Re: Socialism and Capitalism

Michael Price wrote:

> On Aug 7, 9:25 am, Fred <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>> Turn to any basic text on economics.  I'm not jumping through those
hoops
>> for you.
>>
>   By "jumping through hoops" you mean actually backing up your case.

        No.  I mean answering silly questions.

> I
> have NEVER seen the term "scarce money" in an economics textbook nor
> would I expect to.  By definition money has to be economically scarce
> or
> it would not be valuable.

        For someone who has never seen the term, you sound pretty sure of
yourself.

        OK, maybe you really don't understand, in which case it's not a
silly
question, but you've been around this thread long enough to have already
seen the explanation and it sounds like you're just being argumentative
for
the sake of arguing.  So your statement is that scarce money is valuable. 
I agree.
        That's why we say plentiful money has no value in and of itself. 
It is
only a measure of the goods and services not a representation of those
goods and services.  Money holding value is the problem.  It does go hand
in hand with being scarce.  The people who advocate plentiful money are
trying to get away from that value-scarcity thing, so that money is only a
measure of the goods and services, not a representation of it's value. 
Hording real money makes one richer and more powerful.  Hoarding plentiful
money has no advantage.  It only measures what was exchanged, like feet
and
inches, (or meters), measure how much of a board you have.  The value is
in
the board not the feet and inches.  Everybody has their own tape measures
and can measure as many boards as they want.  They don't need to borrow
somebody else's.  Plentiful money is like that.  It doesn't "hold" the
value of the board but it is useful for those who need to know how much
board there was traded.  You can think of it as a record of a gift.
        The record remains, but the money can't be used to make other
people do
what the hoarders want them to do.  It eliminates class structure and
usury. It's very "democratic" in that sense and that's a good thing.

-- 
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).