I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Bad Guy NASA? [Pic]

Hits: 10799 | Rating: (3.7) | Category: Misc. | Added by: B-diddy
Page: 1 24 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 10:36:48 PM
@Squrlz

So you believe that if we swapped out America's population for 314 million illiterates, the country's wealth would be unchanged?

Again, here you've added entire new assumptions and expect me to just go along.

At the point that everyone was replaced, yes, wealth is the same; it would drastically drop shortly thereafter. Wealth would drop after that moment because the wealth creation factor known as knowledge declined.

At the moment of the swap, however, the real wealth is exactly the same - only potential wealth has changed.

Vale.

Adieu.

@5Cats

It's like trying to tie eels in a knot!

Either the entire scope of the argument is changing or the definition of "wealth" is changing; it's akin to asking a 2 year-old to color within the lines.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 10:34:46 PM
@ Draculya: LOL. What does *that* have to do with anything? I admire your conviction and enthusiasm, but I'm not sure where you're going with it.

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12218 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 10:19:17 PM
Burn the Church. Not a church, the entire religion

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25279 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 10:01:52 PM
@HumanAction: I feel your frustration! It's like trying to tie eels in a knot!

This .Gif Is For You!


Quackor
Male, 18-29, S. America
 2864 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 9:58:09 PM
wow you should all be teaching economics in harvard LOL

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 9:37:43 PM
@ HumanAction: So you believe that if we swapped out America's population for 314 million illiterates, the country's wealth would be unchanged?

Really? And you believe this because, you say, you know more about economics than Adam Smith?

This just gets better and better.

I can't help you my friend. You've entombed yourself in a sarcophagus of sophomoric cement that no pickaxe can hope to penetrate.

Vale. =^.^=

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 9:34:59 PM
@Squrlz

The problem is that you, and others, assume that knowledge - by itself - is wealth; this is untrue.

If this were true, Tesla would not have died poor; yet, he did. Why?

The answer is simple: knowledge is a wealth creation factor; it's a field multiplier. Increasing knowledge increases your POTENTIAL wealth, not your REAL wealth.

If, at this point, you are still unable to grasp this rather elementary point, then I am afraid you likely never will. I have explained it in enough ways that I am confident the average person would understand.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 9:21:11 PM
@Squrlz

Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith

My friend, this is where you've erred. You assume that the teachings of a 200+ year old PHILOSOPHER is economic gospel.

We've come a long way in the last couple hundred of years. Expand your reading to Friedman, Hayek, Murray, Von Mises, Rothbard, Haslett, or even Keynes to understand modern economics.

our government vastly increased the productive knowledge of the engineers

This is not realized wealth. Unless the knowledge is expanded upon and used to produce real wealth, by itself, it is not wealth. If I know everything but have nothing, I am not wealthy; I merely have a wealth of knowledge.

Jens' observations are largely correct

Jens was incorrect - as are you. Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations as hardly any bearing on modern economics.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 9:09:49 PM
@ HumanAction: If money moves around and nothing is produced, then no wealth has been created. If we start with the same amount of resources and money, and end with the same amount of resources and money, then society is no wealthier.

This is incorrect and explains why you're lost in this discussion. Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith made the observation that a society's wealth is not simply a matter of its accumulation of commodities and manufactured goods but also a reflection of--key term here--*the productive knowledge* of its people.

In spending $2.5B on *Curiosity*, our government vastly increased the productive knowledge of the engineers who pioneered new techniques and methods--which will translate to improved technologies at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing. That wealth stayed with us even after *Curiosity* was sent to Mars.

That's why Jens' observations are largely correct and your observations are largely twaddle.

NOT_A_BEAR
Male, 18-29, Australia
 62 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 8:47:45 PM
@ Suicism

The "Unlike" button only appears after you have "Liked" something. It's just an undo button

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 8:14:15 PM
@broizfam

if you actually know anything about economics you know that wealth is created by the movement of money through the economy

This just isn't accurate. If money moves around and nothing is produced, then no wealth has been created. If we start with the same amount of resources and money, and end with the same amount of resources and money, then society is no wealthier.

Perhaps an individual has gained wealth - at least a debatable point there - but society has gained nothing.

If we spend 100 hours and resources on a project, and then send that project to Mars, that time and those resources are gone. Money has transferred hands but the total amount in society remains the same. However, the total amount of resources and time have decreased.

This all means that wealth was lost in the process. Meanwhile, opportunity has been gained in terms of R&D.

Suicism
Male, 18-29, Western US
 3672 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 7:16:14 PM
So there's an unlike button now? I might have to sign-up one day.

broizfam
Male, 50-59, Eastern US
 3390 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 7:15:26 PM
Okay folks, this is getting silly. There are 2 values to the metal of the spent craft: 1) The value people place on it for it's utility. While there is no way to replace that resource (maybe it'll be recoverable someday), it's actually quite a small amount, in terms of planetary resources. 2) The cost of mining, refining, transporting, and manufacturing it into a working unit. These "costs" all represent money paid to people for doing those jobs.
Really, very little actual "wealth" is lost to Mars by putting an explorer up there and, if you actually know anything about economics you know that wealth is created by the movement of money through the economy. People are paid and have more money to buy goods. People selling those goods now have more money with which to buy goods from others, and so on. We don't actually lose wealth by putting an explorer on Mars.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:49:12 PM
So, just to recap here before we wrap this party up:

1. I make a statement;
2. You people assume I'm making completely different arguments not at all based on my statements;
3. I continue to argue with the assumption that assumptions haven't been added to my original statement;
4. You all get mad that I won't accept these new assumptions because I never argued against them in the first place; and,
5. I insist that we stick to the scope of my statement.

Man, I wish I could argue like that. It would be so nice to just tell everyone else what their stance is in the middle of an disagreement and then argue with them about it.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:32:30 PM
No, you guys, HumanAction is right.

... and finally, she gets it.

Seriously though - about the Caps Lock - something needs to be done about it; it's out-of-control. I mean, one or two word, sure... but ENTIRE SENTENCES? My God.

For reals though HumanAction, stahp... Wat are you doin' Humanaction. Staaaahp.

This strange language seems oddly familiar to me...

Gauddith
Female, 18-29, Western US
 226 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:27:01 PM
No, you guys, HumanAction is right. He wins the discussion. He WINS. His reading comprehension skillz got us so beat. We lost. Because he can comprehend what he's reading, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE CAN ADD IN THE IMPLIED IDEAS. HE COMPREHENDED THE HECK OUT OF IT.

Also, thank you Squrlz for the little chuckle and also for getting the idea, (not that you need to actually form a thinktank to do so.)

For reals though HumanAction, stahp...

Wat are you doin' Humanaction.

Staaaahp.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:18:14 PM
@Squrlz

Uh, go you, then! That's quite an ... intellectual victory you're achieving. I guess. LOL.

Forgive me, but it is not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills. If you go back and read through my statements, my intent should be abundantly clear.

I am sorry that you misunderstood. I understand that it can be frustrating to make a mistake. Please do not take that frustration out on me.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:15:49 PM
@lauriloo

hey, "genius", Jens is a man's name, probably Danish.

I think you're addressing me, but I'm really not sure - your statement didn't make very much sense. If so, I believe I have consistently referenced him as Jens, yet, I probably slipped a "she" or "her" in somewhere along the way. My sincerest apologies. I shall hang my head in shame for days over this unforgivable blunder. I am so utterly embarrassed by this glaring mistake.

Maybe you'll take his statements more seriously knowing that?

Whoa there. I can't believe you just implied that men are to be taken more seriously than women. You're a sexist and should be ashamed.

-_-




Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:14:53 PM
@ HumanAction: Forgive me, but this is beyond retarded. You've decided to focus on the value of the nuts and bolts that were sent to Mars and ignore what is foremost in the minds of virtually everyone else: the value of the research *Curiosity* is conducting? Why? Because the Facebook commenter neglected to add a sentence along those lines?

Uh, go you, then! That's quite an ... intellectual victory you're achieving. I guess. LOL.

lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1805 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:07:14 PM
hey, "genius", Jens is a man's name, probably Danish. Maybe you'll take his statements more seriously knowing that?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:06:57 PM
Or whatever other "Rare Earths" you are talking about.

See below. "Rare Earths" was simply a way to reference the total wealth of the vehicle.

your concept of economics is clearly from econ 101

Oh, you flatter me.

coming off as hilariously unknowledgeable about the subject.

Please forgive me if I don't take that as a terrible insult.

C) So s

Please, please, please finish this. I'm dying to read your next witty remark.

Unfortunately, I'm still not convinced you understand. $5 billion is not wealth; it's a measurement of wealth. Many countries have far more currency in circulation that the US, yet, they are far less wealthy. Why?

Because currency s not wealth. Wealth is the total amount of assets available. If we destroy all of our resources and print $100 trillion, we don't suddenly become ultra-wealthy.

Zghost
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 165 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:01:32 PM
Jens' statements are chronologically backwards?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:01:22 PM
@Gauddith

The dollar is no longer based on material worth.

I'm very excited that you now understand this; up until now, I wasn't sure that I was getting through to you. Money =/= Wealth. Finally!

It is based on market share and American trade.

It's based on scarcity and demand. Platinum is valuable because it's scarce and in demand - not the other way around.

Thankfully information is also considered to have value in todays market.

Some information has value - not all.

Even when you offer it up for free you can make a profit from it.

Usually through advertising, which means that the advertising has value, not the information.

we have repurposed to be something more valuable than a useless hunk of shiny metal

You're doing so good!

Gauddith
Female, 18-29, Western US
 226 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 5:54:18 PM
Also.

The dollar is no longer based on material worth. It is based on market share and American trade. Both being in decline, where large scientific discoveries tend to bring trade back. Thankfully information is also considered to have value in todays market. Even when you offer it up for free you can make a profit from it.

The "gold bars" are electronic goods, and we have repurposed to be something more valuable than a useless hunk of shiny metal. I would much rather gold go into my electronics then my jewelry. Or whatever other "Rare Earths" you are talking about. See, here's the deal my good sir, your concept of economics is clearly from econ 101. Or perhaps it's right out of your ass? I have no idea, really, but you are coming off as hilariously unknowledgeable about the subject.

That's why I didn't feel like explaining myself to you, I was sure you were either A) Trolling so hard, or, B) Being so dumb.

OR

C) So s

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 5:53:45 PM
To recap Jens statements (since it seems that some people are incapable of referencing the graphic), Jens says:

"The money doesn't get sent to Mars you idiot!"

This I agreed with. I inferred from this statement that she meant wealth, because she would be stating the obvious by pointing out that Mars does not have billions of dollars of currency now.

"It gets spent and put back into the economy."
This is the statement I have clearly taken issue with. It does not say anything at all about research, future projections, or information. She is clearly suggesting that all of the wealth spent is immediately returned to the economy.

Please reference my previous statements to verify.

Page: 1 24 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.