Would you play a pre-recorded set at a live event...

[Killing time]

i have great professors, a few of them have studied under Milton Friedman. But i'll take it as a compliment, ad homenim attack are always a good way to indicate which side is winning.

but youre wrong, time does have a value. it represents opportunity cost. which is the main reason why Savings accounts grow larger with time. An account will not grow unless time has passed. but what you give up is consumption in the present is to be able to have larger consumption in the future.

Butyou will only invest that time if the cost of losing that time in the present is less than the benefit that you receive in the future. which means that the time value of money (or anything in this case, because money can be exchanged for anything) varies from person to person.

the same thing can be said about money as well. One dollar to bill gates is not worth as much as a dollar to you and me. the inverse relationship is true with regards to time with bill gates; an hour of his time is worth far more than an hour of our time.

this is basic opportunity cost and I could go on and on about this, but my point has been made and you cannot refute it any longer.

[mostapha]

First, an ad hominem attack would be directed against your character, not against your professors' understanding of economics. For example, "you're wrong because you're immoral." I never said anything of the sort. Saying that an apparent lack of morality follows from your proposition is a logical argument, not an ad hominem attack.

Second, I get what you're saying about investments but savings accounts are a bad example. Adjusted for inflation, they lose money over time. They're a trap that banks use to make money in more lucrative investments with your money as capital that they aren't immediately responsible for giving back to you. Other investments do pay dividends or increase in value over time, but it is never time alone that yields income. They're largely based on market values (changing over time but not time dependent) or contractual obligations (which use time but are not caused by the time itself).

Third, you have proven nothing. You simply keep restating your proposition (anyone will do anything for a sufficient payment) using the same debated premise (that time is money). I see no reason to refute your proposition, since there has been no evidence to support it. As for the premise that time is money, there are subtly different competing theories.

We've probably all had (or known about) the "trade time for money" jobs. One of mine was working for the Department of Housing at my university several years ago, especially during Christmas break. I didn't have the authority, ability, or access to actually accomplish anything. My responsibilities were to sit in the office for 40 hours/week and when the phone rang, I was either to take a message (by asking them to call back and letting the machine get it) or help the caller put in a service request by directing them to our website. The only other responsibility I had was to call my boss if there was a fire, flood, or natural disaster.

You could say it was a time for money job. They paid me quite a bit of money to sit there and play on my laptop. But, I wasn't trading my time. I was spending that time at the same rate (roughly 1 second per second) no matter where I was or what I was doing, and I literally accomplished nothing.

They gave me money for giving up my freedom to be anywhere else. You can feel free to call that opportunity cost. But the time was going away at the same rate regardless. It has no intrinsic value. My freedom to do what I choose does. And there is a subtle difference. Perhaps it's only one of semantics in your world. It isn't just semantics in mine.

[kooper1980]

You have more than one wife?

oops. Drunk typing!!

[Killing time]

First, an ad hominem attack would be directed against your character, not against your professors' understanding of economics. For example, "you're wrong because you're immoral." I never said anything of the sort. Saying that an apparent lack of morality follows from your proposition is a logical argument, not an ad hominem attack.

Second, I get what you're saying about investments but savings accounts are a bad example. Adjusted for inflation, they lose money over time. They're a trap that banks use to make money in more lucrative investments with your money as capital that they aren't immediately responsible for giving back to you. Other investments do pay dividends or increase in value over time, but it is never time alone that yields income. They're largely based on market values (changing over time but not time dependent) or contractual obligations (which use time but are not caused by the time itself).

Third, you have proven nothing. You simply keep restating your proposition (anyone will do anything for a sufficient payment) using the same debated premise (that time is money). I see no reason to refute your proposition, since there has been no evidence to support it. As for the premise that time is money, there are subtly different competing theories.

We've probably all had (or known about) the "trade time for money" jobs. One of mine was working for the Department of Housing at my university several years ago, especially during Christmas break. I didn't have the authority, ability, or access to actually accomplish anything. My responsibilities were to sit in the office for 40 hours/week and when the phone rang, I was either to take a message (by asking them to call back and letting the machine get it) or help the caller put in a service request by directing them to our website. The only other responsibility I had was to call my boss if there was a fire, flood, or natural disaster.

You could say it was a time for money job. They paid me quite a bit of money to sit there and play on my laptop. But, I wasn't trading my time. I was spending that time at the same rate (roughly 1 second per second) no matter where I was or what I was doing, and I literally accomplished nothing.

They gave me money for giving up my freedom to be anywhere else. You can feel free to call that opportunity cost. But the time was going away at the same rate regardless. It has no intrinsic value. My freedom to do what I choose does. And there is a subtle difference. Perhaps it's only one of semantics in your world. It isn't just semantics in mine.

you told me i have a bad professor, which is an passive aggressive attack on my education. its cool dude, i always get that from people i'm proving wrong. democrat, republican, tea party; they all get frustrated with me

I've already said this before mostapha, but i've already proved to you that your time equals money. youre just being stubborned about accepting what i've told you and attacking assumptions, which arn't assumptions. they're truths. which are different than facts (which can be proven and disproven) and absolutes.

obviously, savings account take into consideration about inflation and future events. if your savings account didnt have a rate that was either be awesome, or marginally better than a educated rate, you wouldn't put your savings into it. and on the flip side: no one is going to give you an answeome savings rate, it just has to be marginally competitive. its always going to be "just good enough". ;give yourself some more credit, dude. if we're talking about being realistic, lets be realistic.

we can visit your college job. you consciously chose to accept a jerb manning a phone. that price you accepted is you getting paid for 40 hours to sit a phone and play knuckle ball. hell, i would have accepted that too. the cost of sitting at a phone for 8 hours a day 5 days a week (assuming we're at a 5 day week day) is a choice that is entirely up to you. that has nothing to do with what other people choose to do with their time, and how they spend it. which again, brings me back to my original point that your time is valued completely up to you. you could have spend that 40 hour week doing something else, like flipping burgers or selling real-estate. the opportunity cost is dependent on you, the individual and what you think 40 hours of your time is best used.

you have valued you time at playing spanking it for 40 hours and manning a phone at the rate of 40 hours per week, which is cool, i would rather study harder for my Mcats to go to grad school. these are choices that are entirely up to you, the individual

its cool dude, no one likes to be wrong. but true characters of a person will admit that they're wrong. and trust me, i've been wrong many of times. but your case of not accepting payment for playing a pre-recorded set is absolutely wrong. its logically impossible for you to come to another conclusion, unless youre pathological

is there anyone else out there that understands what im saying? mostapha; you don't count.

[ImNoDJ]

you told me i have a bad professor, which is an passive aggressive attack on my education. its cool dude, i always get that from people i'm proving wrong. democrat, republican, tea party; they all get frustrated with me

I've already said this before mostapha, but i've already proved to you that your time equals money. youre just being stubborned about accepting what i've told you and attacking assumptions, which arn't assumptions. they're truths. which are different than facts (which can be proven and disproven) and absolutes.

obviously, savings account take into consideration about inflation and future events. if your savings account didnt have a rate that was either be awesome, or marginally better than a educated rate, you wouldn't put your savings into it. and on the flip side: no one is going to give you an answeome savings rate, it just has to be marginally competitive. its always going to be "just good enough". ;give yourself some more credit, dude. if we're talking about being realistic, lets be realistic.

we can visit your college job. you consciously chose to accept a jerb manning a phone. that price you accepted is you getting paid for 40 hours to sit a phone and play knuckle ball. hell, i would have accepted that too. the cost of sitting at a phone for 8 hours a day 5 days a week (assuming we're at a 5 day week day) is a choice that is entirely up to you. that has nothing to do with what other people choose to do with their time, and how they spend it. which again, brings me back to my original point that your time is valued completely up to you. you could have spend that 40 hour week doing something else, like flipping burgers or selling real-estate. the opportunity cost is dependent on you, the individual and what you think 40 hours of your time is best used.

you have valued you time at playing spanking it for 40 hours and manning a phone at the rate of 40 hours per week, which is cool, i would rather study harder for my Mcats to go to grad school. these are choices that are entirely up to you, the individual

its cool dude, no one likes to be wrong. but true characters of a person will admit that they're wrong. and trust me, i've been wrong many of times. but your case of not accepting payment for playing a pre-recorded set is absolutely wrong. its logically impossible for you to come to another conclusion, unless youre pathological

is there anyone else out there that understands what im saying? mostapha; you don't count.

Its kind of pathological that you dont realise your opinion holds no more weight than anyone elses on this forum.

When you revert to the logical fallacies of appealing to authority, appealing to consensus, and you then insult the posters that disagree with you, your argument becomes less compelling.

You are simply unable to understand that other people see the world differently than you.

You also dont seem to understand that most of the educated world considers Economics slightly above palm reading in terms of predictive accuracy. Economics has some useful frameworks, but it continually fails to predict how things would work in the real world.

If a doctor was as wrong about the future with the same frequency as an economist, theyd be struck off.

[Killing time]

Its kind of pathological that you dont realise your opinion holds no more weight than anyone elses on this forum.

When you revert to the logical fallacies of appealing to authority, appealing to consensus, and you then insult the posters that disagree with you, your argument becomes less compelling.

You are simply unable to understand that other people see the world differently than you.

You also dont seem to understand that most of the educated world considers Economics slightly above palm reading in terms of predictive accuracy. Economics has some useful frameworks, but it continually fails to predict how things would work in the real world.

If a doctor was as wrong about the future with the same frequency as an economist, theyd be struck off.

interms of macro predictions, i would agree with you, but these are micro questions and the answers between all disciplines are the same.

i invite you to find someone at your local university or junior college to ask the same question, that being "if you could get someone to do anything". and please, bring back a rebuttal that actually challenges me.

i am never absolutely sure about anything besides this one topic, seriously, but nothing that anyone has countered with me goes against anything i've said.

these micro chocies are esoteric and its nothing that i would expect anyone to conceptually understand over an internet message board. but respect to everyone here thats has contributed.

[ImNoDJ]

these micro chocies are esoteric and its nothing that i would expect anyone to conceptually understand over an internet message board. but respect to everyone here thats has contributed.

Nah. Not difficult concepts by any measure. I just disagree, as do others.

You seem to think that everyone 'has a price'. Im happy to show you many referenced moments in history where no price was enough for people of principle.

Youre confusing an ethical choice with an economic choice, which in my opinion is a totally unproductive way to make an argument about performing artists.

[Killing time]

Nah. Not difficult concepts by any measure. I just disagree, as do others.

You seem to think that everyone 'has a price'. Im happy to show you many referenced moments in history where no price was enough for people of principle.

Youre confusing an ethical choice with an economic choice, which in my opinion is a totally unproductive way to make an argument about performing artists.

the price was never high enough to change the minds otherwise. i've already explained cost vs benefit, revisit that again in the TL;DR section.

let me ask you, what is an ethical choice? define ethical for me. define economic choice for me. and what is unproductive?

Edit, this is getting fun, keep it coming. im not pathological, im engaging in coversation because this is fun, and i havn't found someone who can argue against this, which isn't something that anyone should try because its a truth.

seriously, watch a youtube video on the fallowing: opportunity cost, the value of money, and the time value of money.

these arn't my opinions, they are the ideas of more brilliant minds than mine, and they are taught and expanded upon.

[ImNoDJ]

these arn't my opinions, they are the ideas of more brilliant minds than mine, and they are taught and expanded upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Again, you seem to confuse the words 'truth' and 'opinion'.

The price of immediate torture and dismemberment wasnt enough to change the principles of heretics before the Inquisition, for one example.

You can look at the people who refused to name names, at the price of their entire careers during the Macarthy era for another example.

Youre trying to explain human behaviour with economics. Im sorry, but economics cant even predict or explain most market behaviour, let alone human behaviour.

Ethical choices have zero to do with opportunity cost. Is it so hard for you to understand a situation where money isnt important?

[SirReal]

oops. Drunk typing!!