Re: Socialism and Capitalism

On Aug 8, 10:07=A0am, Fred <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 9:25=A0am, Fred <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Turn to any basic text on economics. =A0I'm not jumping through those
=
hoops
> >> for you.
>
> > =A0 By "jumping through hoops" you mean actually backing up your case.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 No. =A0I mean answering silly questions.

  No you mean actually backing up your case.  You made a claim that
"scarce money"
is a common phrase in economics yet I had two years of economics at
university and
I never heard it.  It's not a "silly question" to ask you to prove
some evidence.
>
> > I have NEVER seen the term "scarce money" in an economics textbook nor
> > would I expect to. =A0By definition money has to be economically
scarce
> > or it would not be valuable.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 For someone who has never seen the term, you sound
pretty=
 sure of yourself.
>
  I've never seen the term before you because nobody uses the term.
Do you know what
"economically scarce" means?  It means that a zero price there is not
enough to meet
demand.  Money with zero price is by definition useless.

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 OK, maybe you really don't understand, in which case
it's=
 not a silly
> question,

  I asked where the term "scarce money" was used other than in your
mindless
assertions.  I understand perfectly that it is not.

> but you've been around this thread long enough to have already
> seen the explanation and it sounds like you're just being argumentative
f=
or
> the sake of arguing. =A0So your statement is that scarce money is
valuabl=
e.
> I agree.

  No my statement is that for money to be valuable it has to be
scarce.

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 That's why we say plentiful money has no value in and of
=
itself. =A0It is
> only a measure of the goods and services not a representation of those
> goods and services.

  But how can it measure value if it's not valuable itself?  If it's
not valuable then
by definition people won't trade valuable things for it and it cannot
be used as money.

> =A0Money holding value is the problem. =A0It does go hand in hand with
be=
ing scarce.
> =A0The people who advocate plentiful money are trying to get away from
th=
at
> value-scarcity thing, so that money is only a measure of the goods and
se=
rvices,
> not a representation of it's value.

  But what is money measuring if not it's value?  How can it do that
if it's not a
representation of that value?

> Hording real money makes one richer and more powerful.

  Well no, it merely means that the riches and power are made
availible later rather than
earlier as you spend later rather than earlier.

> =A0Hoarding plentiful money has no advantage. =A0It only measures what
wa=
s exchanged,
> like feet and inches, (or meters), measure how much of a board you have.
=
=A0The value
> is in the board not the feet and inches. =A0Everybody has their own tape
=
measures
> and can measure as many boards as they want. =A0They don't need to
borrow
> somebody else's. =A0Plentiful money is like that.

  No it's not because feet and inches are objective measures and value
is subjective.
In any case the ability of money to measure value depends on it's
ability to be traded
which implies it must be valuable.

> =A0It doesn't "hold" the
> value of the board but it is useful for those who need to know how much
> board there was traded. =A0You can think of it as a record of a gift.

 Then it's useless as money isn't it?  Because money needs to
facilitate SALES, not gifts.
Why would I need to record gifts?

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The record remains, but the money can't be used to make
o=
ther people do
> what the hoarders want them to do. =A0It eliminates class structure and
> usury.

  And almost all wealth.

> 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).