Stupid World

[mashman]

Don't have to wait that long mate, his clients already know that.

What, wiv not bein' idiots an' all.

Perhaps you should enlighten them that it isn't the mechanics fault... free market and the value setters etc... am sure they'll believe you.

Bit of a sweeping statement that.

[Ocean1]

Perhaps you should enlighten them that it isn't the mechanics fault... free market and the value setters etc... am sure they'll believe you.

They don't need enlightening, they're the ones that set the value.

Bit of a sweeping statement that.

Well it's generally true. But there are the odd exceptions, as you say. People that think someone other than the purchaser should set the value of shit. I didn't think anyone bothered about them to be honest, they'll never amount to anything worth mentioning.

[mashman]

They don't need enlightening, they're the ones that set the value.

Well it's generally true. But there are the odd exceptions, as you say. People that think someone other than the purchaser should set the value of shit. I didn't think anyone bothered about them to be honest, they'll never amount to anything worth mentioning.

Do they know why they set the value that they set and why that value changes from country to country?

Aha... the purchaser doesn't set the value? You said if the service it too expensive, no one will buy it. It's the ones who see the value beyond the financial value that'll never amount to anything... until they do... and in ever increasing numbers.

[Scuba_Steve]

I get the idea. It's basically a "credit" system, 1hr = 1 credit (metaphorically). How much is a loaf? or a car? I'd love to bump into a Time Banker to see how they work those sorts of things out, but I can only assume that Time Banking runs in conjunction with the financial system?

yea from the writeup it looks to be only services on the "timebank" scheme people offering gardening, landscaping, building, cooking, cleaning, teaching etc but supply your own materials & I can only assume the time earn't is confirmed by the purchaser as they're the ones having to spend their banked time for the other party to earn it.

So still not a independent system, & like any system flaws could be found, but for those who have time & skills it's a good start to a better community

[mashman]

yea from the writeup it looks to be only services on the "timebank" scheme people offering gardening, landscaping, building, cooking, cleaning, teaching etc but supply your own materials & I can only assume the time earn't is confirmed by the purchaser as they're the ones having to spend their banked time for the other party to earn it.

So still not a independent system, & like any system flaws could be found, but for those who have time & skills it's a good start to a better community

Makes sense I guess. Tantalisingly though just one step away from NOW

Damn straight man. Cannae bling again.

[Ocean1]

Do they know why they set the value that they set and why that value changes from country to country?

Yes. There's no higher authority on what shit's worth than the guy paying for it.

Aha... the purchaser doesn't set the value? You said if the service it too expensive, no one will buy it.

Which defines that price as too high. There's no contradiction in the basic mechanisms behind a free market, dude, no matter how hard screw your eyes up.

It's the ones who see the value beyond the financial value that'll never amount to anything... until they do... and in ever increasing numbers.

There's no such thing as financial value, dude. There's just value, which most people quantify in dollar terms. You can use pineapples if you insist, you'll just have to get the exchange rate sorted.

[mashman]

Yes. There's no higher authority on what shit's worth than the guy paying for it.

Which defines that price as too high. There's no contradiction in the basic mechanisms behind a free market, dude, no matter how hard screw your eyes up.

market economics eh. Would love to throw that comment, along with paperclips and staples, into a Keynesian v's Neoclassical fucktardoff and watch them contradict the hell out of each other.

There's no such thing as financial value, dude. There's just value, which most people quantify in dollar terms. You can use pineapples if you insist, you'll just have to get the exchange rate sorted.

You know I'd rather use nuffink. True... although I would have thought that interest and inflation where financial values.

[Ocean1]

market economics eh. Would love to throw that comment, along with paperclips and staples, into a Keynesian v's Neoclassical fucktardoff and watch them contradict the hell out of each other.

They're economic theorists/theories, when you get enough of them they're always going to disagree on the details. The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller. Only a fool disagrees with facts.

[mashman]

They're economic theorists/theories, when you get enough of them they're always going to disagree on the details. The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller. Only a fool disagrees with facts.

They've also been practiced. Neither works coz that sentiment you mention has been replaced by free trade agreements, and likely other mechanisms, that fuck things up superbly and end up putting local industry's to the axe etc... and all in the search for the mighty $$$. In theory there should be 1 rate for a mechanic globally.

[Ocean1]

They've also been practiced.

They're theories. They seek to explain how some aspects of markets work, you don't "practice" such theories. Do you mean economic policy has been generated using those theories to try to influence market behaviour? In which case you'd be right.

And interesting as the results sometimes are they still don't represent the market, they just represent conjectures on how it behaves.
So it's somewhat incorrect to say that any theories have been "practiced".

Neither works coz that sentiment you mention has been replaced by free trade agreements, and likely other mechanisms, that fuck things up superbly and end up putting local industry's to the axe etc... and all in the search for the mighty $$$.

I mentioned no sentiment whatsoever. I mentioned free trade, is that what you mean?

I tend to agree that free trade agreements rarely deliver free trade in any industry. As for your "mighty dollar: there's nothing wrong with getting the best value you can in any purchase or sale you do.

In theory there should be 1 rate for a mechanic globally.

What sort of theory ignores the global differences in cost to supply mechanics services?

[mashman]

They're theories. They seek to explain how some aspects of markets work, you don't "practice" such theories. Do you mean economic policy has been generated using those theories to try to influence market behaviour? In which case you'd be right.

And interesting as the results sometimes are they still don't represent the market, they just represent conjectures on how it behaves.
So it's somewhat incorrect to say that any theories have been "practiced".

Fair enough. The ideology is practiced is what I mean, but yeah, economic policy shaping market conditions to prove the theory ain't the way I'd put it... more ideology driven financial policy with the economics as the result and not the driver (in name only).

I mentioned no sentiment whatsoever. I mentioned free trade, is that what you mean?

I tend to agree that free trade agreements rarely deliver free trade in any industry. As for your "mighty dollar: there's nothing wrong with getting the best value you can in any purchase or sale you do.

"The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller"... lovely sentiment, but not what I'd refer to as a simple fact given that the market isn't just about handshakes anymore as the fta's force a certain level of coercion. Yes coercion is technically an agreement, but it can (probably is) be a constraint for those within any given industry... so not strictly a direct agreement.

It's the cheaper to import tomatoes/coal/hats etc... from Chile v's produce locally that gets me. I would have thought the associated collateral damage i.e. job losses and knock on community affects, would have been enough to override the "best value" bit (a more holistic view)... but I guess a business entity is a business entity and they don;t have to consider the wider affects of their actions. No, I'm not bagging business.

What sort of theory ignores the global differences in cost to supply mechanics services?

A well thought out one. Think of all of that admin that would vanish. In fact remove cost entirely blah blah blah.

[Ocean1]

"The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller"... lovely sentiment, but not what I'd refer to as a simple fact given that the market isn't just about handshakes anymore as the fta's force a certain level of coercion. Yes coercion is technically an agreement, but it can (probably is) be a constraint for those within any given industry... so not strictly a direct agreement.

Again: an agreement between a seller and a buyer isn't a sentiment. The sum of any number of such agreements in any given field/city/country is the market, that's a fact, it's that simple.

And if there's coercion or any other form of influence involved in that transaction then that transaction isn't any part of any free market. Interference in the market comes more from governments attempting to control and tax them than any other source. Unfortunately any artificial shaping of a market produces distortions, which in extreme cases cause:

It's the cheaper to import tomatoes/coal/hats etc... from Chile v's produce locally that gets me. I would have thought the associated collateral damage i.e. job losses and knock on community affects, would have been enough to override the "best value" bit (a more holistic view)... but I guess a business entity is a business entity and they don;t have to consider the wider affects of their actions. No, I'm not bagging business.

If you found all of the contributing parts of the costs associated with those tomatoes/coal/hats I guarantee you'd find that most of them related to something other than the product. Even such simple effects as local taxes being higher cause exponential effects in global markets, let alone targeted duties, regulated labour markets, and a veritable shitload of other costs having fuck all to do with bringing the product to market.

I dislike targeted taxes intensely, but in the long run that money goes back into my community where I get another shot at earning it. International corporations that attempt to interfere with markets through isolation and monopolisation tactics I loath with a passion. If their product was that good it should stand against it's competitors priced at it's cost-to-market. The legal and "marketing" ploys they utilise in their attempts to dominate a market are tantamount to a declaration of war on their consumers. Any corporate entity that behaves like that deserves nothing less than a complete embargo on their products, simply for the fact that they destroy the freedom of their market, they deny their clients a choice.

[Brian d marge]

Oh well good reason to stick to the older vehicles... Can't wait till the hackers start to play

Two of the best "anti hacker" cars I have ever owned , Austin allegro and a Hilman Hunter , both would just keep going , no matter who or what tried to disable them. Ok they didnt go that fast , Not that the nun on a bicycle that I over took in the grunter seemed pleased

I did manage to destroy the Austin , in a beer run to Akaroa with not much in the way of oil in the engine ( well I went to christchurch first , to get oil. Forgot ( might have something to do with being shitfaced ) then went to akaroa , nearly made Birdlings flat before it went bang

oh happy dayz

Stephen

[mashman]

Again: an agreement between a seller and a buyer isn't a sentiment. The sum of any number of such agreements in any given field/city/country is the market, that's a fact, it's that simple.

And if there's coercion or any other form of influence involved in that transaction then that transaction isn't any part of any free market. Interference in the market comes more from governments attempting to control and tax them than any other source. Unfortunately any artificial shaping of a market produces distortions, which in extreme cases cause:

Transactions = market, you're right that is the definition... but you have to include "influenced" transactions in that definition as they are still transactions? Ya know, there's only 1 real driver, cough cough money cough, for the market distortions and the state it finds itself in. That's a fact.

If you found all of the contributing parts of the costs associated with those tomatoes/coal/hats I guarantee you'd find that most of them related to something other than the product. Even such simple effects as local taxes being higher cause exponential effects in global markets, let alone targeted duties, regulated labour markets, and a veritable shitload of other costs having fuck all to do with bringing the product to market.

I dislike targeted taxes intensely, but in the long run that money goes back into my community where I get another shot at earning it. International corporations that attempt to interfere with markets through isolation and monopolisation tactics I loath with a passion. If their product was that good it should stand against it's competitors priced at it's cost-to-market. The legal and "marketing" ploys they utilise in their attempts to dominate a market are tantamount to a declaration of war on their consumers. Any corporate entity that behaves like that deserves nothing less than a complete embargo on their products, simply for the fact that they destroy the freedom of their market, they deny their clients a choice.

No doubt... but that eventually takes us back to our old friend unemployment and how we get money into non-working consumers pockets to "live", as well as the out and out compliance lolly scramble you describe.

You mean some of that money makes it back into the community? I guess the downsides of competition and pseudo-cooperation are always going to result in monopolies. I can't see how monopolisation could be avoided short of rules/regulation/compliance. After all, if you wanna be the best, then buy the best or drive the competition out of business, none of this standing should to shoulder nonsense, that's just not the way things are done. Ach, marketing and advertising doesn't remove choice and whilst I can see what you mean by declaring war against customers, as you say, they can always take their business elsewhere... but why would they do that if it saves them money? Yes that's likely a shot term gain, but meh, it's cash in the pocket immediately allowing people to save or invest (pfft). It's a brave new world man and fairness has got feck all to do with it for business or individuals so those we deem to be bending "systems" to their will are only obliged to play fair in so much that their behaviour is legal. We needz change coz that behaviour ain't going away.

[Scuba_Steve]

Bout right too