Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Asmongold TV " channel.

  1. 60
  2. 58
  3. 36
  4. 23
  5. 22
  6. 17
  7. 14
  8. 13
  9. 12
  10. 12
  11. 11
  12. 11
  13. 11
  14. 10
  15. 10
  16. 10
  17. 9
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 5
  25.  @C.S.Martin  "The monetary value of is currently defined by supply and demand," First off no, fiat currencies are not really defined by supply and demand at all. And this is a fallacious claim by someone that doesn't know the reason behind economics, if that were true then you could buy bread anywhere you go by simple trade, that would mean all things stay the same value in relation to each other and there be no inflation in anything but money. (which is false, gold and precious metals inflate all the time, look up the platinum dumps of South America during the Spanish colonization, or the overmining of gold that happened constantly even when it wasn't a currency, non-currencies inflate too) That doesn't happen, in the desert a bottle of water is not the same value as a bottle of water in a temperate forest. This is what we refer to as subjective value, you could trade me anything you want in a desert, I would not accept anything that wasn't water, but you do the same in a temperate forest and you'll find I don't so much care about a bottle of water. If value is defined intrinsically, tell me the objective value of gold in comparison to bread, how is that enforced? If intrinsic value exists, you can always define bread by gold and gold by bread, and thus all gold weight would have a ratio to that bread in every case. Can you show me anywhere in history where this has happened? I can give you plenty where that hasn't, including very recent history, or even ancient history, but I have not once seen a case in history where anything even has stable relative values to each other. Nor have I seen a case where demand is capable to be treated as objective. You want what you want, if you wanted a painting, that's your defined subjective desire, you have a demand to acquire it, but not everyone shares the valuation of that subjective desire, that's subjective demand. You'd be willing to pay a certain amount for a painting that others would not, if intrinsic value was found, you would find that both the uninterested and interested party would be willing to buy the painting at the same price, but we know that isn't the case, its one of the many reasons auctions exist. "but that's only because it has intrinsic value." It doesn't thought, let me ask you, what defines value? As in how do you define intrinsic value that can evaluated in disregard to wealth and currency? And how do you apply that in such a way that every single person to every exist in reality would perfectly agree with that value definition that they'd all be willing to partake of the thing being valuated? And that goes for everything in the market that has ever or will ever exist. How do you perfectly decide every single bit of this? "Not sure I understand the second part of your demonstration ("intrinsic value would mean everything would be priced the same in accordance to wealth"); why you talkin' bout wealth?" Because its correcting for wealth, its easier to treat value as a stable concept in your worldview if we control for wealth. But that case demonstrates the fallacy in that worldview hence why doing such throws you off, for we know that no matter the control had value is not static for anything, if we control for wealth of a market and individual, the individual still decides what is and is not valuable and thus devises demand which deviates from another's individual demand which means its subjective. It is required to demonstrate that value is objective in order to demonstrate it is intrinsic which you can not do is demand is relative to those participating in the market, such that demand is subjective, making the value subjective which in turn makes the price also subjective, but the price isn't subjective because of the currency, the currency needs to objective in order for it to be used, the logical argument (and as required by occam's razor) has to say that price is an approximation of the subjective value for the objective currency.
    5
  26. 5
  27. 5
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2