Maddog's memes.

Maddog wrote:Some examples:

An artist takes an old tire, some coffee cans and paint. She constructs a statue. Someone buys it because they think it looks beautiful.

Wealth was just created.

A college student spends a weekend fixing up his 15-year old car. With a new paint job, reupholstered seats and a new hood ornament, he sells it to a local car enthusiast. What was once valued at $500 is now sold for $2000.

Wealth was just created.

A local musician records a new rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. He sells 1000 copies of it on iTunes.

Wealth was just created."

Each of these examples involves the labor side of the equation. That is, they are examples of creativity; the artisan generates creativity; that which is generated by the artisan is labor.

Note also that each of the examples depict something that is dynamic, not tangible or static. The conclusion in each case is that “wealth was created”: past tense. You are describing a process. Wealth is static.

We can’t count creativity as wealth, because it is yet-to-be (unproduced). As such, it is potential, not tangible. So this violates the rule of property (if it has come into mind, but remains unproduced, it is intellectual property; but then it has been produced). While each of the examples are potential, they are depictions of process, not wealth.

Going back to your premise:

Maddog wrote:“Wealth” can be defined as anything of value to members of a society. In other countries, it might be cattle. Elsewhere, it might be crops. Money is just the most common medium for transferring wealth.

Real wealth may not always be money, but it is always tangible. You can’t sell a wish and a prayer. In order for something to be of value to members of a society, it must exist in cogent form…it must be tangible. To be sure, talented artisans have been paid for their potential; but only when they have already proven themselves through past achievements or education. Then, they are the tangible.

It is a finite universe of tangible things. Wealth is static, not potential. How would you fit creativity, or potential, in the denominator side of your 80%? To be sure, creativity is a promise, and always promising, but you can’t bank a promise.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Some examples:

An artist takes an old tire, some coffee cans and paint. She constructs a statue. Someone buys it because they think it looks beautiful.

Wealth was just created.

A college student spends a weekend fixing up his 15-year old car. With a new paint job, reupholstered seats and a new hood ornament, he sells it to a local car enthusiast. What was once valued at $500 is now sold for $2000.

Wealth was just created.

A local musician records a new rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. He sells 1000 copies of it on iTunes.

Wealth was just created."

Each of these examples involves the labor side of the equation.  That is, they are examples of creativity; the artisan generates creativity; that which is generated by the artisan is labor.

Note also that each of the examples depict something that is dynamic, not tangible or static.  The conclusion in each case is that “wealth was created”: past tense.  You are describing a process.  Wealth is static.

We can’t count creativity as wealth, because it is yet-to-be (unproduced).  As such, it is potential, not tangible.  So this violates the rule of property (if it has come into mind, but remains unproduced, it is intellectual property; but then it has been produced).  While each of the examples are potential, they are depictions of process, not wealth.

Going back to your premise:

Maddog wrote:“Wealth” can be defined as anything of value to members of a society. In other countries, it might be cattle. Elsewhere, it might be crops. Money is just the most common medium for transferring wealth.

Real wealth may not always be money, but it is always tangible.  You can’t sell a wish and a prayer.  In order for something to be of value to members of a society, it must exist in cogent form…it must be tangible.  To be sure, talented artisans have been paid for their potential; but only when they have already proven themselves through past achievements or education.  Then, they are the tangible.

It is a finite universe of tangible things.  Wealth is static, not potential.  How would you fit creativity, or potential, in the denominator side of your 80%?  To be sure, creativity is a promise, and always promising, but you can’t bank a promise.

When you value a company, the term "goodwill" is part of the process. Would you like to share with the class what the term means?

Maddog wrote:When you value a company, the term "goodwill" is part of the process. Would you like to share with the class what the term means?

The class knows very well what it means. That's because it's an abstract asset and we all are familiar with intellectual property. If you are trying to equate good will to the process of creativity, the point fails.

Just because good will is an abstract concept doesn't mean it's pre-extant. Creativity is pre-extant. There's a big difference between 'abstract', and 'preconception'. As I've said, you can't bank a promise.

Canadians once again proving they are not Americans

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:When you value a company, the term "goodwill" is part of the process. Would you like to share with the class what the term means?

The class knows very well what it means.  That's because it's an abstract asset and we all are familiar with intellectual property.  If you are trying to equate good will to the process of creativity, the point fails.

Just because good will is an abstract concept doesn't mean it's pre-extant.  Creativity is pre-extant.  There's a big difference between 'abstract', and 'preconception'.  As I've said, you can't bank a promise.

It's intangible wealth.

I have no idea what all your blabbering is about.

veya_victaous wrote:

Canadians once again proving they are not Americans

So they can give to a charity like a good American.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The class knows very well what it means.  That's because it's an abstract asset and we all are familiar with intellectual property.  If you are trying to equate good will to the process of creativity, the point fails.

Just because good will is an abstract concept doesn't mean it's pre-extant.  Creativity is pre-extant.  There's a big difference between 'abstract', and 'preconception'.  As I've said, you can't bank a promise.

It's intangible wealth.  

Yes, creativity is not nearly the same thing as intangible wealth.  Ask one of your many bankers if you can get a line of credit on a creative mind.

Maddog wrote:I have no idea what all your blabbering is about.  

You have no idea what I'm talking about because, as promised, I no longer dumb down my posts for you.

You have a very pedestrian sense of analytical reasoning, and absolutely no understanding of a priori ideas.  You're stuck in a middle-management job, with a middle management mind.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Canadians once again proving they are not Americans

So they can give to a charity like a good American.  

that doesn't work !!!!!

the proof is the USA medical system

and typical American inefficiency (mind you some dummy is going to claim it creates Value)
Yeah lets fund an ENTRIE charity with CEOs and shit rather than Put the money direcrtly into THE DESIRED SERVICES

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's intangible wealth.  

Yes, creativity is not nearly the same thing as intangible wealth.  Ask one of your many bankers if you can get a line of credit on a creative mind.

Maddog wrote:I have no idea what all your blabbering is about.  

You have no idea what I'm talking about because, as promised, I no longer dumb down my posts for you.

You have a very pedestrian sense of analytical reasoning, and absolutely no understanding of a priori ideas.  You're stuck in a middle-management job, with a middle management mind.

I know what Goodwill is in a business sense. It's obvious you don't. You are good at typing though. Were you ever in the typing pool?

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So they can give to a charity like a good American.  

that doesn't work !!!!!

the proof is the USA medical system

and typical American inefficiency (mind you some dummy is going to claim it creates Value)
Yeah  lets fund an ENTRIE charity with CEOs and shit rather than Put the money direcrtly into THE DESIRED SERVICES

Ok.

Don't voluntarily share. It's your choice.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, creativity is not nearly the same thing as intangible wealth.  Ask one of your many bankers if you can get a line of credit on a creative mind.



You have no idea what I'm talking about because, as promised, I no longer dumb down my posts for you.

You have a very pedestrian sense of analytical reasoning, and absolutely no understanding of a priori ideas.  You're stuck in a middle-management job, with a middle management mind.

I know what Goodwill is in a business sense.  It's obvious you don't.  You are good at typing though.  Were you ever in the typing pool?

Everybody knows what Goodwill is.  It ain't wealth.  It's not a number on the balance sheet. You can't bank it.  And it's not what economists mean when they say that over 80% of wealth is owned by 1% of the population.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know what Goodwill is in a business sense.  It's obvious you don't.  You are good at typing though.  Were you ever in the typing pool?

Everybody knows what Goodwill is.  It ain't wealth.  It's not a number on the balance sheet.  You can't bank it.  And it's not what economists mean when they say that over 80% of wealth is owned by 1% of the population.

So are you saying that goodwill is not part of the value or a price in a business?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know what Goodwill is in a business sense.  It's obvious you don't.  You are good at typing though.  Were you ever in the typing pool?

Everybody knows what Goodwill is.  It ain't wealth.  It's not a number on the balance sheet.  You can't bank it.  And it's not what economists mean when they say that over 80% of wealth is owned by 1% of the population.

"It is classified as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, since it can neither be seen nor touched."


Sorry professor, you is wrong again.

Maybe you should research more and type less.

Quill wrote:Everybody knows what Goodwill is. It ain't wealth. It's not a number on the balance sheet.

"The goodwill amounts to the excess of the "purchase consideration" (the money paid to purchase the asset or business) over the total value of the assets and liabilities. It is classified as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, since it can neither be seen nor touched."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)


Hmmmmm......

What is that now? About Maddog 86, Quill 0?

Maddog wrote:So are you saying that goodwill is not part of the value or a price in a business?

I'm saying that preconceived ideas are not a part of wealth.

Maddog wrote:"It is classified as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, since it can neither be seen nor touched."

Sorry professor, you is wrong again.

Maybe you should research more and type less.

Yes, good middle management reasoning: classification and vocabulary, learned at 1st year accounting class at Ft. Worth Jr. College. Goodwill (your example) is not the equivalent of creativity.

Now Red, if someone comes to your banker and says I'd like a $1-million loan, I don't know what I’ll use it on, but oh my, am I creative... What outcome?

I'm saying you can't bank creativity.

Maddog wrote:"The goodwill amounts to the excess of the "purchase consideration" (the money paid to purchase the asset or business) over the total value of the assets and liabilities. It is classified as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, since it can neither be seen nor touched."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Hmmmmm......

What is that now? About Maddog 86, Quill 0?

Not even close. You are faced with the uphill battle known as making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You keep playing bait and switch on your examples: Goodwill and intangible assets are not what we are talking about. Creativity and preconception are talents, not assets.

Your childishness belies your insecurity. I don’t care how you whine, squirm and shift the subject, I’ll just continue to point up how you are wrong. Preconceptions and creativity are not assets. So bait and switch examples all you want, if it doesn’t exist you can’t bank it. If you can’t bank it, it ain’t wealth. If it ain’t wealth, it ain’t part of the 80% owned by the 1%. Wealth is a closed system.

I think Quill is right - if you can’t bank it, it isn’t wealth.
Or am I missing something?

eddie wrote:I think Quill is right - if you can’t bank it, it isn’t wealth.
Or am I missing something?

I think he's trying to wow us with accounting terms.  But we've always got to keep in mind that we are trying to frame a definition of wealth.  As I said when this whole dialogue began, the question is does it exist?

He gave us three examples depicting the creative process.  Is the creative process a thing, or a process.  As one commentator said:

Creativity is the process of bringing something new into being. Creativity requires passion and commitment. It brings to our awareness what was previously hidden and points to new life. The experience is one of heightened consciousness: ecstasy.” – Rollo May, The Courage to Create

Clearly, it is a process...an act of becoming.  Wealth only counts when it has come into being and can be called an asset.  Only at that point it is bankable.

Now there is such a thing as intellectual property: something that is the product of abstract thinking, but not actually reduced to brick and mortar.  Red is trying to bait and switch intangible assets--eg, goodwill, or trademarks, etc.--for creativity, but it doesn't work. Creativity is a process, not the finished product.

The key difference between that and creativity is intellectual property is in a finished state.  Recalling Aristotle's four causes: formal, material, efficiency and final:

Nicomachean Ethics wrote:Matter: a change or movement's material "cause", is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.

Form: a change or movement's formal "cause", is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving. Aristotle says for example that the ratio 2:1, and number in general, is the cause of the octave.

Agent: a change or movement's efficient or moving "cause", consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.

End or purpose: a change or movement's final "cause", is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.

Intellectual property must be realizable in the final state in order to be considered an asset.  Before that, it is process.

Yes I got it the first time round. I agree with you, but I had to be sure I didn’t miss something.

eddie wrote:I think Quill is right - if you can’t bank it, it isn’t wealth.
Or am I missing something?

that's pretty close, and quills arguments are right

but the full 'answer' is if you can't 'store/bank' AND then spend/trade it, it's not wealth

this is why the 'fallacy of the fallacy' was one of the causes of the last GFC
Banks etc kept 'adding value' but when they were pushed to 'spend that value' those numbers weren't backed by actual wealth
so poofft trillions of dollars in those numbers disappear over night

 

eddie wrote:I think Quill is right - if you can’t bank it, it isn’t wealth.
Or am I missing something?

Of you can sell it for money, it's wealth.

If I have a home that is worth 200k it's wealth.

If I have a business worth 200k it's wealth.

Goodwill comprises part of the 200k in the business.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:So are you saying that goodwill is not part of the value or a price in a business?

I'm saying that preconceived ideas are not a part of wealth.

Maddog wrote:"It is classified as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, since it can neither be seen nor touched."

Sorry professor, you is wrong again.

Maybe you should research more and type less.

Yes, good middle management reasoning: classification and vocabulary, learned at 1st year accounting class at Ft. Worth Jr. College.  Goodwill (your example) is not the equivalent of creativity.

Now Red, if someone comes to your banker and says I'd like a $1-million loan, I don't know what I’ll use it on, but oh my, am I creative...  What outcome?

I'm saying you can't bank creativity.

Maddog wrote:"The goodwill amounts to the excess of the "purchase consideration" (the money paid to purchase the asset or business) over the total value of the assets and liabilities. It is classified as an intangible asset on the balance sheet, since it can neither be seen nor touched."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Hmmmmm......

What is that now? About Maddog 86, Quill 0?

Not even close.  You are faced with the uphill battle known as making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  You keep playing bait and switch on your examples: Goodwill and intangible assets are not what we are talking about.  Creativity and preconception are talents, not assets.

Your childishness belies your insecurity.  I don’t care how you whine, squirm and shift the subject, I’ll just continue to point up how you are wrong.  Preconceptions and creativity are not assets.  So bait and switch examples all you want, if it doesn’t exist you can’t bank it.  If you can’t bank it, it ain’t wealth.  If it ain’t wealth, it ain’t part of the 80% owned by the 1%.  Wealth is a closed system.

You were wrong. Typing a bunch of nonsense won't change that. You didn't know what the accounting term "goodwill" meant. It's ok.

eddie wrote:Yes I got it the first time round. I agree with you, but I had to be sure I didn’t miss something.

I posted exactly what Goodwill is, with a link. Why would you disagree with it?

Did you even read the link?

One thing is for certain, there are quite a few posters that don't understand the fixed pie fallacy or goodwill.

You can lead a horse to water............

Maddog wrote:One thing is for certain, there are quite a few posters that don't understand the fixed pie fallacy or goodwill.  

You can lead a horse to water............

gonna be honest here. I dont have a clue

however, I do believe that although there might be finite amount of resources as such, there are infinite ways of creating new resources. There are always new ways of creating money/wealth.

gelico wrote:

Maddog wrote:One thing is for certain, there are quite a few posters that don't understand the fixed pie fallacy or goodwill.  

You can lead a horse to water............

gonna be honest here.  I dont have a clue

however, I do believe that although there might be finite amount of resources as such, there are infinite ways of creating new resources.  There are always new ways of creating money/wealth.

The fixed pie fallacy refers more to wealth. It simply means that if my wealth increases by 10 grand, it does not mean someone else lost 10 grand. The size of the pie expanded by that much.

Maddog wrote:

gelico wrote:


gonna be honest here.  I dont have a clue

however, I do believe that although there might be finite amount of resources as such, there are infinite ways of creating new resources.  There are always new ways of creating money/wealth.

The fixed pie fallacy refers more to wealth.  It simply means that if my wealth increases by 10 grand, it does not mean someone else lost 10 grand.  The size of the pie expanded by that much.  

well, it doesnt does it?

if your wealth increases by 10k via production or expansion then surely that means that other people along with you will also get more? overtime/bonuses etc,,,,,

gelico wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The fixed pie fallacy refers more to wealth.  It simply means that if my wealth increases by 10 grand, it does not mean someone else lost 10 grand.  The size of the pie expanded by that much.  

well, it doesnt does it?

if your wealth increases by 10k via production or expansion then surely that means that other people along with you will also get more?  overtime/bonuses etc,,,,,

even if you won 10k on a scratchcard it wouldn't mean that someone else lost out

gelico wrote:

gelico wrote:

well, it doesnt does it?

if your wealth increases by 10k via production or expansion then surely that means that other people along with you will also get more?  overtime/bonuses etc,,,,,

even if you won 10k on a scratchcard it wouldn't mean that someone else lost out

In that case it might. I assume you are talking about a lottery. That's a transfer of wealth, not an expansion.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:I think Quill is right - if you can’t bank it, it isn’t wealth.
Or am I missing something?

Of you can sell it for money, it's wealth.  

If I have a home that is worth 200k it's wealth.

If I have a business worth 200k it's wealth.  

Goodwill comprises part of the 200k in the business.

You can sell goodwill, you can't sell something that doesn't exist, ie, creativity. This is not about goodwill. This is about the creative process.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm saying that preconceived ideas are not a part of wealth.



Yes, good middle management reasoning: classification and vocabulary, learned at 1st year accounting class at Ft. Worth Jr. College.  Goodwill (your example) is not the equivalent of creativity.

Now Red, if someone comes to your banker and says I'd like a $1-million loan, I don't know what I’ll use it on, but oh my, am I creative...  What outcome?

I'm saying you can't bank creativity.



Not even close.  You are faced with the uphill battle known as making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  You keep playing bait and switch on your examples: Goodwill and intangible assets are not what we are talking about.  Creativity and preconception are talents, not assets.

Your childishness belies your insecurity.  I don’t care how you whine, squirm and shift the subject, I’ll just continue to point up how you are wrong.  Preconceptions and creativity are not assets.  So bait and switch examples all you want, if it doesn’t exist you can’t bank it.  If you can’t bank it, it ain’t wealth.  If it ain’t wealth, it ain’t part of the 80% owned by the 1%.  Wealth is a closed system.

You were wrong.  Typing a bunch of nonsense won't change that. You didn't know what the accounting term "goodwill" meant.  It's ok.  

You wouldn't understand the concept of value.  Look at you...your'd dealing in the mediocre language of accounting.  Pffft...

You can't bank wishes and prayers. Reddy is a very dull boy. You don't even know how to put proper, RW meaning to categories in a balance sheet. Goodwill = an intangible asset. Creativity and dreams = before the fact, nothing.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Of you can sell it for money, it's wealth.  

If I have a home that is worth 200k it's wealth.

If I have a business worth 200k it's wealth.  

Goodwill comprises part of the 200k in the business.

You can sell goodwill, you can't sell something that doesn't exist, ie, creativity.  This is not about goodwill.  This is about the creative process.

It's about goodwill. I'm the one that brought it up.

Nice try though.

Quill wrote:Everybody knows what Goodwill is. It ain't wealth. It's not a number on the balance sheet.

If it's not about goodwill, why did you make this incorrect comment?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can sell goodwill, you can't sell something that doesn't exist, ie, creativity.  This is not about goodwill.  This is about the creative process.

It's about goodwill. I'm the one that brought it up.  

Nice try though.  

  I know you brought in up...as a diversion.  My original premise was that you can't bank creativity, it's a process.  As a feint, you brought Goodwill into the discussion, hoping we would accept the bait and switch.  Assuming equivalency with the process of creativity, you brought up Goodwill and analogized it to creativity.  Goodwill is an extant asset, not a human process.  I had already explained that intellectual property had value, but that was not the same as a human process.

Well dude, we called you out.  You are trying to grapple with a priori and a posteriori conceptions with pedestrian accounting notions.  Accounting is a vocabulary.  It explains what's on a balance sheet, not how intellectual processes work.  I'll grant you that creativity works; how it works to create assets, and when it works, neither you nor I can say. Call a psychologist.

Maddog wrote:

Quill wrote:Everybody knows what Goodwill is. It ain't wealth. It's not a number on the balance sheet.

If it's not about goodwill, why did you make this incorrect comment?

Because you brought up Goodwill. Why did you make an issue of it? Let's dispense with it and go back to how creativity is not an extant asset.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes I got it the first time round. I agree with you, but I had to be sure I didn’t miss something.

I posted exactly what Goodwill is, with a link.  Why would you disagree with it?

Did you even read the link?

Because it charlatan accountant nonsense

Goodwill is wealth in the same way a box of fresh tomatoes is.
it has a value but it's not store-able so it's not wealth unless it is sold for something that is store-able

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


If it's not about goodwill, why did you make this incorrect comment?

Because you brought up Goodwill.  Why did you make an issue of it?  Let's dispense with it and go back to how creativity is not an extant asset.

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a.balance sheet, when it clearly is?

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I posted exactly what Goodwill is, with a link.  Why would you disagree with it?

Did you even read the link?

Because it charlatan accountant nonsense

Goodwill is wealth in the same way a box of fresh tomatoes is.
it has a value but it's not store-able so it's not wealth unless it is sold for something that is store-able

It is real wealth. Like any wealth, it's value is subject to change.

It's also a reason the pie is not fixed. The amount of wealth in a society can ebb and flow. The entire size of the pie changed size, not just the individual pieces.

During periods of growth, the pie expands. During a recesion the pie shrinks. This why people who believe in the fixed pie fallacy are incorrect.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because you brought up Goodwill.  Why did you make an issue of it?  Let's dispense with it and go back to how creativity is not an extant asset.

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a.balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Goodwill is a diversion that you brought up.  It is a red herring.  It has no place in the discussion.

The situation we were discussing is quite simple.  You were arguing that wealth is infinite, citing three examples of creativity in the making.  I pointed out that creativity is a process and cannot be counted as wealth.  This caused you to go off on a tangent about intangible assets, an example of which is Goodwill.

Intangible assets is a false equivalency.  Intangible assets are preexisting assets, whereas creativity by it's very definition is the process of bringing something into existence.  Creativity is not an asset, but a process.  As such, it cannot be counted as wealth as because it is 'wishes and promises'.  I repeat, you can't bank wishes and promises.

Forget about Goodwill.  It was an attempted example you raised that failed.  Creativity produces more failures than successes, so it cannot be counted as wealth until it comes to fruition.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a.balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Goodwill is a diversion that you brought up.  It is a red herring.  It has no place in the discussion.

The situation we were discussing is quite simple.  You were arguing that wealth is infinite, citing three examples of creativity in the making.  I pointed out that creativity is a process and cannot be counted as wealth.  This caused you to go off on a tangent about intangible assets, an example of which is Goodwill.

Intangible assets is a false equivalency.  Intangible assets are preexisting assets, whereas creativity by it's very definition is the process of bringing something into existence.  Creativity is not an asset, but a process.  As such, it cannot be counted as wealth as because it is 'wishes and promises'.  I repeat, you can't bank wishes and promises.

Forget about Goodwill.  It was an attempted example you raised that failed.  Creativity produces more failures than successes, so it cannot be counted as wealth until it comes to fruition.

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Maddog wrote:It's also a reason the pie is not fixed. The amount of wealth in a society can ebb and flow. The entire size of the pie changed size, not just the individual pieces.

During periods of growth, the pie expands. During a recesion the pie shrinks. This why people who believe in the fixed pie fallacy are incorrect.

You're describing a dynamic process...the process led by creativity. Wealth is a static thing. It cannot be counted until it comes into being.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Goodwill is a diversion that you brought up.  It is a red herring.  It has no place in the discussion.

The situation we were discussing is quite simple.  You were arguing that wealth is infinite, citing three examples of creativity in the making.  I pointed out that creativity is a process and cannot be counted as wealth.  This caused you to go off on a tangent about intangible assets, an example of which is Goodwill.

Intangible assets is a false equivalency.  Intangible assets are preexisting assets, whereas creativity by it's very definition is the process of bringing something into existence.  Creativity is not an asset, but a process.  As such, it cannot be counted as wealth as because it is 'wishes and promises'.  I repeat, you can't bank wishes and promises.

Forget about Goodwill.  It was an attempted example you raised that failed.  Creativity produces more failures than successes, so it cannot be counted as wealth until it comes to fruition.

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Goodwill is an intangible asset, and does not belong in the discussion. Your three examples were about the creative process, not intangible assets.

You cannot bank the creative process, and so it cannot be counted as wealth until it comes to fruition. And then, it is the fruit that counts as an asset, not the creative process.

I understand you want to incorporate the flexible nature of the economy, but you can't count it as wealth until it bears fruit. Assets are static.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Goodwill is an intangible asset, and does not belong in the discussion.  Your three examples were about the creative process, not intangible assets.

You cannot bank the creative process, and so it cannot be counted as wealth until it comes to fruition.  And then, it is the fruit that counts as an asset, not the creative process.

I understand you want to incorporate the flexible nature of the economy, but you can't count it as wealth until it bears fruit.  Assets are static.

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Goodwill is an intangible asset, and does not belong in the discussion.  Your three examples were about the creative process, not intangible assets.

You cannot bank the creative process, and so it cannot be counted as wealth until it comes to fruition.  And then, it is the fruit that counts as an asset, not the creative process.

I understand you want to incorporate the flexible nature of the economy, but you can't count it as wealth until it bears fruit.  Assets are static.

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Goodwill was a red herring that you brought up. Now that we know that, discussion about it is moot. It is an example of nothing relevant to the discussion.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a balance sheet, when it clearly is?

Goodwill was a red herring that you brought up.  Now that we know that, discussion about it is moot.  It is an example of nothing relevant to the discussion.

Why did you you say goodwill is not a number on a balance sheet, when it clearly is?

There's a big difference between the Constitution and "laws'. Mixing apples and oranges there.

Confusions like this are how RW'ers go wrong.

Original Quill wrote:There's a big difference between the Constitution and "laws'.  Mixing apples and oranges there.

Confusions like this are how RW'ers go wrong.

You're not really in a position to be judging folks in terms of being wrong, now are you?

The constitution is a set of laws that restrict the government.

Original Quill wrote:There's a big difference between the Constitution and "laws'.  Mixing apples and oranges there.

Confusions like this are how RW'ers go wrong.

You're not really in a position to be judging folks in terms of being wrong, now are you?

The constitution is a set of laws that restrict the government.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There's a big difference between the Constitution and "laws'.  Mixing apples and oranges there.

Confusions like this are how RW'ers go wrong.

You're not really in a position to be judging folks in terms of being wrong, now are you?

The constitution is a set of laws that restrict the government.  

I'm not really commenting about positions.  I'm commenting about different levels of law.  Your own meme said it.  The Constitution, in addition to providing the internal structure/functions of government, is a host of prohibitions on governments.  "Constitution" means the constitution of the government.

Laws, as promulgated by legislatures, provide the restrictions on private citizens.  These laws dictate that murder, assault, and robbery, etc., are outlawed.  They hold that poisoning rivers and creeks is illegal.  They impose standards for medical personnel.  There are many, many things that laws make illegal, including some forms of discrimination.  The Constitution and general laws should not be confused.

Your whole post was confusing laws with constitutional provisions.  It's kinda embarrassing for you to go on, and I was simply trying to help.  It's possible that in your studies as a bookkeeper, subtleties such as high school civics might have escaped you.