Why are you pretending to be responding to something I wrote? I didn't mention Hayek, and the socialist calculation debate has no relation to entrepreneurial spirit.
I have repeatedly. I have made it clear that I've referred to Hayek's use of tacit knowledge. You merely googled badly, confirming that you don't comment with any notion of economic knowledge.
But without relevance to my posts. If you want to talk about Hayek and tacit knowledge, go ahead. Just don't pretend to be responding relevantly to my posts. <yawn> You again just foul yourself.
You haven't shown any relevance. After all, you're completely reliant on misinterpreting a wikipedia site... I've done nothing but. Why don't you know any economics?
Your debt is somebody else's Wealth. What do you think the wealthy do with their excessive fortunes? They give them to banks to manage. What do the banks do? They lend it out at standard rates, mostly for mortgaging that is safer than most investments. Your mortgage money, after a tiny sum taken on commission by a bank, goes to build the fortune of someone who doesn't need it and will (when they die inevitably) give it to offspring who do not deserve it. Because they never worked a day in their lives to create it ...
No it isn't. It is somebody else's potential future wealth in return for your immediate actual wealth. That you have zero respect for the labours required by other people to save their money, zero human empathy for anyone else's work except your own, makes you uninvestable. That you have no respect for others peoples needs other than your own, makes you anti-social. A person never to lend to. Your bad attitude prevents you from profiting from the labours of others. Prevents you from social co-operation. What do banks do? They lend other peoples money to you. They connect lenders with borrowers for a fee. Otherwise if you wish someone to lend you a house, you will have to ask a lot of people yourself. More fool anyone who does. Because you won;t pay it back.
so you want a Nazi govt to stop parents at gunpoint form giving things to their kids that you think the kids don't deserve? This is just one of 10,001 ways a lib will usher in another Nazi era. Harvard students for example prepare all their lives to get to Harvard and to responsibly use their inheritance. You want to steal it at gun point and give it to ghetto kids who would instantly waste it?
rich kids didn't create the mansions they live in with their parents either. Do you want your Nazi friends to take that away too? What about the super high IQ's they inherited?? How fair is that? what about limiting their educations so they don't get a even bigger advantage over their lower IQ peers?
Debt only proves one has bills that have yet to be repaid in full. Wealth would be proven if repayment of all debts could be accomplished simultaneously at no loss to borrower or lender.
Obviously false. I did no such thing and you know it. ...try to change the subject. Right. <yawn> I have proved your filth is filth.
True, but it doesn't add to TOTAL wealth. No, they know better than that. They bid up the prices of each other's privileges. Banks do not lend out depositor savings. They create loan proceeds to balance the loan asset.
Step 1: ignore the economics (here Hayekian application of tacit knowledge and how it impacts on the socialist calculation debate) Step 2: use emotive language like evil or filth to hide from the lack of economic comment. Yep! Your script is met
more thoroughly:The capacity of bank lending then, is not entirely restricted by banks’ ability to attract new deposits, but by the central bank’s monetary policy decisions about whether or not to increase reserves. However, given a particular monetary policy regime and barring any increase in reserves, the only way commercial banks can increase their lending capacity is to secure new deposits. Again, deposits create loans, and consequently, banks need your money in order to make new loans.
I.e., inaccurately: Commercial banks can always just borrow reserves from the central bank. Which they CREATE by lending. No, it's the other way around: loans create deposits. No, they do not. They can start lending with NO depositor money and just borrow reserves until they can sell loans off for cash. That's what banks were doing in the lead-up to the GFC.
You misspelled, "red herrings." You wouldn't know economic comment if it danced a jig on your monitor. You even think a firm can be valued as if there were no labor.
Another comment without any valid economic comment. That you don't understand the concept of sunk costs doesn't surprise me mind you
I.e., perfectly responsive to yours. You have proved you don't understand it, by claiming that it means assuming labor does not exist.
This just confirms that you don't understand the concept. Sunk costs means that it is quite possible for a firm to have zero value without labour. Keep pretending otherwise mind you. It makes me smile
<yawn> If a firm has zero value because of sunk costs, it has zero value with labor. "Value without labor" is meaningless.
Don't be silly! With labour, value depends on production. Without labour, value depends on the fungibility of assets. Assuming sunk costs, that fungibility is discounted.
