Thread: The Real Causes of Income Inequality

Originally Posted by 9aces

Burning a hundred does nothing to change the value of the dollar. I don't think you know what a dollar truly represents.

Almost one quarter of a large bag of Lay's Potato Chips.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Almost one quarter of a large bag of Lay's Potato Chips.

I hate you, you're making me hungry.

Originally Posted by 9aces

I hate you, you're making me hungry.

How do you think I feel?
All I keep reading about is margarine utility.

Originally Posted by 9aces

So you were taught by a moron? That explains a lot.

A reasonably well regarded institution with a moron as an Economics professor. I would expect the numbers of people who teach there now would beg you not to tell us which one it is, they hate looking that bad.


Burning a hundred does nothing to change the value of the dollar. I don't think you know what a dollar truly represents.

And just what does the Dollar truly Represents? There is nothing backing the Dollar so there is no representation there, so the question is What does the Dollar represent?

Originally Posted by goober

Except that I studied economics in the 70's and we were taught Marginal Utility , and almost everything we were taught was derived from Marginal Utility

I still cannot find anything that says that Marginal Utility is the basis or only theory of economics. You continue to refuse to find anything to support your position. Which means you lose the debate. You don't support your side, you continue to make assertions and assumptions without support.

So you link to a paper written in 1909 by a Marxist to refute the theory that I was taught in 1974 at a reasonably well regarded institution of higher learning....

Not the first one I linked. You continue to espouse a theory presented originally in the 1730's and do not present anything newer. I think 1909 trumps 1730 then. Same argument as yours. You present a theory created in the 1730's and only wiki to support it and you think we are supposed to take your word for it.

And again you use a Marxist to refute marginal utility?

It is very simple, just do this thought experiment.

How much money would you have to have before you would light a cigar with a hundred dollar bill( and allow the bill to burn completely in the ashtray)?

No I am not using Marx as a refute to marginal utility. Your reading comprehension really leaves a lot to be desired. I am saying that you Goober are supporting a theory that Austrian Economists support and that Marxists refute yet you are normally on the Marxist side of the equation. I have seen your blatantly redistribution posts in other threads. So why are you supporting a theory that is completely opposite what you seem to believe in otherwise?

As for me, I wont use a dollar big to light a cigar for 2 reasons. 1: I spent some time living on the street in my life and every penny I have is important and I will not waste even that. 2: Burning money to light a cigar is a jackass egotistical move that shows contempt for others and how hard they work for money.

Originally Posted by goober

I've seen it done (lighting a cigar with a C-note). The point is that it happens when someone makes a huge score, because at that point the marginal value of money drops to the point where they can use it to make display of wealth.

OK, better example, ever pay over $100 for a bottle of wine?
There is wine that sells for a couple of hundred dollars a bottle.
I know, I used to sell it, and I also sold wine that sold for $1.99/bottle.
Not that much difference between them either.
The guy who was in charge of all the Tequila in Mexico made a statement that he couldn't imagine a bottle of tequila selling for more than $10, a few years later we were selling Tequila for $100/bottle.
It all has to do with the marginal utility of money.

More claims and some that are impossible.

All of the tequila, from the non-reported stuff made in the boonies in little villages to the big cities. No dates, no citations just a grandiose claim with no support. Par for the course Goober with you.

Must be pretty old statement since I am a bit of a tequila aficionado. I have read about sales back in the 40's of Tequila for some bottles topping 1000's of dollars. Just like buying dom perignon which starts at $100 and that is an Ebay sale. Dom goes back many decades and has always sold for tons of money. Though this is just a side point you are using for and excuse to not support your assertions.

BTW to say that there is not much difference between say Maddog 20/20 at about $2 a bottle and Dom Perignon at about $500 a bottle is like saying there is no difference between a Yugo and a Ferrari. Total nonsensical statement showing more and more your ignorance.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Almost one quarter of a large bag of Lay's Potato Chips.

My local Sunoco has sales on Lays for $2 every couple weeks... nyah nyah I pay less than you.

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

And just what does the Dollar truly Represents? There is nothing backing the Dollar so there is no representation there, so the question is What does the Dollar represent?

Well I could say a dollar represents the control and confiscation of a US Citizens Rights. But that would be a very cynical view of the current system.

I suppose we could all get philosophical and say that money is just a human construct and meaningless but I'm not sure that's going to help much unless you're trying to turn everyone into hippies.

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

And just what does the Dollar truly Represents? There is nothing backing the Dollar so there is no representation there, so the question is What does the Dollar represent?

There is a youtube video of Ron Paul pressing Bernake with this. His cryptic answer is a dollar is what a dollar buys. It's sad central banks exist. As Jefferson said, they are a greater threat to our liberty than standing armies.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Forgot the movie - "Go a week without sex, you can do it, but go even an hour without rationalization, can't be done"



Conservatives can live without progressives and their entitlements, progressives and their entitlements cannot live without conservatives and their ability to work and create wealth.

I owned(with several individuals all employed by the corp.) an S corp. and operated for 25 years without the need ( in all but a few start up years) for borrowed funds. (increased operating funds not capital).

Responsibility for income Tax each year on earnings was paid by the individuals based on proportionate stock holdings at the individuals rate.

Growth was financed with earnings not by the sale of stock and transfer of risk to others.

Huge companies were often formed by ingesting small companies such as mine (only diamonds are forever) but little thought or resentment was ever present in respect to the burden of entitlements which we also shared with the rest of the workers.

When non working investors out weigh those who toil for their compensation the whole picture cxhanges.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

More claims and some that are impossible.

All of the tequila, from the non-reported stuff made in the boonies in little villages to the big cities. No dates, no citations just a grandiose claim with no support. Par for the course Goober with you.

Must be pretty old statement since I am a bit of a tequila aficionado. I have read about sales back in the 40's of Tequila for some bottles topping 1000's of dollars. Just like buying dom perignon which starts at $100 and that is an Ebay sale. Dom goes back many decades and has always sold for tons of money. Though this is just a side point you are using for and excuse to not support your assertions.

BTW to say that there is not much difference between say Maddog 20/20 at about $2 a bottle and Dom Perignon at about $500 a bottle is like saying there is no difference between a Yugo and a Ferrari. Total nonsensical statement showing more and more your ignorance.

Sorry if I have acquired knowledge that doesn't come with a URL.
The tequila guy was Mexican official, and it was an article in the Wall Street Journal (the print edition) from maybe 15 or 20 years ago, and it was an old quote then, I read it because I used to be a Wine and Spirits Importer/distributor and have an interest in the business.
I didn't have Mad Dog, but I had Wild Irish Rose, and Silver Satin, Five Aces and a couple of other choice vintages available in hiphuggers, and a couple of thousand others, some very expensive, some not very expensive.
The point is that wine is a very good demonstration of the marginal utility of money.
If you want a bottle of wine at dinner, you can have a Mouton Cadet, a decent drinkable Bordeaux, for under $10, maybe $15 in a restaurant, or you can go for a Romanee Conti, and spend a couple of hundred for a bottle. You would do that if you had so much money that a couple of hundred was worth a bottle of wine, it's the utility of the money that has varied.
The average wine drinker will never taste a Romanee Conti or a premier cru Bourdeaux like Haut Brion.
They won't drop the bucks, because the value of that money is more than they wish to spend on their palate for a swallow or two.
Who buys those wines? People with a lot of wealth, because the marginal utility of that wealth is so low, that a couple of hundred for a bottle of wine, or using a C-note to light a cigar, is worth it.

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

And just what does the Dollar truly Represents? There is nothing backing the Dollar so there is no representation there, so the question is What does the Dollar represent?

There is something backing the dollar, something very important.

The belief that the value of a dollar is the same for the millionaire or the pauper. A dollar, particularly a paper dollar is only worth anything so long as the belief it has equal value exists.

Money is a tool of exchange, nothing more, and nothing less.