The Gun Counter

Weetabix wrote:

Vonz90 wrote:Actually, the idea that money is a representation of labor has a very vile background which drives you down a very bad path if you follow that road. That was Karl Marx's take on monetary theory and if you trace out a lot of his weird ideas (and other weird ideas that follow with those who tried to implement his theories) it can be traced back to that error.

It is actually rather complex concept either way, but the probably the best way to think of it is as a good (in the noun sense, like "goods and services") which is why its value goes up and down depending on the quantity available relative to the demand.

That might make an interesting thread. I'd always considered it as a way to store the product of work/time/knowledge for exchange later.

The theory of money is interesting, complex, and ofttimes confusing.

Well you aren't wrong, the problem is that it is non-static in value (like a good) and subject to the supply-demand curve like any other good or service (like everything else). The great thing about money is that as a more or less universally applicably good it does not change us away from barter (really - if you think about it) but it allows us all to barter based on what we do best, then get a medium which we can barter with based on that. (This is without getting into the building up of capital, effects of productivity, etc.)

The problem with the Marxist / socialist monetary theory is that since money (and all wealth actually) is only a product of labor in their eyes, then if in any given transaction the person who is not getting the most money is not the person putting in the most labor, they de facto must be getting robbed and whomever is getting more than them is a robber / class-enemy / whatever. So if I save my money, buy some machines, start a manufacturing company, hire some workers to work on my machines, they should get more money than I am even though it is I who is taking all of the risk. Which leads to the question of why would I take all of that risk if I am not going to be rewarded for it? Marxists cannot really answer that question - which is a big part of the reason why their economies fail.

I could go on, but I think you likely get my point.

Don't use logical argument, use emotional rhetoric. If she were swayed into her position on guns due to logic, you wouldn't need to convince her.
Try amused condesention, silly girl thinks she knows about guns, etc. Laugh at and dismiss out of hand the liberal anti gun position without arguement, after all it's not even worth argueing that position is so wrong.
This will get her to try to convince you she's not silly and knows about guns. She'll do her own research and realize you're right.
This will also show that your more socially dominant and not dome wimp, and that will cause her to be more attracted to you.

John_in_Longview wrote:

kapikui wrote: Now teaching a child how to manage money is all but a crime, and requiring them to do any kind of chore is considered abuse.

:jacked:

Yeah, even among fellow home-schoolers, money management is missing from the curriculum. I like Ron Blue's Master Your Money.

My four oldest children have chores. When they complain about them I tell them to read "Farmer Boy" again and then they can tell me how "hard" their life is.

How is he better than Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman, etc?

skb12172 wrote:

John_in_Longview wrote: Yeah, even among fellow home-schoolers, money management is missing from the curriculum. I like Ron Blue's Master Your Money.

How is he better than Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman, etc?

I attended a Financial Peace University course (Ramsey) and have read Ron Blue's book. I am not familiar with Suze Orman's personal finance information. Between Ramsey and Blue, I thought Ron Blue had the more Biblical attitude toward tithing, taxes, debt, bills, and savings: specifically in what precedence you allocate money toward paying them.

Thanks guys!

Remember the Hot/Crazy guide

Win! That's awesome

Rosa Parks didn't have to sit in the front of the bus.

SA