Re: Socialism and Capitalism

On Aug 2, 9:14=A0pm, Fred <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 12:00=A0pm, Fred <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> The agriculture and houses are real enough, but the monetary
> >> representations of them are linked to that value only in our minds.
>
> > =A0 But the money and the monetary instruments do help produce the
> > agriculture and homes. =A0They allow people with things of real value
t=
o
> > trade them efficently in a way that puts that value to the best use.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 But the money doesn't produce anything. =A0*People*
build=
 those
> homes and farm the fields. =A0If people decide to do it without money
the=
n
> they can.

  They can build SOME of the goods they produce using money without
using it, but much less than they could using money.  The reason is
that money allows complex transfers of goods and services that are
needed to efficently produce sophisticated goods or to produce goods
in sophisticated ways (which are usually the most efficent).

> There's nothing stopping them. =A0It people decide to do it with
plentifu=
l
> money then they can.

  No they can't becuase money by definition is scarce not plentiful.

> =A0If they decide they want to live in a world where the economy serves
> them instead of forcing them, then they can.

  When did they economy force anyone?  The economy presents you
with options, you aren't forced to take any of them.

> =A0It's just a matter of deciding to do it. =A0We don't have to
constantl=
y be
> under the pressure of going homeless and starving to work to produce
> goods and services. =A0We can decide to produce those for others
> because we love our neighbours, and it would be easier to love our
> neighbours if we weren't constantly in competition with them for the
> essentials of life.

  Why?  Constant competition for the essentials of life prompts use
to find how to be most useful to our neighbours.  It makes serving
them a valuable thing that serves our own interest.  Knowing them is
rewarding economically as well as personally.  How does that make
it harder to love them?
>
> >> They're artificial, =A0an abstract representation of the wealth.
>
> > =A0 And how is that bad?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Because decisions about how we treat the Earth and our
> environment, and likely how we treat each other are based in that
> abstract economy and not in the "real" economy.

  But the abstract representations reflect the real economy, and in
fact illustrate it more accurately than could be done without them.
If you can't get enough money to live by producing something, that
reflects the real economic fact that it's value is less than the
value
of the things used to produce it.

> =A0The object is to make more money, not to preserve what we have
> nor to look towards peace and happiness.

  No the object is to satisfy our own wants.  Making money is merely
a means to that end and everyone treats it that way.  If you want to
look towards peace and happiness then money will make that
easier because it allows you to efficently acquire the means to those
ends from people who have such means.

> =A0The money system isn't the basis for greed, but it rewards it
> constantly with wealth and power.

  No it rewards satisfying others by trade with wealth and power.
Greed simply motivates you to do that.  If you dedicatedyour life
 to donating as much money as possible to charity that would
motivate you just as much.

> =A0Greed is starting to become a virtue in the minds of some, and
> they don't notice, (or care), that it is driving a wedge between
> people and turning them against one another rather than building
> community.

  But it isn't.  Greed in a capitalist society is best satisfied by
serving the community.  It is ENVY that is dividing communities
and power lust.

> =A0It is only by *working together* that we become strong and
> accomplish things.

  And what does capitalism promote more than anything else?

> The concept of scarce money works against that and puts the
> decision making in the hands of a few greedy psychopaths
> instead of the whole community.

  No the concept of scarce money puts the decision making
into the hands of anything who has sold something for value.
That's more than just a few greedy psychopaths, in fact
pyschopaths generally generate little value.

> It's anti-democratic. =A0It's as unstable as an amplifier with
> positive feedback and we're about to witness what happens
> when the amplifier reaches it's limit: Something breaks.

  If the free market is unstable please show a single time when
it experienced instability not caused by the government.  Hint:
the Great Depression isn't one of them.

> =A0Our economy is about to break and it's going to starve millions
> worldwide.

  Very likely, but what has that got to do with scarce money?  It has
to do with the abuses of government, particularly but not exclusively
the US government.

> =A0It creates wars like the war in Iraq which
> is obviously an economic war to preserve profits for a few wealthy
people
> and death, torture and destruction for so many others.

  And how did scarce money create the Iraq war?  It was IIRC created
by politics not money and continues soley because it's not subject
to the cost/benefit analysis that money makes possible.

> =A0I could go on...
>
> >> Yes it does buy that stuff, and people have to have that stuff, well
s=
ome
> >> of it. =A0But the money they don't have to have if we can establish a
> >> better system of getting that stuff to them.
>
> > =A0 But you can't.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I already have, and so have some others.
>
> > =A0 There is no way other than a price mechanism to coordinate the
> > use of resources. =A0Believe me other ways have been tried.
>
> =A0 Together we can do it.

  Great, then tell me how you decide whether to use a field for wheat
or
orange trees without a price system.  How do you decide whether to
give the food to consumers or restuarants without a price system?
How do you decide anything economically without a price system?
Optimism is not a substitute for a system.

> =A0Workers cooperatives are a start and we already
> have those in places.

  They are not a start to replacing the price mechanism.  Nowhere do
workers
cooperatives operate without numbers to tell them how much value is
consumed by a production process and how much the product is worth
i.e. money.

> =A0Workers taking over abandoned factories and putting them to good use
> for their communities, is a start. =A0People building local
> economies, like the LETSystem, is a great next step. =A0These things
have
> already been done and are having positive effects where they are
practise=
d.

  But none of them have anything to do with getting rid of a price
system,
which is why they work to some extent.

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Those who are against the idea of people freeing
themselv=
es will
> always try to destroy such efforts, but eventually we have to either win
> or we're all dead. =A0This economic system is self destructive and as we
> get to be more and more powerful in science and technology, we have
> to find more stable ways of conducting our business together.

  Yet you haven't shown any instance of the "scarce money" system
being destructive.  All you've shown is that you believe (without
evidence)
that it promotes the interests of greedy psychopaths.
>
> >> It's not easy, because we've always had money as a scarce commodity,
> >> and to think about any other way of distributing goods and services
is
> >> something most people have never done before. =A0It's thinking way
out=
side
> >> the box, but it is possible. =A0If you maybe start by looking at the
> >> "LETSystem" copyrighted by Michael Linton, you'll get a feeling for a
> >> partial plentiful money system that is suggested as a supplement to
th=
e
> >> traditional scarce money economy in local communities.
>
> > =A0 But it's not a plentiful money system, it's simply a system of
> > credit that takes the control of money supply from the State and
> > gives it to a slightly smaller government entity.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 It's exactly a "plentiful money" system.
>
  No it's not.  If it was nobody would accept the money.

> > The money is still a limit on what can be bought and so it does not
> > simulate what you claim would work.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sure it does. =A0Plentiful money does not limit what can
=
be
> exchanged exactly because it's..."plentiful!"

  But it does because there still has to be a limit of how much value
each individual has produced or is believed to be able to produce in
the future.  The LETSystem still preserves that limit.
>
> > =A0 Note that historically such systems are only adopted as an
> > alternative to particularly badly managed fiat money systems
> > (generally on the downturn of money supply) and never as an
> > alternative to the gold standard or other commodity system.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Money today is not based on the gold supply, nor any
> particular commodity.  It's production is scarce and controlled
> by a few, however. =A0Plentiful money puts it in the hands of
> *everybody.*

  No it doesn't because it doesn't exist.  It's an oxymoron.

> =A0Yes, it's radically different and there is much for people to learn
> before it can be used practically, but it is possible and even
> necessary if we are to survive.

  You keep claiming that, but where is the evidence that scarce
money is the problem?  You yourself point out that the current
money supply is controlled by the few.  Could that not be the
problem?  A gold standard would mean that anyone who can dig
would have some control over the money supply.
>
> --
> Peace,
> Fred
> (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).