$3,040 Today!

Ankesh,

Thanks for jumping in.

2 + 2 = 4.

Who says thats true? How do you know? Why is 2 + 2 not 5 or 6 or 7?

Because if we take the physical representation of the numbers - such as Two peas or Two marbles - and place them next to another two, we will See we have Four Marbles not Five. It is inconvenient to carry around a bag of marbles so we can count them as needed. And inconvenient to carry around an abacus for the same purpose. So we use Figures to represent the factual. Those figures are a Part of the Written language. In maths, that language is across the board. In the written version of the spoken word - and even the spoken word - things are not the same.

In the USA the word is spelt "Color" in Australia it is "Colour".

In the USA the word Fanny means your Bottom, in Australia it is a woman's "Groin" - to keep it Polite.

The reason numbers do not suffer the same fate is because there are only ten of them, in different arrangements. Plus, as the word now revolves around Money, the world of Global Commerce and their Constant interaction with each other, dictates the usage stays the same.

Gold has value because everyone agrees that it has value

YES!!! Now you are getting it. Those who cry out that we have No Security of our Paper Money because it is Not backed by Gold and is only Backed by our Belief in it, miss the point that Gold Only has Value also because of our Belief in it.

Let me jump in here and go on a side tangent with regards to the Everyone Believes thing. *I*, personally, do Not believe Gold has Value, nor our paper Fiat money. Yet I still desire it because I need it as a Tool of Trade because Other People also desire it and will not do business with me Unless I have it. Thus, I suppose, you Could say that money, as we know it to be currently, is the result of the greatest Network Effect there is.

Onward.

"I've seen hell. It's a place where no-one says what they mean, or means what they say. I live that hell everyday of my life."

That statement is factually incorrect too. How can you live a place?

Ah... for the sake of an "In". I live IN that hell...

When I was in high school there was a kid that would call people names. The odd thing was, he would call them a name which was a Verb. I used to tell him that's like calling someone a Run or a Jump.

With Kennedy's thing, I realise I need to change it to...

If you cannot make money without your own money, you won't be able to make money with your own money or larger amounts of other people's money.

To communicate, you have to forget such factual incorrectness and jump for the symbolic correctness.

First, let me say, if the Meaning is conveyed - I Understand what you mean - than Effective Communication has taken place regardless of the words, gestures or terminology used. However, that is a darn Big IF - IF the meaning is conveyed.

Also, I don't HAVE to do anything. If YOU choose to try to get by with Symbolic Correctness, that is your Choice. I choose not to.

The sad fact is, people use words without knowing Why they use those words. In fact, people do a Lot of things without knowing Why. I know why... it's because it's been a Tradition to use those words and people never question their traditions. (Before we knew better, we thought the sun Did rise and set. Now that we know better, tradition sees us use those old language patterns even though they are incorrect.)

Now in the case of Don's word choice and Dan's, both were related to Money and appeal to the Greed Gland and reek of Hype. And it's Prevalent in the Make Money arena.

For intance, you wrote...

Most people have become insanely rich not by trading their labour - but because they took advantage of the difference between value different people assign to the same thing - arbitrage / trade / chattling

There are Two things to note of the above...

Thing # 1: The fist word "Most" is often ignored - as is Almost, Virtually and other similar words - so the Apparent meaning is that Everyone got rich that way. I call these words, Covering Words because they allow the writer a way out if someone jumps up and says, not everyone got rich that way.

Thing # 2: You said "they took advantage of..." instead of implying that they didn't Work for it. Because we ALL work for money - even those who tell you the rich don't work for money - it's just that what one person means by the word Work and what another person means are different, and When this work took place is Left out.

To expand on the When... if I work a Job I will be paid either daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly. If I work for myself in a trade I will be paid daily, monthly, or even three monthly - depending on what arrangements I have with my clients and whether they are citizens or small or large companies. Either way, I work now and get paid later.

If I put money in the bank and earn interest it could be said I did not work for the money - as in, trade my labour for the money made, as you pointed out. However, I DID do work, in selecting the account in the first place, opening the account and then putting money into it.

So again, I did the work now and get paid later.

The main difference being, my Rate of pay and What I did to make it. No matter what, though, I Still did work.

Now it just so happens that, "making money without money" and "not working for money" are usually used by people who have something to sell you. These aren't phrases used in normal everyday conversation.

Oh, and to be even more Nit Picky... there is Only One Way To Make Money. It goes by many different names but it is still the same one way. Understand this - and associated incorrect word usage - is often the difference between those with large amounts of money and those without. Know what that one way is?

And to quote the Merlvingian...

Why is the only real source of power. Without it you are powerless.

Michael Ross