Fable: The Lady of Conde (counterfeit money and credits)

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6931
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 2870




by gegyx » 30/05/06, 23:58

I have never saved anything, but think I have a little common sense.
In this fable, the bank note is only an alibi, a decoy, to deceive the reader, and direct him towards an interrogation which has no place to be.
Burning the bill at the end is to "show" this more paradoxical story, and divert the mind from healthier reasoning.

As I said above, there was only one upgrade of the accounts, which were pending settlement.
Saying that a ticket made it possible to release € 600 of debts, does not do much. It's just verbiage.
"With impunity or legality for the 5 creditors", I do not believe, the use of forgery (even without knowing it) is condemnable by law.
Let's take the pillars of history: there is always a third thief, to visualize the exchange of a ticket ...
As it is a fable, let us imagine that the 6 people were present at the same time, in the hall of the hotel and that only one said to another: you always owe me 100 €!… Ah good! And you owe them to me! ... etc.
The updating of the accounts would have been done as well, without even the use of an alibi: the ticket.
0 x
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 31/05/06, 08:22

The representative will file a complaint against the butcher for concealing counterfeit money, who would file a complaint against the mechanic, etc.

everyone is in prison for a year, vows that he will not be taken back. no one credits more, the economic slump sets in.

I see that a conclusion to the fable:

counterfeiters deserve a medal! : Lol:
0 x
Corben
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 21/07/06, 12:04
Location: Belgium, Louvain-La-Neuve




by Corben » 21/07/06, 13:56

This fable (among the other fables of the book) aims to demonstrate that:

1) Currency only has the value of being recognized and accepted by all (and therefore even false it remains viable if it continues to be accepted).
2) As the increasing circulation of money multiplies economic activity by the same amount, a single note (100 euros in this case) put into circulation makes it possible to generate much more activity than its only initial value.

And so in conclusion: Money is only a representation of value, not a real (material) value. But if there is a lack of representation then the exchange of real goods is hampered.

The problem in our society is not so much that there is a surplus of money supply as Philippe said, but rather that this money supply is found concentrated in the form of savings and capital, thus depriving the economy "real" representations of value that it would need to carry out its exchanges.
0 x
neant
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 298
Registration: 12/02/06, 12:47




by neant » 21/07/06, 19:16

I don't know if you've read what Gegyx posted.

In my opinion this fable shows how to make a business case so simple to solve complicated.
Only by exchange of information the accounts can be settled due to the equivalence of values. And this without the lady and the ticket.
The lady and the counterfeit note are only triggers which disturb the smooth running of the village's business ...

While waiting for the lady with her fake ticket, she still took advantage of the hotel, even if she visited the area.
She scraped a few hours of hotel, not a radish!
Just by unpacking a ticket!
It does not consume it, since it cancels the reservation and recovers the full amount. This is a good starting point for understanding the mechanisms of profit.
If the hotel owner had been a good profiteer, he would have deducted the hotel hours consumed on the ticket, he would have given him change.
And there, for once, it is not the last who would have had the ticket in hand who would have been had, but the first!
And the lady would have won everything.
In the end, she tried, and she only benefits from it.

Isn't that kind of happening with George and the rest of the world?
To meditate...
0 x
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13




by nonoLeRobot » 21/07/06, 20:01

I agree with Gegyx, it's funny but the story of the counterfeit bill is just there to confuse us.

Each protagonist has as much debt as money that he owes him so he has overall his balance at zero. As after the ticket exchange. We just say to ourselves that in life if we had debts we would have bp (interest rate) but if that’s it we will also have profits on what we have loaned.

Otherwise I have another puzzle:

12M nigma: The 3 soldiers
Three soldiers have permission. They go to the bar but only have 10 francs each in their pocket. It is the price of a coffee. They ask for a rebate from the waitress who goes to see the boss. The latter agrees to make them a GLOBAL discount of 5 francs. But the waitress tells herself that this is not divisible by 3. She therefore decides to make a reduction of only 1 franc per soldier, and to keep the difference of 2 francs. So in the end we have: 3 * 9 = 27 francs + the waitress's 2 francs = 29 francs. But my word, it is missing 1 franc ???
0 x
neant
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 298
Registration: 12/02/06, 12:47




by neant » 21/07/06, 20:57

To image a little more.
Let’s replace the lady with a crook.
Let us replace the ticket by forgery an indefinite contract, false income, a false enterprise.
Let's replace the hotelier with a banker.

A hint of credit and ...

You understood the rest!
0 x
neant
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 298
Registration: 12/02/06, 12:47




by neant » 21/07/06, 21:09

nonoLeRobot wrote:I agree with Gegyx, it's funny but the story of the counterfeit bill is just there to confuse us.

Otherwise I have another puzzle:

12M nigma: The 3 soldiers
Three soldiers have permission. They go to the bar but only have 10 francs each in their pocket. It is the price of a coffee. They ask for a rebate from the waitress who goes to see the boss. The latter agrees to make them a GLOBAL discount of 5 francs. But the waitress tells herself that this is not divisible by 3. She therefore decides to make a reduction of only 1 franc per soldier, and to keep the difference of 2 francs. So in the end we have: 3 * 9 = 27 francs + the waitress's 2 francs = 29 francs. But my word, it is missing 1 franc ???


the owner of the bar pockets 25 frcs, the waitress, 2 francs, and the 3 soldiers each keep 1 frs in his pocket

25+2+(3*1)=30

The error is just !! : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13




by nonoLeRobot » 21/07/06, 22:09

yes but you're not funny :P
0 x
neant
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 298
Registration: 12/02/06, 12:47




by neant » 22/07/06, 13:25

A concrete example of the mechanisms of profit, I call it that because it is not trade, it is legalized swindle.

Lighters:
Formerly the lighters were refillable, then appeared the disposable lighters.
And then again, disposable, not adjustable, lighters appeared.
And there it is interesting, the refillable lighter, is durable.
The disposable lighter is consumable and a big mess of raw material; it therefore multiplies the quantity of lighters sold compared to time.
But the icing on the cake is the disposable lighter without adjustment, because without adjustment, this lighter forces you to use more gas than what you need, and therefore, the life of the lighter decreases, and you buy even more lighters.
This is where we are, and it does not go in the direction of the consumer, and especially not in the sense of ecology.

The only ones to gain are the manufacturers of lighters.
And when all the manufacturers of lighters agree to no longer produce refillable or adjustable lighters, it is not a question of making profits, but indeed of profiting.
I equate it with legal theft.

not funny either :frown:
0 x
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 24/07/06, 12:10

As usual, it comes back to the responsibility of the consumer who prefers to buy a disposable non-adjustable lighter because it will be 5 cts cheaper.
Refillable and adjustable lighters still exist but they are a little more expensive (and you shouldn't lose them, but that's another debate :D )
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 140 guests