Oh those silly North Koreans. When will they decide to stop permitting their own torture?
Their benevolent overlords have been torturing them in droves for half a fucking century, but apparently they like it that way, because otherwise they wouldn't PERMIT it, right?
It's interesting how people supposedly vote to control the government, but then they're often rallied to beg and plead the government they're controlling through voting to please not oppress them so much.
They believe that a new law with a "special advocate" sent to do stuff within the confines of the secret kangaroo-court system will somehow prevent the NSA from spying on (precious exceptionalist) Ah-mmuuhricans, even though the most sacred and supposedly inviolable law in the nation, strangely enough, fails to prevent police officers from confiscating their property.
So the CEO resigns over a vague disagreement about the office's location, as if that made any sense whatsoever, and some elite lawyer waltzes in to replace him. Sure.
This is like Condoleezza Rice joining the board of some company I can't remember now. The Powers That Be just made their involvement overt, for whatever reason.
Reddit's front page is like half-full of "liberal" (etc) propaganda at any given time anyway, and there are paid sophists shillng for Monsanto and the like, working full-time. In other words, Reddit is a part of the mainstream media now, and it has to be kept under control.
The guy said consumption "HAS TO" match production as if it's a law of nature or something. If you stop producing because you run out of money, that's not the same as consumption having to match production. Consumption didn't match your production until that point either, because otherwise you'd still be producing. So no, it didn't have to.
Furthermore, when you stop producing because you can't anymore, that's more like production matching consumption.
If you want to claim something like "consumption tends to roughly match production", that's fine. But that's different from the original claim. It's also worth noting that production comes first. For something to be consumed, it has to be produced first. But there's no magical force that makes the two match, there are just people acting.
Whatever characteristics your business partner had that made you part ways with him, he probably still has them. I wouldn't do business with him, especially if he "dumped" you.
Sure, I may produce something just for myself, but that's completely irrelevant to the general claim that consumption "has to" match production.
That's a straightforward claim with straightforward implications: either something compels people to consume everything that's produced, or something compels producers to refrain from production that would go unconsumed. Otherwise the general claim is false.
It is obvious nonsense, no matter how much nonsense you try to wrap around it. As a simple counterpoint to yours, for all you know, I could be on a sacred mission to provide everyone in the world with a shit-sandwich and then I can't be considered the consumer
I'm sure the people playing with lasers appreciate the sentiment, but what about the vast majority of people that, given the choice, would not finance the endeavour?
If one of your friends doesn't want to pitch in to support the laser games, would you want him thrown in jail for refusing to go along with the plan, or do you accept that he's got the right to use his hard-earned dollars as he sees fit?
Now apply that same reasoning to all government spending.
Feel like playing with laz0rz and shit? How about using your own money to arrange for that? Don't wanna? Well, good thing you can just use shitloads of money that's been forcefully taken from people!
So you're telling me that if I produce a bunch of shit-sandwiches and no one wants them, for whatever mysterious reason, then if I produce some more anyway, suddenly I'm the sole consumer of said sandwiches?
How does that make sense, considering no one has even eaten (=consumed) one?
You're not addressing my post, where I tried to highlight the silliness of your earlier claims.
How does consumption "have to" match production? How do you figure "money has no value"? Now you're talking about "intrinsic value" but earlier it was just plain "value".
People save money for a reason you know. If money has no value, as you originally claimed, then there's no reason to save or possess it. If money has no "intrinsic value" that doesn't make your original claim any less confused.
But to be precise, value is purely subjective. We've been using the word somewhat ambiguously. Value is utility as a means towards an end. Money, as a medium of exchange, has utility as a means towards countless ends, and that's exactly why everyone wants it.
You say people have a disincentive to invest because it's risky, but I don't see a point there. It all depends on the investment opportunity, and the investor's tolerance to risk etc, ie. the circumstances. Some people do invest, some don't. So what?
You say that not investing doesn't "solve any consumption problems", but what the hell might those be? Again, why does consumption "have to" match production? What does that mean? What's a "consumption problem" and whose problem is it, and why?
Why is (price-)deflation a problem, considering it means our purchasing power is increasing? Do you really want to claim people want less stuff for their money?
Don't pretend you're giving me an economics lesson.
Inflation is a tax on savings, but that's alright because money has no value?! But if money actually had no value, there would be no use for it.
Consumption "has to" match production?! What's that supppsed to mean? If I produce something no one wants, people "have to" consume it anyway?
You say inflation is good because it motivates people to invest (because their money loses value just sitting in a bank), but why wouldn't people want to invest even if their money was gaining in value? The purchasing power of whatever money you earn through investments is increased by deflation too, so the sooner you make a good investment, the better off you'll be.