Re: Socialism and Capitalism

Fred <fred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> PeterBP wrote:
> 
> > Fred <fred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> >> Scarce money systems, plentiful money systems, and no money systems.
>>
> Only the scarce money systems reward misbehaviour, (selfishness, >>
> legalised >> cheating, etc.).  The other two are neutral to them I
> believe. > > What defines these categories? > Scarce Money:  The money
> supply limits commerce.

How can a money supply minit commerce? Are you familie wth teh concept
of the value of money?

>  If you have no money you can't buy anything unless you borrow someone
> else's, for instance.

See above.
 
> Capitalism & Communism both use scarce money.  In that sense they are
> alike.

Nonsensical conflation. That's like saying a minimal state and a
totalitarian state are alike, because neither are anarchist.

Try again.

> >         Plentiful Money:  Everyone has the right to issue money all
the
time a nd so > the money supply can expand to sup****t whatever exchange
is wanted.  An > example would be the LETSystem. > >         No Money:
People give away or share things they want others to have > without
counting the cost.

Rather, they don't count the cost in *monetary units*. There is no
problem countign teh cost of a transaction (barter fx), in terms of what
you had to gie up to make a trade.

>  They may set aside "owner****p" and "property" as concepts or
> alternatively they could also barter,

There can be no trade adn exchange without a concept of owner****p and
property. Barter also assumes owner****p.

Try avoiding confusing the concepts.

> or they could live with a mixture of these systems.  In our society we
> share things like the air and the water, because the rich haven't found
a
> way to limit these.

Nonsensical appeals to conspiracy, not relevant for the discussion
 
> Examples are scarce today, but there are some native tribes in remote
> areas that have not been caught up in our society who still use such
> systems. They have very little if any, crime and no stress.

Back up your claims with data and sources, please.

> 
> >>         Capitalism is *all about* taking money away from others.
> That's >>         how t > he >> game is played.  The more money you get
> the more power you have. > > Religious banter. > Sorry but no.  It's
quite
> true.  Capitalism is a free-for-all battle for more power and/or money
> with "scarce money" as the weapon of choice.

No. Capitalism is defined as an economic syste where the means of
production are *privately owned*.

That you take the emotional deroute and ignore the definition is
somethign you have in common with many socialists, but it does not lend
any credence to your postings, at all.

>  The most aggressive and violent people succeed.

In a sense that is correct, but that is a qustion of state politics, not
capitalism per se. The agression and violence happen at the hands of
armies and policemen, not the capitalists which appropriate resourcers
by means of law.

>  That's why psychopaths do quite well at it and often rise to the top in
> industry, the military, politics, and especially the secret service.
> 
>         I'll reply to the rest of your message in another to prevent
this
> from being so big that few will read it.

Wise for one, now if you do reply, I'll ask that you actually confront
my arguments instead of step-dancing around them.

That way you can make sure that I'll bother reading yours again. I don't
like trying to debate a turnstile.

-- - Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the
world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
- Mark Twain