Asks questions but has no interest in the answers. (e.g. Can a dollar decline in value for reasons other than inflation?
I was kind of curious about that. I didn't frame that question in the best way possible because inflation itself isn't so much a stand alone phenomenon as it is a combination of factors. Also the concept of "value", like "equisty" is an imprecise word with a number of different meanings. Still I think it's an interesting question, at least in this context.
When the value of money declines, are there conditions in which that is not inflation?
I do understand that you have a concept in your head about what words mean, and that such a concept is very real to you. But we cannot through the medium of message boards, look inside your head. All we can do is see, and react to, the words you make appear on computer screens.
It is one of my favorite things to say to writers. You can control what you write, but you can't control how it is read. What you think is the point of your writing isn't necessarily the point others see, or react to. One of the things I love to tell writers is to strip their writing down. Know what your point is, and then take out anything that distracts from it. Understand that when you write in a complicated way, that is, include multiple points, you are giving a strong adversary the choice of picking out the weakest of those points, to focus on that, and ignore the rest.
Inflation is about the value of money.
Never really understood the objection to this. For one thing it's not a definitional statement. The movie "Bull Durham" is about baseball, but it isn't baseball, nor does it define baseball. I wouldn't say that "value of money" is the definition of "inflation" because of course, it isn't.
Below is the definition of "Economy" from Merriam Webster. I don't think any of them excludes the possibility of a "personal economy".
noun \i-ˈkä-nə-mē, ə-, ē-\
: the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region
: careful use of money, resources, etc.
: something that makes it possible for you to spend less money
There is no such thing as personal economy
From Merriam Webster definition of "economy: " the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region"
My friend produced a good through his own inimitable process which was sold in a region, namely the Medtronics guy's garage. And it was very personal to him. Many of us do that when we go to work each day.
Not a word Webster defines, but what I think you mean is separation from context. What this generally means for you, is that the word means what you want it to mean, and hat the meaning of a word can change according to the context in which it is used. An interesting idea, but one that I would note is contrary to the principle of dictionaries. I can speculate as to what you want a word to mean but the problem is that what you want a word to mean, doesn't dictate it's meaning. I think someone who believe that the meaning of a word is dependent on the context it is used should be careful in accusing others of playing word games.
And as it happens, the notion that appreciation or depreciation of financial assets are among the myriads of things that affect the economy, so what would be the use of an analysis which excludes them?
One important thing to understand is the difference between the rules of accounting and the laws of nature. Newton's laws describe nature, but they didn't change it. However, the laws of accounting work quite differently. Because we know what the rules are that are to be applied to them, we can order our affairs in ways that yield the best results. We can, among other things. make profits appear and disappear at our convenience. Accounting rules, unlike the rules of physics changes the thing they describe.
Numrical representatios of things can actually change the way people think of them. I
Sure but not necessarily the way they are. Newton described the world he saw. He didn't make it and he didn't change it. Had he never been born, the planets would have pretty much proceeded along the paths his physics and math described as they did for a couple of zillion years prior to his birth.
I don't know who gets to "suppose" things in any sort of authoritative manner. And It's a problem with thinking like an accountant. Accountants perceive the world in a specific way, through the lens of what's known as "Generally accepted accounting principles". This is the foundation of what they "suppose". But you note that such principles aren't there because they are right or true, accountants make no such claims for them. They are useful only because they are "generally accepted". They aren't the only way to look at a business, They aren't even the only way accountants could look at business. It's just the way they have generally accepted to look at businesses.
"Market appreciation of financial assets is not part of the analysis of the overall health of an economy."
Really? Than of what value is such an analysis of the overall health of an economy? Guy I know got founders shares of Medtronic from one of the guys in the garage for helping him out with a gadget back in the day. He is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Market appreciation certainly helped his personal economy. How did not his vast personal personal wealth not have a favorable overall impact on the economy generally? Not that he is much of a spender. Would not making that part of the analysis make the fact of the appreciation of his financial assets had a favorable impact on the economy be any less true?
How can something be an investment if it doesn't pay you anything
Typically, investments don't pay you anything. I provide a guy with the venture capital he needs to design and build a new and superior widget. The pay off may not occur immediately, it may never occur. But isn't it still an investment? And actually isn't the loose application of the term "investment" involved when we say we invest in a company when we buy it's stock? You buy Abercrombie shares today, the company never sees the money, never gets anything it could use to expand it's business. It became a stranger to the fate of it's own stock, when it was sold in the IPO.
Investments are supposed to produce income FROM THE INVESTMENT, not from the market.
Who is it, who gets to suppose this? For one thing, are investments supposed to produce income at all? Does the gold investors purchase issue dividend checks?
ANF is still under the arogant beleif that if they build it.....They will come.
For the moment I am content with knowing that they know longer have the arrogant belief that if they close an under performing store weeping teens will not flood the mall locations demanding that the closed stores be reopened. You may not realize it but that's quite a step forward for Jeffries.
The point of accounting is to help us understand what's going on. But what's going on happens whether we understand it or not.
This is something I see all the time. People think they are writing clearly because what they have to say is clear in their mind.