Re: Socialism and Capitalism

Fred wrote:
> Alex Russell wrote:
> 
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Topaz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:25:45 -0400, Fred <fred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>        No people are doing work without whips and chains, and after
>>>>>        capitalism
>>>>> they still will work.  Why wouldn't they?
>>>>   They wouldn't if they didn't need money to buy things.
>>>>
>>>         The new system is not based on money as a scarce commodity. 
You
>>>         buy things
>>> by issuing money, but most people arecapable of understanding that
they
>>> still need "things" and somebody has to make them.  It would be
>>> the "things" (goods and services), that people would have to relate to
>>> instead of the money.  People can do this.  We have brains.
>>>
>>>
>> So basically you loan yourself the 'money' by promising to pay it back
>> later.
>>
>         No,  at least no more than we do now with scarce money.  What
you're really
> doing is *issuing* the money.  But the money is not a representation of
> goods and services but rather only a measure of goods and services,...
> (That "keeping track of value" function you refer to below).
> 

I'm not sure I see the difference between issuing money in our current 
system, via loans by banks mainly, issuing money by individuals, but 
still having one big system.

I'm also not quite clear on the difference between "represent" and 
"measure". And which belongs to the LETsystem?

>> How do you prevent freeloaders and other gaming of your system?
>>
>         Everybody wonders about that.  Firstly the system is so robust
that a few
> freeloaders don't bother it.  [Everybody needs a vacation from time to
> time, (:-)) ]
>         The other thing to remember is that freeloaders are people who
take more
> out of the system than they put in.  Fine.  Look at the rich people we
have
> now in *this* scarce money system.  By definition they wouldn't have
become
> rich if they hadn't taken more out then they put in.  That's what
getting
> rich means.  

I disagree. Rich means producing or investing your capital and or labour 
in a way that makes a profit. The rich don't just take the money - it is 
earned. If you are rich enough you can live off interest and other 
investments, but the money you loan is generally put to some productive 
use. A Capitalist, free trade economy is not a zero sum game.

You can inherit, but that still isn't simply taking.


If you're going to criticise the new system for letting that
> happen, you have to realise that our current system also allows it and
we
> practically wor****p these people and envy them.  It's the basic
objective
> of the system, to get rich.

Yes, but you don't get rich by defaulting on loans. I'm asking about 
what to do about people who keep a negative balance forever, not people 
who have huge positive balances. I would see a huge positive balance as 
being rich.

>         Over and above that, even when someone abuses the new system and
takes out
> more than they put in, their wealth will be obvious and their account
> balance, which is in the public record, will show what they are doing,
and
> what they continue to do.  The community will have a chance to deal with
> the problem.  Also, and this is the advantage, under our system those
who
> get rich have power over the rest of us through the power of their
money. 
> Under the new system, if they abuse it and take more out of the system,
> their account is negative.  They don't have money *and* even if they
did,
> everybody else still has their own purchasing power and the money cannot
be
> used to influence them.  It's merely a record of value, not a
> representation of true wealth.  That is why I say this kind of money is
> much more democratic than what we have now.

Could you explain "record of value" vs "representation of true wealth" 
in more detail, or point me to a doc.

>         True, people can abuse the system for a while, but it's up to
the general
> public to look at what they're doing.  

So people with large negative balances should not be loaned more, just 
like the current system?

Why sell a house to someone who
> already has a nice house when there are other people homeless?  Most
people
> will learn the dynamics of the new system and it's im****tant that they
do
> before it's adopted.  There's a lot of education that needs to go on
before
> we jump in with both feet.  The dynamics of the system are totally
> different and the strategies are different also.

Strategies do do what?

> 
>> Rational people already value goods, services, labour, art and other
>> things and ideas and use money as a convenient way of keeping track of
>> value. Much easier than barter.
>>
>         The current system does much more than that, and rational people
are
> conditioned to accept it without thinking about the problems.  When
money
> can make more money, then the rich will get richer and the poor will
stay
> poor and the middle class will get poorer too because they don't invest
as
> much as the rich.  As a greater amount of the wealth of the planet is
> concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people it stresses the
economy
> and other people starve.  The rich want to maintain their profit levels
and
> resort to new and more extreme methods of making money; influencing
> governments, starting wars, etc.  Eventually the whole system collapses
and
> we're seeing this happen in the news every day, bit by bit.

I agree there are issues with abuse of the power that comes with wealth, 
but most of this abuse is due to government interference in the form of 
laws that are biased towards cor****ations over citizens.

>         The system is unstable and eventually destroys itself.  That is
why empires
> fall!  The new system of plentiful money is not only much more
democratic,
> but it is also stable and not self destructive.  It does require
constant
> care-taking to prevent large scale abuse, but at least it doesn't reward
> the abuse with even greater power over other people.  It's a major step
> forward.
> 

I'm not sure it would be stable in the long run, on a large scale.

If I wanted to start my own integrated circuit fab which takes about 4 
billion dollars, could I just issue myself 4 billion and start
construction?

Other than refusing to loan more money or otherwise shunning a 
free-loader, what other ways does the system correct itself?

Alex R