Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:40 UTC
Permalink for comment 532523
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-18
And yet, money emerged. The earth and the universe obviously had a need for money. "
No. Just several people had a need for money. [/q]
Are people not part of the Earth and the universe?
* Hint: just because the universe has no need for money doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. The universe has no need for life either. You can't argue about the need for properties which are emergent.
** This is not to say that money is perfect. I would say money needs to be subject to conservation laws like the rest of physical and biological laws. None of this "Company A is really worth $600 billion because the total of its shares at the current share price is worth $600 billion" nonsense.