Assertion, Pericles? So you assert. Let’s face it old boy, you’ve done nothing but nay say on this thread without adding a scrap of value to the conversation…oh, that’s right, adding value is so 80s isn’t it?

I must thank you for providing a fine example of the difference between intrinsic value and derivative value. Anybody reading this thread could skip your contributions with little loss to their understanding of anything other than your own boof-headedness. On the other hand, those who skipped an equivalent number of words from my contributions would derive a lesser understanding of the interplay of social and economic forces which have lead to this point in our nation’s history.

Now, I realise you’re probably struggling a bit to follow where this is leading, as you often do when the discussion strays from the text in your “Economics for Dummies” pocket guide, so I’ll be kind and explain.

My words are a useful thing that have real value. They are a manufactured good that didn’t exist until I put work into creating a new thing which can be consumed by the reader and increase their knowledge. On the other hand, your words have pseudo-value, because they are not a useful thing and consuming them is not going to increase anyone’s knowledge. If my words did not exist, the pseudo-value of your words could not replace them. They are merely derivative and not intrinsically valuable. Verbal pyrites.

This is an identical situation to the situation with financial derivatives. They are pseudo-money that has no intrinsic value. If a real exchange of goods which have real value because of the productive work which has been done to organise them into a useful thing does not occur, no amount of pseudo-money will do anything useful.

However, if that pseudo-money did not exist, the need to exchange useful goods would not change and their intrinsic value would persist. An exchange would take place with smaller numbers on the money, but it would still happen.

The endless churn, meaningless pseudo-work paid with pseudo-money would not.

The house of cards must fall.

We are still missing a crucial part of your argument, Antiseptic.

>>This is an identical situation to the situation with financial derivatives. They are pseudo-money that has no intrinsic value.<<

So, do tell. Can you actually spend this "pseudo-money", or not? If so, how is it different from ordinary money, and if not, how can you tell pseudo-money from real money?

And let's be frank with each other here, your word analogy is worse than useless, if it was an attempt to clarify this point.

>>My words are a useful thing that have real value. They are a manufactured good that didn’t exist until I put work into creating a new thing which can be consumed by the reader and increase their knowledge. On the other hand, your words have pseudo-value, because they are not a useful thing and consuming them is not going to increase anyone’s knowledge.<<

Reviewing your posts here, there is not a single word that you have manufactured yourself. They are all, without exception, words that have been used as the currency of communication for some considerable time. Your contention that they somehow differ from everyone else's words is precisely as convincing as your theory on pseudo-money.

Moreover, this comment of yours is demonstrably false:

>>Let’s face it old boy, you’ve done nothing but nay say on this thread without adding a scrap of value to the conversation…<<

On the contrary, I provided valuable insight to the less-informed reader, that the headline article had been constructed from unreliable information and wild supposition. Some would have recognized this, and become better able to see through the populist flim-flam. Others, sadly, would not.

Oh dear Pericles, you really do struggle don't you, old fellow? But I'm glad to help those less fortunate where I can. No need to thank me.

My words have value because they have been organised into a thing of intrinsic value. I have added value to the raw material which makes the final product a different useful thing than the raw material. Of course, there are other inputs to the process, like my intelligent thought, my labour, my education, my capacity to innovate, my research, my availability to do the work required, my willingness to take the risk of failing to make a product which consumers require, my willingness to provide the product to be sampled by the consumer to ascertain how it suits their need. In return, I obtain the satisfaction of a job well done and the knowledge that the useful thing I have made is being consumed and made use of by those who think they can use it productively. I also know that some will look at it, possibly even consume it out of reflex and throw it away as worthless, but that's OK, we live in a consumerist economy, they're used to buying stuff and chucking it out without using it. If they didn't, the pretence that pseudo-money is real would not be required.

On the other hand, you have taken the same raw material as me and you have done nothing useful with it. Instead you have tried to convince us that manure has the same value as a fruit salad and that a promise to try to convince somebody else to do work will create one from the other.

Frankly, I'm disappointed. I thought you had more substance. I guess that's what I deserve for falling for something that looks like knowledge instead of insisting on the real thing.

That's such a shame, Antiseptic.

>>Frankly, I'm disappointed. I thought you had more substance<<

The idea that I have fallen short of your expectations could quite possibly keep me awake for many a long night.

On the other hand, I might instead treat your opinion of my deliberations with all the respect that it deserves, and spend not one picosecond fretting over it.

Yes, on balance I suspect that is far more likely.

Oh, by the way.

You are kidding yourself...

>>My words have value because they have been organised into a thing of intrinsic value. I have added value to the raw material which makes the final product a different useful thing than the raw material. Of course, there are other inputs to the process, like my intelligent thought, my labour, my education, my capacity to innovate, my research, my availability to do the work required, my willingness to take the risk of failing to make a product which consumers require, my willingness to provide the product to be sampled by the consumer to ascertain how it suits their need.<<

Many words. Zero substance. That pretty much sums up your contribution, does it not.

At the risk of embarrassing you further, have you given any thought to providing an explanation of your concept of "pseudo-money"? I mean, using actual finance-related ideas and concepts?

Not very likely, is it.

But I thought I'd ask anyway, to give you the opportunity to redress the shortfall, and demonstrate the depth of your intellect.

Go on. You know you want to.

No point casting pearls before swine, old dear. I'll leave you to enjoy your copy of "Macroeconomics: How to Make Nothing From Something".

Hilarious.

>>No point casting pearls before swine, old dear<<

It's been great fun.