How to get out of debt - funny

Actually this underlies the greatest problem with economics...well one of them. No one has ever figured what "value" represents.

That and economics is not a real science...

The motel owner didn't lose anything. He owed the butcher $100 and the prostitute owed the motel owner $100 so it would be the same as him telling her to pay the butcher the $100.

And of course he isn't out the $100 he was holding on to for the tourist since the tourist decided not to stay.

Yup.. how is he out money? He owned 100 bucks anyway.

In essence, the hooker paid his debt. He isn't out a thing.

reply to post by leo123


No the motel owner is not out the 100 dollars because in this instance he no longer owes 100 dollars to the butcher.

Everybody was in debt $100 going into this scenario, but they all come out of it having paid there debts. It's a wash. That borrowed money got everybody out of debt.

If you get out of debt your ahead.

The extra 100$ was just a tentative LOAN, from the tourist or "banker". So, when the prostitute paid off the motel owner, the motel owner lost that money (because the tourist took the 100$ right away) and when his loan money came around through the prostitute, he lost that money too! (because the tourist took the 100$ right away) Sounds like quantum mechanics Lol. The 100$ from the prostitute was essentially worth 200$.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Paradox.]

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Paradox.]

I think it's funny this joke seems to have caused more confusion then anything else. If anyone should be making product in this deal it's the hooker. Her's is the easiest to produce.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by antonia]

I can see that hardly anyone understands the financial system by the replies here. It's a good thing for the bankers, too, or there would be a revolution by morning.

the tourist was the banker. At the end, he would have said, "Due to your use of my money, you owe me $101."

"Oh, but I don't have an extra dollar"

"that's ok, in exchange I will just take one percent ownership of your hotel. And you will thank me for doing so. And then I'll come back next week and do this again. You will stupidly thank me again. After awhile I will own your whole hotel."

This IS how it works. It's a swindle, the biggest swindle of all time. ANd you are all playing along with the game, thinking inflation is just some kind of force of nature.

Originally posted by Paradox.
The extra 100$ was just a tentative LOAN, from the tourist or "banker". So, when the prostitute paid off the motel owner, the motel owner lost that money (because the tourist took the 100$ right away) and when his loan money came around through the prostitute, he lost that money too! (because the tourist took the 100$ right away) Sounds like quantum mechanics Lol. The 100$ from the prostitute was essentially worth 200$.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Paradox.]

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Paradox.]

Dude, you need to go back to second grade math. You must have been asleep that day.

Flag for you!!!!!!

So true yet so simple



Peace

Originally posted by leo123
Nope - the hotel owner is out $100.00.

No, because he paid his $100 that he owed someone else. Remember?


Lmao @ how complicated this whole web is when you start analyzing it like this.


One person says the hotel owner came out on top with a free $100 because he paid his bill off.

Another person pointed out he was out $100 short because the money the hooker paid him back wasn't really his and he was left with nothing when the rich guy took the money back.


Yeah, now you can see how bankers get away with this crap huh?

Originally posted by Rigel Kent


No one produced anything. No one earned anything...

That is not really true.
Each person actually received something for his (her) hundred dollar debt.

The fact that everyone came out even is great !

But each one of those people received "something" from someone else at the cost of a hundred bux.........

the hotel owner didn't lose money because he paid his debt to the butcher. if he didn't owe the butcher he would be up $100 and the prostitute would still owe him a $100.

Investment bankers have been taking debt and using it as real currency. If you had a 30 year mortgage that was worth $350,000 the investment bankers would use that $350,000 today as real money to invest. They were gambling with future earnings. Who pays that 30 year mortgage once it goes into default and no one can pay? Remember the money has already been gambled off by investment bankers like Goldman Sachs and others. The tax payer has to pay that bill now because we have to take Goldman Sachs's losses when they went to the crap table. The government is going along with this idea. Does anyone see a problem with the public picking up the gambling debt of these investment bankers? Those in congress saw nothing wrong with that so they gave them a 750 billion dollar bail out. Does anyone see a problem here?

Why is our government in bed with investment bankers?

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
Ha ha! The hotel owner screwed himself by stealing the rich man's money.
The rich man didn't really pay - he walked out with his ''deposit'' money.
The hotel owner, who actually had an amount to collect from renting rooms to the hooker, is left with nothing from the hooker.
He ripped himself off.

Good catch, Qwiksilva. Well done.

The hotel owner received the same "value" from the "borrowed" $100 as everyone else in the chain. His $100 debt to the butcher was paid off.

A problem in the real world of income taxes is that the $100 would be income to everyone down the chain and the many government agencies with their collective hands in this cookie jar would each take a cut. By the time it got back around to the prostitute paying the hotel owner she would have only $10 or less to pay toward her $100 debt.

I think without getting into mathematical equations it's pretty easy to get the gist of the story here: if we all owe to each other, we could also say none of us owe anything.

Unfortunately we live in a world where power- and land grabs have resulted in a tiny group of people owning most of the earth's wealth and resources, and the rest of us have been indoctrinated to just let it be.

So in our world most of us 'owe' to a tiny select few of us, whom in return don't 'owe' us anything; rather, they 'own' us.

Take all the irrelevent information out and it's pretty simple. Simplify the loop and just imagine you owe a friend $100 and your friend owes you $100.

You can:
A) Cancel the mutual debt with no transaction.
B) Hand your friend $100 and your friend can hand it back.
C) Your friend hands you $100 and you give it back.
D) "Borrow" $100 and give it to your friend, your friend hands it back, then you return it to whomever you borrow it from.
E) Reverse of D) with your friend doing the "borrowing".
F) Mutually hand each other $100
G) Mutually "borrow" $100, hande it to each other and "return" it. Money is fungible.

In all scenarios nobody loses or gains any money but all debts are nullified.

Edit: Forgot a couple

[edit on 2/17/2010 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 2/17/2010 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by CaptChaos


No I don't. The 100$ was worth 200$ that the prostitute gave to the motel owner. 100$ Was needed to pay off her debt to the motel owner, and another 100$ Was the banker's loan which came back around the circle. In theory the only individual that did not "lose" any money was the motel owner.

Essentially that is what the U.S does...

But you are forgetting facts like inflation, interest rates, income changes, etc.

You provide a basic point but I fear for those who accept it at that level.

Money is a means of exchange. I view many bankers jobs as a way of circulating money faster and efficiently. As far as I know, that is sort of a description of their job.

With everything, people will try to raise the price a few dollars, possibly add some interest, yadda yadda.

I view money as the "coding" to a giant super computer. It can always get better, and one bug will eff poo up to hell.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by FritosBBQTwist]

reply to post by Paradox.


Everyone was owed $100 (a positive value) and owed $100 (a negative value) to another. Their net balance was always zero for each. Short-circuit everyone in between the hooker and the motel and it's effectively just those two that mutually owe one another.

Edit for rambling:
Interestingly, you can run the money backwards in the loop and double the "debt" for each person too but this double the amount owed to each as well. Between two people however, a special case can arise in that they have to decide if the transaction is loaning more money or paying a debt.

Edit for minor objection:
Saying noone produced anything is inaccurate. All in the loop got the goods and services they required. The rich tourist that didn't find a suitable room lost-out on a fruitless search but did do something philanthropic.

[edit on 2/17/2010 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 2/18/2010 by EnlightenUp]