only better. They didn't invent the game, it doesn't
belong to them. Just because its in their house
doesn't mean they get to win. How ridiculous.
I have a homeless friend, and I'll tell him this is how you feel.
What does it matter who invented the game? The casino funds every material aspect. No casino, no game. You might as well say it's all right to pocket dates from any shop not run by Eve.
Quote: EvenBobNo no, there you go again, letting the other party
do something with the money and call it good,
yet you stop the AP cold from that. You say what
an AP does with the money is irrelevent, yet what
the casino does IS relevent? You can't have it both
ways.
How does this make any sense? This is what they're doing for the money, as well as (mainly) with it. No game, no money. You don't give to charity, you keep your money.
(And before you say "I'm also playing for the money" - fine. So to whom are you providing this game?)
Quote: 24Bingo
How does this make any sense? This is what they're doing for the money,
How is that somehow better or different or
more sacred than what the AP's doing for
the money.
Quote: 24BingoIt doesn't matter what you do with the money once you had it, when it was given to you, no product was returned.
And when I gave them the money when they won,
no product was returned to me.
They say they provide entertainment, therefore they're
justified in offering a game rigged in their favor. Too
bad, I'm not entertained. I can think up some phony
baloney reason for my rigged game, if that will make
you happy. That way both the casino and I are offering
hot air.
Quote: EvenBobAnd when I gave them the money when they won,
no product was returned to me.
They say they provide entertainment, therefore they're
justified in offering a game rigged in their favor. Too
bad, I'm not entertained. I can think up some phony
baloney reason for my rigged game, if that will make
you happy. That way both the casino and I are offering
hot air.
You aren't entertained. That doesn't mean they're not offering a product. If you don't like a play, are you justified in asking a refund? Or if you don't like in on principle, are you justified sneaking in? What if a lawyer finds it's not actually illegal to sneak in, provided you leave promptly when asked?
Look around. Granted, there are a few loudmouths who think they have some special throw, but most of the people in there know perfectly well they're playing losing games, and they play anyway. It's been that way since Pascal made such games viable. You don't have to understand it, but clearly they're offering something.
Quote: 24Bingobut clearly they're offering something.
What they offer can't measured, its a concept, an idea.
I can think up lots of concepts and ideas on what I'm
offering too. It would be just as meaningless as what
they're offering.
The anti casino people ran ads around here for 10
years saying casinos offer nothing, all they do is take.
And they said 'nuh uh', we offer 'enterteinment'. Paigowdan
says that all the time. Its an argument that doesn't hold
water. I'm sure a spider thinks what it does is very
entertaining too, that doesn't make it so.
Quote: 24BingoThey have a game, whereas you have a strategy, one you know is somewhere between forbidden and strongly discouraged by the people who actually have the game. That's what it comes down to. If you want to set up your own blackjack game, you can play it however you'd like*, but good luck finding someone to play you when the count is in your favor. No, you'd rather steal candy from an infant and play the ones whose feet are nailed to the floor by the honest gambler.
(*I know this isn't true in practice; the fact that it isn't is, IMO, the best excuse for card counting, but it's one I haven't heard from Bob. In any case, there are better ways to protest.)
Quote: 24BingoQuote: AcesAndEightsReally? Comparing card counting to stealing from a baby? Wow...
Don't play that game. You know what I meant.
I honestly didn't know what you meant by that sentence up there. No joking, could you explain the analogy you were trying to make?
