Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:40 UTC
In the News "Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, died Saturday, weeks after heart surgery and days after his 82nd birthday on Aug. 5. Armstrong commanded the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the moon on July 20, 1969, and he radioed back to Earth the historic news of 'one giant leap for mankind'. He spent nearly three hours walking on the moon with fellow astronaut Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin." Our thoughts are with his family and friends. Such a great man. The world lost a true legendary hero today. This man will be an inspiration for generations to come.
Thread beginning with comment 532521
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by Doc Pain on Mon 27th Aug 2012 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

"Earth and the universe did fine for billions of years without any money.


And yet, money emerged. The earth and the universe obviously had a need for money.
"

No. Just several people had a need for money. One may speculate that some amount of them could be categorized as parasites, as today there's a significant share of people benefiting from the existence of money without creating any value or contributing to mankind, draining energy from the whole system.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by kwan_e on Mon 27th Aug 2012 03:47 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"[q]Earth and the universe did fine for billions of years without any money.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Comment by MOS6510
by galvanash on Mon 27th Aug 2012 06:52 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

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.


How much is a piece of bread worth?

Whatever you are willing to pay for it...

How much is a share worth?

Whatever you are willing to pay for it...

Why do you continue to deny this simple truth? You seem to understand the concept of money, yet you think it doesn't apply to stock prices the same way it applies to everything else...

Reply Parent Score: 1