Topic: Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it - page 11. (Read 17699 times)

Will you live without money? I think the answer will be "No". It is a big problem to resolve

and I think it will pass a lot of years maybe centuries before that there will be a real "change".

We need a real revolution, that has to start from the citizen (maybe better to call it not citizen but human).

Since money can request others' product/services, it is a power. Who get the right to create this power will rule others. Without this power, those who lying on the beach can not request the product of those who working hard, and those who working hard could gain more wealth than former, that is a natural result of energy input

This happens because those lying on the beach grab the best part of what those who work the hardest produce. It would be insincere to say that today's monetary system doesn't add up to this, but to say that it is just because of it would be a little too far-fetched, in my opinion...

Indeed, today's monetary system greatly benefit money creator and those who are close to money creator. Money creation has become a stronger power than presidents, but this power is purely built on people's imaginary concept of money, if they don't have this concept, then the power will disappear (An example is that you take some Chinese Yuan to England and try to spend it, it will not be accepted except for Chinese people, since in English people's mind this is not money)

However, it is almost impossible for people to get rid of the concept of money, I think it is a very old, government dependent concept

Also, it is very difficult to imagine what is an ideal form of money: You can even use some scientifically accurate unit to measure value, like 1kwh electricity. However since the supply and demand will change based on market condition, 1kwh electricity would worth more during winter and less during summer, thus make it not suitable to work as unit of value

Ideally, an unit of value should keep its value constant regardless of supply and demand change, so it is best it is just an imaginary concept, does not have any demand. But as soon as it has value, it will have demand, and demand can not be a constant, so it is just impossible. That's the reason central banks trying to manipulate the supply to keep up with the demand change, but that is a best effort thing, since the demand usually changed long ago before they react. The reason fiat money have stable value is just because people's consensus that it SHOULD have a stable value, and banks keep majority of people from getting more fiat money, to make sure the demand is close to infinite

Value is all subjective, 1 million dollar worth a lot for average household but almost nothing for bankers. You don't care about spending 1 dollar more on your dinner tips, but for some other people that might be one day's pay. And the funny thing is: Those who get lowest salary work the hardest, while those earning millions of dollar per year lying on the beach, just because today's monetary system

Currency is simply a more manageable way of assigning value to them and simplifying transactions. The Federal Reserve Note or Dollar is not currency itself. It is a promissory note we accept as legal tender or currency.

But what if how much wealth you have isn't based on how much you have produced vs. how much you have consumed, but also how close you are to the creation of money.  For example, should a bank have first dibs at the money created in a monetary expansion by the Fed?  So they either make a speculative play on it or lend it out at a higher rate and profit from the spread?

You have a company that has done with money, what UPS or FedEx does with a shipment.  Take it from A and get it to B.  Let's say this is a mortgage, and now you'll be paying an annuity for 25 years back to the bank, and they will make a spread on the interest, and they will profit from that.

Now take a farmer, that produces food, an actual good that all humans require.  The profitability likely won't be as high as a bank, if profitable at all, and in fact they may require debt to survive.

Why doesn't the farmer have access to freshly printed Benjamin's from the Fed?

Then in the event that a bank speculates with the money, and loses the bet, like in 2008 when several banks were up for bankruptcy, why do they then get even more money given to them?  When does the bankrupt farm get bailed out?

That is more a problem with this particular monetary system, rather than money in general.

The monetary system is what created the world as we know it. It made a simple way to measure how much wealth you have in comparison to other. The idea of having more than the other, greed fueled by self interest.
I wouldn't have it any other way

Money supply increase a couple of percent per year until 2008, and then went out of control

It is not paranoid if people can accept a couple of percent tax each year by inflation, but now it is 500% tax in a couple of years. Stockholm syndrome maybe 

Good observation. In fact the efficiency has increased by thousands of times since the invention of electronics and computer, and working hours increased, but the living condition has not improved by thousands of times at all, where have all those added productivity gone

It is funny that the more money they need, the more right they give central banks to enslave them

From central bank's point of view: People desperately need me to print some paper to enslave them, without these paper they will die

How come people leave their fate in the hands of a printing press? Maybe because there are used to be something special that this printing press can provide: Trust

We are enslaved by money and the fed..

Why do we work longer hours yet cant afford the same things? Our lives are inflated away.. Go back to 50s and ppl worked half a day and only man worked.. Now both need to and still. Not enough.. Granted more expenses.. But basics are still too high

Paranoid much?  I don't need to check the meaning of slavery.  You need to

Please check the meaning of slavery. By definition, slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master. Since central banks completely own and control every newly created fiat money, and in turn those money is going to exchange for all your products/services, you are a slave of central bank

Food, education etc is different, because unlike central bank creating money out of nothing, no one can get the initial ownership of food and education without putting similar worth of work/resources. The exchange for food is normal commercial activities, the relationship between you and food producer is just business partner, but the relationship between you and central bank is slave and master

Haha yeah it's totally derailed.  The topic is hogwash anyways.  Saying we are enslaved by money is like saying we are enslaved by food because without eating we'd die.  Or we are enslaved by education because we need knowledge to have a functioning society.

We have derailed the shit out of this thread dude.

Leasing should count as revenue, because it is revenue, just not all upfront.  EV tax credits are from the government, but Tesla should still count that as revenue.  If they didn't count it as revenue, then they wouldn't be liable for paying tax on that income.

I don't own a Tesla, but my friend has a P85.  I used to live in the suburbs where I had a very car/motorcycle-centric life, but I'm in the core of downtown near the subway line and can work from home, so I barely drive these days.  But if I had a lifestyle that required a lot of driving, I'd love to have a Tesla.  Price tag is pretty steep for me though.  I'd rather put that money towards my home.  The Model 3 will be interesting though, as it will be significantly cheaper.

I'm not sure about the loans or spending that you're referencing, so can't comment on that.  Which factory are you talking about though?  The cost gigafactory is around $5 billion.

Tesla is a different type of investment for me, but I don't have a whole lot invested.  I trade Canadian banks and telecoms taking into consideration technicals, but I like the concept of Tesla more than I like it as a vehicle for returns.  I like that they're making a push on EV and have some consciousness towards the environment.  I like that they're making that push through technological innovation rather than propaganda.  I like that they're taking a stand against having dealerships force themselves into the auto industry to take a cut, whether or not you need their help with sales.  I don't see any other automakers doing anything remotely revolutionary.  They've committed free lifetime charging via the supercharger network.  Elon's end goal isn't profitability, and I like that. 

I don't want to derail this thread too much but (1) they count lease as a sale.  (2) they count ZEV credits towards revenues.  Non GAAP shows revenues inflated like 40% over GAAP

Tesla is an investment banks wet dream.  A charismatic CEO willing to use Twitter to pump the stock and legions of brainwashed investors.

Do you own a TSLA or know anyone who owns one?  

How do you think they raised $3B of debt recently?  CEO misleading about Panasonic investment, big China push timed w a pump upgrade from Morgan Stanley.  Did you know they already burned through half of that money only actually spending $50M on factory?

Now investors imagination run wild about pivot to home battery biz??

CEO says production constrained while drop in Q4 deliveries due to bad weather and people on vacation?? WTF??  I would not call him a liar, but you cant take anything this guy says seriously.

Its your money but IMO TSLA is a short.  It took long enough for the momo to wear off

I dont like GOOG technicals short term either if that means anything

I was responding to another post about theoretically having automation of labour, that would only require 5% employment.  That would require a huge push in R&D, which would need to be driven by tech guys, because who else can do it?

Tesla was privately funded until 2010 I believe.  So throughout the financial crisis, when they came very close to bankruptcy, the government didn't loan or grant Tesla anything.  In 2010 they received a government loan, which has already been repaid in full, with interest.  Then I believe they received another loan to expand their production capacity, and tax cuts from Nevada from building the gigafactory over there.

So the problem with Tesla right now, is their production capacity.  They were only able to do ~33,000 cars in 2014, and will approximately double that in 2015.  But still, they are a drop in the bucket in global car sales.  So it's going to take a few years at the current momentum to be a big player in the industry.

Their GAAP financials will be normal COGS subtracted from revenues...what are you speaking of that's misleading?  They have a lot of automation, and literally form the body out of raw sheets of aluminum, so their production facility is pretty efficient.  Check out the videos if you're interested.

Yeah, I'd like to pick up some TSLA shares at this point, but all my USD are invested right now.  I'm Canadian, and I don't want to convert CDN to USD right now because the exchange rate is ridiculous.  I'll need to sell off some GOOG shares to free up some USD, but I missed the boat at $570+ a couple days ago.  TSLA is a super volatile stock, because it's valuation is based on bets about the company well into the future - so very speculative. 

I misread your post.  I thought you were saying tech guys should make economic policy or that they will somehow more important than finance.

I hope you realize Tesla only exist because of the finance industry.  They sure arent selling any cars to that that valuation.

They don't calculate their margins like other car companies so their numbers are misleading.

BTW TSLA closed $185 on Fri.  Hope your not long

Just imagine a break-through in the capacitance of energy storage devices (something like cheap tritium batteries). The required infrastructure is already there, and all of a sudden Tesla becomes profitable and far ahead of the pack!

I'm not sure what the relevance of your response is.  The thread is criticizing the financial system itself, and I brought up Tesla as an example of great technological innovation. 


Please share your source and non-GAAP margin numbers for Tesla with us instead of using analogy.  For the past 6 quarters, Tesla has had >25% margin reported.  You do understand that non-GAAP allows more flexibility in reporting than GAAP does right?