Money as explanation part 2: it's amoral

[Mason, Larry K]

Prefix

In every nation at all periods of their histories we can easily find what one might call "dysfunctional" aspects of their economy and government. Some of the most common are things like unemployment when much work needs to be done, waste of resources, war, poverty, and political oppression. In economics we have the "tragedy of the commons," the business cycle (boom and bust), inflation / deflation, and suppression of any free markets. These and a host of other problems which at best hinder and at worst bring about the total collapse and destruction of nations and societies, can all be attributed to and explained by a single root cause.

I suggest that the root cause of these problems is the nature of the meme called "money" as we know it. It seems clear to me that the concept of money is a meme as defined by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" and David Deutsch in "The Beginning of Infinity." Money as a medium of exchange, a standard unit of account, and a store of value is a concept which developed in many cultures and has shown a great ability to replicate itself.

The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.

End of Prefix

Physical objects are amoral. Physical objects may be symbols about which people have strong emotions thinking them symbols of goodness or evil but the objects themselves, in and of themselves are neither moral nor immoral, neither good nor bad. Money, as a physical object or the representation of a physical object, is neither good nor bad. Physical object money can be used for any purpose to motivate any human behavior whether good or bad. Thus, physical object money is amoral.

We see money being used for evil purposes quite often. With a moment's thought we can come up with many cases in which money has been used to motivate evil or cases in which people commit immoral acts in order to gain money. When we ask why so many evil actions are carried out using money, why so many people harm others in order to gain money, why evil in human affairs on a huge scale is so often involves money, the most obvious and direct explanation is the physical object nature of our money is amoral. Money can be used for evil purposes because it is amoral. A kind of money which could be used only for moral purposes, which motivated only actions whose consequences were beneficial to others, that money would be a moral money.

This explanation can be refuted by finding any historical example of a state (people with a formal government) organizing a great amount of harm to a high proportion of the people in its vicinity without the use of money. (Wars, for example, depend on the use of money. "Ethnic cleansing" requires great expenditure of money. Selling food with harmful ingredients (corn syrup, sugar, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, saturated fats) to millions of people requires spending lots of money. Massive fraud such as the housing bubble of recent memory was motivated by money and carried out by the manipulation of money. Even the Spanish Inquisition (unexpected as it was) required lots of money expenditure to put it into effect.)

[Jason]

It would be helpful if you'd get to your point. What do you propose as
a replacement for "physical object money"?

Your delivery is reminiscent of a scammy sales pitch, wherein you drag
the audience through endless examples of supposed problems that a
dream "mystery product" will solve, and keep them guessing as to your
actual product until a "big reveal" at the end wherein you position
your product as the dream come true.

Been there...done that...not helpful.

Saving the description of the solution to the end hurts rather than
helps efforts to analyze whether or not the proposed solution actually
solves the stated problems.

That may not be your intention. I don't know in your case. I only know
that where I have seen this technique used elsewhere it has most often
been used to evade rational criticism or make such criticism more
difficult.

Just tell us what you are actually proposing and then offer your
arguments for it.

--Jason

[Mason, Larry K]

I am not the subject of this post.

As it says in the prefix " The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such." I am showing how physical object money brings about problems. Do you have anything to say about this part of the explanation?

By the way, do you find it easier to solve problems when you understand how they are caused? If so that might explain my approach.

[Jason]

I didn't say you were.

What I said is, you seem to have a point - something you think is
better than our current conception of money - but you're deliberately
not stating what it is.

If that isn't true, you can easily correct me by simply stating that
you don't think you have a solution to these problems, and you're just
looking for ideas / help to create one.

My guess is you won't say that though. Because my guess is you *do*
think you have a solution to these problems.

> As it says in the prefix " The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such." I am showing how physical object money brings about problems. Do you have anything to say about this part of the explanation?

If that is your intent, you are making a serious mistake in how you
are thinking about it.

Maybe someone else can put a recognized name to the particular fallacy
your approach to these problems exhibits. I've seen this kind of
mistake enough times before to recognize it, but don't have a specific
name for it so instead I'll describe it.

There are all kinds of prerequisites to evil. Things that, if they
weren't there, the specified evil couldn't happen. Money is quite
often one of them. So is, for example, language. A lot of what you say
about our conception of money could also be said about our language.

A prerequisite for evil is not the same as its cause and is not,
itself, evil. It is merely the environment in which evil can occur.

That you can cite many evil things which could not be done if money
was not conceived as a physical object, does not make such a
conception of money bad.

Quite a number of evil things could not be accomplished if our
language was incapable of communicating evil ideas. That doesn't mean
that having a language capable of communicating evil ideas is, itself,
evil or problematic.

>
> By the way, do you find it easier to solve problems when you understand how they are caused? If so that might explain my approach.

You have not described a cause of problems. You have described a prerequisite.

--Jason

[Mason, Larry K]

On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:53 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:51 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>> Prefix

>>>> The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.
>>
>>>> End of Prefix
>>
>

>>> It would be helpful if you'd get to your point. What do you propose as a replacement for "physical object money"?
>
>>>Your delivery is reminiscent of a scammy sales pitch, wherein you drag the audience through endless examples of supposed problems that a >dream "mystery product" will solve, and keep them guessing as to your actual product until a "big reveal" at the end wherein you position your >product as the dream come true.
>
>>>Been there...done that...not helpful.
>
>>>Saving the description of the solution to the end hurts rather than helps efforts to analyze whether or not the proposed solution actually solves >the stated problems.
>
>>>That may not be your intention. I don't know in your case. I only know that where I have seen this technique used elsewhere it has most often >been used to evade rational criticism or make such criticism more difficult.
>
>>>Just tell us what you are actually proposing and then offer your arguments for it.
>
>> I am not the subject of this post.

>I didn't say you were.

Rather than talking about the ideas / issues I present your comment concerned "your delivery".

>What I said is, you seem to have a point - something you think is better than our current conception of money - but you're deliberately not stating what it is.

Perhaps I have a reason(s) for presenting my ideas in this fashion. Perhaps I am attempting to explain / present my ideas in this fashion to make them more easily understood. But none of this is on the topic of this post.

>If that isn't true, you can easily correct me by simply stating that you don't think you have a solution to these problems, and you're just looking for ideas / help to create one.

I do have such an idea. But if you understand the nature of the problem perhaps you can come up with a better idea.

>My guess is you won't say that though. Because my guess is you *do* think you have a solution to these problems.

But that's for future posts. Or am I not allowed to present my ideas in the fashion which seems to me the means most easy to understand?

>> As it says in the prefix " The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such." I am showing how physical object money brings about problems. Do you have anything to say about this part of the explanation?

>If that is your intent, you are making a serious mistake in how you are thinking about it.

>Maybe someone else can put a recognized name to the particular fallacy your approach to these problems exhibits. I've seen this kind of mistake enough times before to recognize it, but don't have a specific name for it so instead I'll describe it.

I think what you are referring to is that a necessary condition is not necessarily a sufficient condition to produce the effect to be explained. In the case of the amorality of money as we know it, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Many amoral physical objects are employed to produce far more benefits than harm, for example. The point of this particular post is that money can be used to do harm.

>There are all kinds of prerequisites to evil. Things that, if they weren't there, the specified evil couldn't happen. Money is quite often one of them. So is, for example, language. A lot of what you say about our conception of money could also be said about our language.

In the case of the amorality of money that is quite true.

>A prerequisite for evil is not the same as its cause and is not, itself, evil. It is merely the environment in which evil can occur.

Almost true. I think you meant "one environment in which evil can occur" rather than "the only environment..."

>That you can cite many evil things which could not be done if money was not conceived as a physical object, does not make such a conception of money bad.

The use of money for both good and evil merely makes it amoral, not bad. Many good things are done with money as well.

>Quite a number of evil things could not be accomplished if our language was incapable of communicating evil ideas. That doesn't mean that having a language capable of communicating evil ideas is, itself, evil or problematic.

It merely means that language is amoral. It is neither good nor evil in and of itself.

>
>> By the way, do you find it easier to solve problems when you understand how they are caused? If so that might explain my approach.

>You have not described a cause of problems. You have described a prerequisite.

I have attempted in this post to show that money can be used to produce serious problems. I have not maintained that money is required to produce those problems.

Please note that as the premise states, this series of posts, taken together, will provide an explanation for problems which would not exist or would be less harmful if the nature of our money were not that of physical objects. You may find the explanation inadequate. You may find a better explanation. But this is only one part of the explanation, not the complete explanation.

Larry Mason

[Jason]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:53 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:51 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Prefix
>>>>> The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.
>>>
>>>>> End of Prefix
>>>
>>
>>>> It would be helpful if you'd get to your point. What do you propose as a replacement for "physical object money"?
>>
>>>>Your delivery is reminiscent of a scammy sales pitch, wherein you drag the audience through endless examples of supposed problems that a >dream "mystery product" will solve, and keep them guessing as to your actual product until a "big reveal" at the end wherein you position your >product as the dream come true.
>>
>>>>Been there...done that...not helpful.
>>
>>>>Saving the description of the solution to the end hurts rather than helps efforts to analyze whether or not the proposed solution actually solves >the stated problems.
>>
>>>>That may not be your intention. I don't know in your case. I only know that where I have seen this technique used elsewhere it has most often >been used to evade rational criticism or make such criticism more difficult.
>>
>>>>Just tell us what you are actually proposing and then offer your arguments for it.
>>
>>> I am not the subject of this post.
>
>>I didn't say you were.
>
> Rather than talking about the ideas / issues I present your comment concerned "your delivery".
>
>>What I said is, you seem to have a point - something you think is better than our current conception of money - but you're deliberately not stating what it is.
>
> Perhaps I have a reason(s) for presenting my ideas in this fashion. Perhaps I am attempting to explain / present my ideas in this fashion to make them more easily understood. But none of this is on the topic of this post.
>
>>If that isn't true, you can easily correct me by simply stating that you don't think you have a solution to these problems, and you're just looking for ideas / help to create one.
>
> I do have such an idea. But if you understand the nature of the problem perhaps you can come up with a better idea.
>
>>My guess is you won't say that though. Because my guess is you *do* think you have a solution to these problems.
>
> But that's for future posts.

Why? Why not tell us your idea up front? Why not say something like,
"let's presume for sake of argument that the physical conception of
money enables many problems to occur...here's what I propose to
replace a physical conception of money and why it's better..."?

> Or am I not allowed to present my ideas in the fashion which seems to me the means most easy to understand?

I never said you're not "allowed" to present in this way. I don't
control what's allowed on this list, nor do I seek to.

I said that your approach strikes me as ineffective at promoting
rational criticism. It sounds like a set-up for a scam pitch. It sets
off my internet bullshit alarm. If it isn't bullshit, I suggest you
get to the point. You are free to ignore that suggestion; people
around here are smart enough to draw their own conclusions as will I.

>
>>> As it says in the prefix " The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such." I am showing how physical object money brings about problems. Do you have anything to say about this part of the explanation?
>
>>If that is your intent, you are making a serious mistake in how you are thinking about it.
>
>>Maybe someone else can put a recognized name to the particular fallacy your approach to these problems exhibits. I've seen this kind of mistake enough times before to recognize it, but don't have a specific name for it so instead I'll describe it.
>
> I think what you are referring to is that a necessary condition is not necessarily a sufficient condition to produce the effect to be explained. In the case of the amorality of money as we know it, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Many amoral physical objects are employed to produce far more benefits than harm, for example. The point of this particular post is that money can be used to do harm.
>
>>There are all kinds of prerequisites to evil. Things that, if they weren't there, the specified evil couldn't happen. Money is quite often one of them. So is, for example, language. A lot of what you say about our conception of money could also be said about our language.
>
> In the case of the amorality of money that is quite true.
>
>>A prerequisite for evil is not the same as its cause and is not, itself, evil. It is merely the environment in which evil can occur.
>
> Almost true. I think you meant "one environment in which evil can occur" rather than "the only environment..."
>
>>That you can cite many evil things which could not be done if money was not conceived as a physical object, does not make such a conception of money bad.
>
> The use of money for both good and evil merely makes it amoral, not bad. Many good things are done with money as well.
>
>>Quite a number of evil things could not be accomplished if our language was incapable of communicating evil ideas. That doesn't mean that having a language capable of communicating evil ideas is, itself, evil or problematic.
>
> It merely means that language is amoral. It is neither good nor evil in and of itself.
>
>>
>>> By the way, do you find it easier to solve problems when you understand how they are caused? If so that might explain my approach.
>
>>You have not described a cause of problems. You have described a prerequisite.
>
> I have attempted in this post to show that money can be used to produce serious problems. I have not maintained that money is required to produce those problems.
>
> Please note that as the premise states, this series of posts, taken together, will provide an explanation for problems which would not exist or would be less harmful if the nature of our money were not that of physical objects. You may find the explanation inadequate. You may find a better explanation. But this is only one part of the explanation, not the complete explanation.

You're contrasting current reality with some vague and inarticulated
world in which money is not conceived as a physical object. That's not
a good explanation.

Explanations should be useful. They must solve some problem. What is
the problem that you think the explanation you have presented solves?
If the answer is none, then you should have presented more.

Explanations should be hard to vary. Much of what you say about money
as a prerequisite for evil could be said about, for example, language.
Just by changing the words around a little. It's easy to vary.

For example, you say:

"A kind of money which could be used only for moral purposes, which
motivated only actions whose consequences were beneficial to others,
that money would be a moral money."

I could just as well say:
"A kind of language which could be used only for moral purposes, which

motivated only actions whose consequences were beneficial to others,

that language would be a moral language."

Language is not a physical object, and lots of language does not
represent physical objects. Yet your explanation is easily varied to
include it.

Furthermore, because you have not offered any alternative to physical
object money, there is no capability to judge whether the problems
which would not exist or would be less harmful are more or less than
the problems that would be created by changing the nature of money.

--Jason

[Mason, Larry K]

On Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:47 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:53 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:51 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Prefix
>>>>>> The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.
>>>
>>>>>> End of Prefix
>>>

>>>What I said is, you seem to have a point - something you think is better than our current conception of money - but you're deliberately not stating what it is.
>
>> Perhaps I have a reason(s) for presenting my ideas in this fashion. Perhaps I am attempting to explain / present my ideas in this fashion to make them more easily understood. But none of this is on the topic of this post.
>
>>>If that isn't true, you can easily correct me by simply stating that you don't think you have a solution to these problems, and you're just looking for ideas / help to create one.
>
>> I do have such an idea. But if you understand the nature of the problem perhaps you can come up with a better idea.
>
>>>My guess is you won't say that though. Because my guess is you *do* think you have a solution to these problems.
>
>> But that's for future posts.

>Why? Why not tell us your idea up front? Why not say something like, "let's presume for sake of argument that the physical conception of money enables many problems to occur...here's what I propose to replace a physical conception of money and why it's better..."?

Because you need to understand how and why physical object money brings about or encourages these problems. Otherwise you will not easily understand why each part of the solution is necessary and sufficient to correct the problem.

>> Or am I not allowed to present my ideas in the fashion which seems to me the means most easy to understand?

>I said that your approach strikes me as ineffective at promoting rational criticism. It sounds like a set-up for a scam pitch. It sets off my internet bullshit alarm. If it isn't bullshit, I suggest you get to the point. You are free to ignore that suggestion; people around here are smart enough to draw their own conclusions as will I.

I suggest your emotional response is premature. Please be patient with me. (I hope the people around here are very smart indeed. That was one of the factors that made me want to join the group.)

>
>>>> As it says in the prefix " The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such." I am showing how physical object money brings about problems. Do you have anything to say about this part of the explanation?
>
>>>If that is your intent, you are making a serious mistake in how you are thinking about it.
>
>>>Maybe someone else can put a recognized name to the particular fallacy your approach to these problems exhibits. I've seen this kind of mistake enough times before to recognize it, but don't have a specific name for it so instead I'll describe it.
>
>> I think what you are referring to is that a necessary condition is not necessarily a sufficient condition to produce the effect to be explained. In the case of the amorality of money as we know it, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Many amoral physical objects are employed to produce far more benefits than harm, for example. The point of this particular post is that money can be used to do harm.
>
>>

>> I have attempted in this post to show that money can be used to produce serious problems. I have not maintained that money is required to produce those problems.
>
>> Please note that as the premise states, this series of posts, taken together, will provide an explanation for problems which would not exist or would be less harmful if the nature of our money were not that of physical objects. You may find the explanation inadequate. You may find a better explanation. But this is only one part of the explanation, not the complete explanation.

>You're contrasting current reality with some vague and inarticulated world in which money is not conceived as a physical object. That's not a good explanation.

>Explanations should be useful. They must solve some problem. What is the problem that you think the explanation you have presented solves?
If the answer is none, then you should have presented more.

Explanations do not solve problems. But explanations provide the information needed to solve problems.

>Explanations should be hard to vary. Much of what you say about money as a prerequisite for evil could be said about, for example, language.
Just by changing the words around a little. It's easy to vary.

With respect to the amorality aspect, you are quite correct. But that is only a part of the explanation. You will note that you could not make the same substitution in the part 1 (can be taken from you against your will) aspect of the explanation. Language is something one can lose due to brain damage but no other person can take possession of your language away from you and use it for themselves.

>For example, you say:
>"A kind of money which could be used only for moral purposes, which motivated only actions whose consequences were beneficial to others, that money would be a moral money."

>I could just as well say:
>"A kind of language which could be used only for moral purposes, which motivated only actions whose consequences were beneficial to others, that language would be a moral language."

And you would be correct. That's a true statement it seems to me.

>Language is not a physical object, and lots of language does not represent physical objects. Yet your explanation is easily varied to include it.

Please do not confuse the part with the whole.

>Furthermore, because you have not offered any alternative to physical object money, there is no capability to judge whether the problems which would not exist or would be less harmful are more or less than the problems that would be created by changing the nature of money.

This statement is true, also. I ask you to wait and allow me to present the matter in the way which seems to me to provide the best chance of your complete understanding. I suggest that a person who understands an idea is better prepared to know how it may be most effectively presented than does a person who has lacks knowledge of that idea.

Larry Mason

[Richard Fine]

On 5/9/2013 8:59 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
> Because you need to understand how and why physical object money brings about or encourages these problems. Otherwise you will not easily understand why each part of the solution is necessary and sufficient to correct the problem.

I don't think this is consistent with:

> (I hope the people around here are very smart indeed. That was one
> of the factors that made me want to join the group.)

If you think/hope the people around here are very smart indeed, then why
are you so convinced that they won't understand why your solution is
necessary unless you explain a load of stuff first?

Your initial post contains a bad mistake:

> When we ask why so many evil actions are carried out using money, why so many people harm others in order to gain money, why evil in human affairs on a huge scale is so often involves money, the most obvious and direct explanation is the physical object nature of our money is amoral.

That's false. The most obvious and direct explanation is that money is a
very useful tool when trying to bring about a bunch of evil actions.
(Just like language).

It's possible that this mistake doesn't actually affect the idea you're
trying to build up to here, but because I don't know what that idea is,
I have no way to tell.

> I suggest that a person who understands an idea is better prepared to
> know how it may be most effectively presented than does a person who
> has lacks knowledge of that idea.

A man might have a deep understanding of the mysterious of the universe,
but another can still point out when he needs to stand closer to the
microphone.

- Richard

[Mason, Larry K]

On Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:02 PM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/9/2013 8:59 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>> Because you need to understand how and why physical object money brings about or encourages these problems. Otherwise you will not easily understand why each part of the solution is necessary and sufficient to correct the problem.

>I don't think this is consistent with:

>> (I hope the people around here are very smart indeed. That was one
>> of the factors that made me want to join the group.)

>If you think/hope the people around here are very smart indeed, then why are you so convinced that they won't understand why your solution >is necessary unless you explain a load of stuff first?

Because I have attempted to take short cuts in explaining these ideas before thinking that my audience was very intelligent and the short cuts never work. When explaining something to a person who has never heard of anything like the concepts you are presenting it takes some background and preparation. Remember in "The Beginning of Infinity" when David talked about the Star Trek parallel universes as an introduction to the quantum physics sections?

>Your initial post contains a bad mistake:

>> When we ask why so many evil actions are carried out using money, why so many people harm others in order to gain money, why evil in human affairs on a huge scale is so often involves money, the most obvious and direct explanation is the physical object nature of our money is amoral.

> That's false. The most obvious and direct explanation is that money is a very useful tool when trying to bring about a bunch of evil actions.
(Just like language).

You are correct. That was an error on my part. It should have been something along the lines of "why is it possible for money to be used for such evil purposes?"

>It's possible that this mistake doesn't actually affect the idea you're trying to build up to here, but because I don't know what that idea is, I have no way to tell.

>> I suggest that a person who understands an idea is better prepared to
>> know how it may be most effectively presented than does a person who
>> has lacks knowledge of that idea.

>A man might have a deep understanding of the mysterious of the universe, but another can still point out when he needs to stand closer to the microphone.

True. But I don't think volume is the problem here. :-)

Larry Mason

[Jason]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:02 PM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5/9/2013 8:59 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>>> Because you need to understand how and why physical object money brings about or encourages these problems. Otherwise you will not easily understand why each part of the solution is necessary and sufficient to correct the problem.
>
>>I don't think this is consistent with:
>
>>> (I hope the people around here are very smart indeed. That was one
>>> of the factors that made me want to join the group.)
>
>>If you think/hope the people around here are very smart indeed, then why are you so convinced that they won't understand why your solution >is necessary unless you explain a load of stuff first?
>
> Because I have attempted to take short cuts in explaining these ideas before thinking that my audience was very intelligent and the short cuts never work. When explaining something to a person who has never heard of anything like the concepts you are presenting it takes some background and preparation. Remember in "The Beginning of Infinity" when David talked about the Star Trek parallel universes as an introduction to the quantum physics sections?

David provides the reader with the whole book at one time. You can
flip to the end chapter summary of any chapter if you're wondering,
"What's his point here?" then go back and read the chapter if you
decide it's worthy. If you only read the summary and don't understand
and ask David a question, he'd be quite right to ignore you or tell
you to read the whole thing then come back if you still have a
question.

I'd have had no objection to your delivery if you posted 20 messages
on the same day, and refused to take questions from anyone who hadn't
read all 20 messages. That's fine - not every argument can be summed
up in a paragraph.

What sucks is posting stuff that doesn't stand on its own, dribbling
it out a little at a time with an approach that amounts to
"Patience...all shall be revealed in due time, child." That approach
is characteristic of scammy sales pitches and religious cults, not
productive critical discussion.

Nevermind...your unique terminology and web site solves this problem.
Googling parts of your posts easily lands here:
http://nopom.info/index.html

You could have saved us all the trouble by simply posting that link
yourself in the prefix to each message. Carry on...

--Jason

[Konrad Swart]

I have read the link below, about this alternate form of money of Larry K.
Mason. Since this is, at present at least, my specialization, I decided to
comment on it.

What I understand of the explanation of this new form of money, is that it
is rooted in altruism. It goes right against one statement of Adam Smith,
who said something like: 'it is not the altruism of the baker I am counting
on to get my bread from him, but the far more secure circumstance that he
bakes bread for others, because he wants to benefit himself. In other words,
I count on his selfishness.' The explanation is rooted in 'payers', who have
a pivotal role, and who must be altruists in the extreme.

Moreover, the whole explanation reminds me of a joke I once heard of Monty
Python. They showed in a sketch somebody who had found a cure against all
diseases. It ran somewhat like the following:

"The solution to all diseases is simple. First you set up an institute that
investigates all diseases. You put the most talented people in that
institute, and let them work the problem out. And when they have found a
solution that helps to eliminate all diseases, you set up factories etc. You
do that everywhere. These factories sell the cure for all diseases. They pay
for these factories from the profit of selling the cure. And, because it is
such a good cure, you can sell it for any price, so that you can always find
enough people prepared to produce it, so that supply is always greater than
demand.

To show that this story is realistic can be done by looking at the details,
and showing that each step is realistic. So you show that many great
inventions have been made by many smart people, and that think tanks solve
all kinds of problems.Then you show that factories can produce all kinds of
goods. The sales of something that is in high demand can be done for any
price etc etc. So each step can be made realistic, by showing many examples.
Nevertheless, the whole explanation is one huge joke.

The problem of this money solution, as well as its introduction, the
explanation of why a market when it introduces money is no longer free, is
that it is completely ad hominem. The part that describes the problem just
appears to be a logical explanation because it substitutes people with
certain behaviors for real underlying concepts. It replaces pictures of that
what might be as if it is already done, or at least possible. As such it
'slurs over huge difficulties', indeed, shows not even an awareness of them.


Other mistakes it contains are, for example, speaking about 'the public'.
There is no such thing as 'the public' other than the individuals it
consists of. There can be no such thing as: 'benefits derived by the
public', because this very term implies AN INDIVIDUAL who makes the judgment
that something indeed IS benficial to 'the public'. And such an individual,
in practice, if his decision has any meaning at all, must have COERCIVE
MEANS to impose his judgment to others. In other words, the term 'the
public' implies government, with all of the force or threat to force behind
it. In fact, what the writer of this peace calls 'the payers', are exactly
nothing else than an alternative of government officials. (I want to remind,
that in a democracy the members of the government are indeed judged on the
basis of how altruistic they are, or at least pretend to be.)

So it is one huge hoax, and pseudo-explanation. Or, to be more precise, this
description of the 'really free market' is one that is based on altruism of
payers. That is, of government officials that determine who is the most
ethical, that is, the most altruistic. It is a form of socialism that has
taken over the language of capitalism and the free market, leading to a
practical situation that is the exact reverse of that what it pretends to
be.

I think that the writer of this piece will disagree with me, and dismiss my
statement as one of somebody 'who is not smart', or 'who is not smart enough
to see the revolutionary nature of this particular solution'. To this I
respond, that I have a (maybe small) reputation of somebody, who is able to
put things on his head, and still to make sense. To give just a simple
example, consider ordinary money. Both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand asserted that
capitalism is connected to selfishness. Both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand were
unable to see how revolutionary money itself is. Money FUSES selfishness
with altruism in the following manner: 'if you work for money, then all of
the time you need, and all of the effort you put in the production of some
good and/or the creation of some service is FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY
ELSE. So EVERYBODY who works for money, works to help in the fulfillment of
a need and/or the satisfaction of a desire of somebody else. EVERY MINUTE,
EVERY SECOND spent in the earning of money goes to benefiting somebody else.
It is MOTIVATED BY selfishness, but the ACTIONS are fully for the benefit
for others. Therefore money represents a 100% synthesis of selfishness and
altruism.

Indeed, if all people work for money, and see this as the only ethical way
to take care of themselves, we all take care of each other THROUGH taking
care of ourselves BY WAY OF causing money to have buying power FOR ALL OF
US. So all who work for money contribute to money having buying power. And
that is exactly how not only 'society' benefits, but how society even
emerges AS a term designating the totality of all individuals, each taking
individual decisions. So using 'the public' in this sense does not contain
the contradiction of this 'solution'.

With money, the amazing thing is, that no one has to think for somebody
else, or judge the productivity of somebody else, or has to make decisions
of the contribution of somebody else. Each one of us just concentrates on
how HE as AN INDIVIDUAL can benefit others. And the way each one of us makes
such decisions is simply by looking where he (I) can make the largest amount
of money from our own capacity to produce. The Ricardian principle of
Comparative Cost then will make certain that EVERYBODY is able to find SOME
niche wherein he can earn enough money to take care of himself.

(By the way, this Larry K. Mason also thinks that it is possible to have a
society wherein nobody has to work for daily sustenance, because he writes:
"Since no one has to work to live (remember one does not have to pay for
necessities), no one would have to do any work unless they were willing."
This is naïve to the extreme.

Just for the record, I have just completed a book about economic value,
money, and the connection between the two. My whole explanation is rooted in
a reformulation of Ricardo's principle of comparative cost. I have succeeded
in solving what I think is the greatest problem of economics: what, exactly,
do we mean by the term: 'economic value', and how, exactly, is it connected
to money? And with this solution I have succeeded in solving the second
greatest problem; the problem of interest. I have written three books about
value and money, the first of which I am about to publish. It has the
title: 'The Cost and Value of Money'.

Therefore money is truly revolutionary, because it causes people to do
things for others BECAUSE they want to benefit themselves. THIS is the
'invisible hand' made visible. Adam Smith came very close to this
understanding, but did not quite reach it.

I also have an alternative to money, which, by the way, is totally virtual.
But, contrary to my form of money, it is based on a solid foundation. One
that clarifies why gold and silver have functioned so well as money. So it
is not in contradiction with the idea of commodity money, but is even an
extension of it, a next step.

I hope to make my book on money and value available soon. It will be made
available as a (free) downloadable pdf file. In that book a far more
thorough explanation of the issues I have raised here can be found.

Greetings,

Konrad.

--
Before posting, read the list guidelines. Posts that do not meet the style
guidelines may be deleted.

Guidelines: http://beginningofinfinity.com/list-guidelines
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Beginning of Infinity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to beginning-of-inf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 8:27 AM Konrad Swart <dim...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>I have read the link below, about this alternate form of money of Larry K.

The link below is http://www.nopom.info/ an ad free site.

>Mason. Since this is, at present at least, my specialization, I decided to comment on it.
>
>What I understand of the explanation of this new form of money, is that it is rooted in altruism. It goes right against one statement of Adam >Smith, who said something like: 'it is not the altruism of the baker I am counting on to get my bread from him, but the far more secure >circumstance that he bakes bread for others, because he wants to benefit himself. In other words, I count on his selfishness.' The explanation >is rooted in 'payers', who have a pivotal role, and who must be altruists in the extreme.
>
>Moreover, the whole explanation reminds me of a joke I once heard of Monty Python. They showed in a sketch somebody who had found a >cure against all diseases. It ran somewhat like the following:
>
>"The solution to all diseases is simple. First you set up an institute that investigates all diseases. You put the most talented people in that >institute, and let them work the problem out. And when they have found a solution that helps to eliminate all diseases, you set up factories >etc. You do that everywhere. These factories sell the cure for all diseases. They pay for these factories from the profit of selling the cure. And, >because it is such a good cure, you can sell it for any price, so that you can always find enough people prepared to produce it, so that supply is >always greater than demand.
>
>To show that this story is realistic can be done by looking at the details, and showing that each step is realistic. So you show that many great >inventions have been made by many smart people, and that think tanks solve all kinds of problems.Then you show that factories can produce >all kinds of goods. The sales of something that is in high demand can be done for any price etc etc. So each step can be made realistic, by >showing many examples.
>Nevertheless, the whole explanation is one huge joke.
>
>The problem of this money solution, as well as its introduction, the explanation of why a market when it introduces money is no longer free, is >that it is completely ad hominem. The part that describes the problem just appears to be a logical explanation because it substitutes people >with certain behaviors for real underlying concepts. It replaces pictures of that what might be as if it is already done, or at least possible. As >such it 'slurs over huge difficulties', indeed, shows not even an awareness of them.
>
>
>Other mistakes it contains are, for example, speaking about 'the public'.
>There is no such thing as 'the public' other than the individuals it consists of. There can be no such thing as: 'benefits derived by the public', >because this very term implies AN INDIVIDUAL who makes the judgment that something indeed IS benficial to 'the public'. And such an >individual, in practice, if his decision has any meaning at all, must have COERCIVE MEANS to impose his judgment to others. In other words, >the term 'the public' implies government, with all of the force or threat to force behind it. In fact, what the writer of this peace calls 'the >payers', are exactly nothing else than an alternative of government officials. (I want to remind, that in a democracy the members of the >government are indeed judged on the basis of how altruistic they are, or at least pretend to be.)
>
>So it is one huge hoax, and pseudo-explanation. Or, to be more precise, this description of the 'really free market' is one that is based on >altruism of payers. That is, of government officials that determine who is the most ethical, that is, the most altruistic. It is a form of socialism >that has taken over the language of capitalism and the free market, leading to a practical situation that is the exact reverse of that what it >pretends to be.
>
>I think that the writer of this piece will disagree with me, and dismiss my statement as one of somebody 'who is not smart', or 'who is not >smart enough to see the revolutionary nature of this particular solution'. To this I respond, that I have a (maybe small) reputation of >somebody, who is able to put things on his head, and still to make sense. To give just a simple example, consider ordinary money. Both Adam >Smith and Ayn Rand asserted that capitalism is connected to selfishness. Both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand were unable to see how revolutionary >money itself is. Money FUSES selfishness with altruism in the following manner: 'if you work for money, then all of the time you need, and all >of the effort you put in the production of some good and/or the creation of some service is FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY ELSE. So >EVERYBODY who works for money, works to help in the fulfillment of a need and/or the satisfaction of a desire of somebody else. EVERY >MINUTE, EVERY SECOND spent in the earning of money goes to benefiting somebody else.
>It is MOTIVATED BY selfishness, but the ACTIONS are fully for the benefit for others. Therefore money represents a 100% synthesis of >selfishness and altruism.
>

>Indeed, if all people work for money, and see this as the only ethical way to take care of themselves, we all take care of each other THROUGH >taking care of ourselves BY WAY OF causing money to have buying power FOR ALL OF US. So all who work for money contribute to money ?>having buying power. And that is exactly how not only 'society' benefits, but how society even emerges AS a term designating the totality of all >individuals, each taking individual decisions. So using 'the public' in this sense does not contain the contradiction of this 'solution'.

>
>With money, the amazing thing is, that no one has to think for somebody else, or judge the productivity of somebody else, or has to make >decisions of the contribution of somebody else. Each one of us just concentrates on how HE as AN INDIVIDUAL can benefit others. And the >way each one of us makes such decisions is simply by looking where he (I) can make the largest amount of money from our own capacity to >produce. The Ricardian principle of Comparative Cost then will make certain that EVERYBODY is able to find SOME niche wherein he can earn >enough money to take care of himself.
>
>(By the way, this Larry K. Mason also thinks that it is possible to have a society wherein nobody has to work for daily sustenance, because he >writes:
>"Since no one has to work to live (remember one does not have to pay for necessities), no one would have to do any work unless they were >willing."
>This is naïve to the extreme.
>
>Just for the record, I have just completed a book about economic value, money, and the connection between the two. My whole explanation >is rooted in a reformulation of Ricardo's principle of comparative cost. I have succeeded in solving what I think is the greatest problem of >economics: what, exactly, do we mean by the term: 'economic value', and how, exactly, is it connected to money? And with this solution I >have succeeded in solving the second greatest problem; the problem of interest. I have written three books about value and money, the first >of which I am about to publish. It has the
>title: 'The Cost and Value of Money'.
>
>Therefore money is truly revolutionary, because it causes people to do things for others BECAUSE they want to benefit themselves. THIS is the >'invisible hand' made visible. Adam Smith came very close to this understanding, but did not quite reach it.
>
>I also have an alternative to money, which, by the way, is totally virtual.
>But, contrary to my form of money, it is based on a solid foundation. One that clarifies why gold and silver have functioned so well as money. >So it is not in contradiction with the idea of commodity money, but is even an extension of it, a next step.
>
>I hope to make my book on money and value available soon. It will be made available as a (free) downloadable pdf file. In that book a far more >thorough explanation of the issues I have raised here can be found.
>
>Greetings,
>
>Konrad.

I am the Larry K. Mason to whom you refer.

I regret to say that you understand almost nothing at all about the system I propose. You read the single link about "Free Market Money" without reading (or listening to) the novel "Invisible Hand." You believe you understand I am sure. You are clearly well read in economics and quite literate. You have every valid reason for believing that your conclusions expressed above are quite reasonable.

I would be happy to read your book especially if you plan a kindle copy because that would be very convenient.

To address a couple of your points from your comments above.

1) My new form of money is not based on or rooted in altruism. In fact it provides a selfish motive for people to do good things for each other.

2) When I use the word "public" I am referring to the individuals of which "the public" is composed. Nothing more and nothing less. I am not implying (regardless of what you may infer) an individual who makes judgments.

3) The payers have no ability to coerce, only the ability to reward. You don't seem to have understood that at all. You cannot believe it to be true. So I ask you, given that you have become a payer and can, as an individual, pay up to $50 (in today's prices) to other individuals of your choice, how would you coerce anyone else? (If you really understand my system you should be able to give a rational answer to that question.)

4) If it costs you nothing at all to give someone else something, something which doesn't belong to you or to anyone else, is such giving "altruistic"? "A regard for or a devotion to the interests of others" is how my dictionary defines "altruism." So it seems to me that most successful small businesses would have to use altruism to succeed. If the business does not pay attention to and seek to promote THE BENEFIT OF SOMEONE ELSE it probably will not be in business for long. So isn't capitalism and the free market based on altruism? But perhaps you have some other definition of "altruism" in which the persons who show it are sacrificing themselves for others. Well, the payers are not sacrificing when they pay since it isn't their money. The payers give up luxuries to be payers but that is a free choice in which they exchange those luxuries for other rewards, so that, too, is a selfish action as in barter.

5) You use the quote "'if you work for money, then all of the time you need, and all of the effort you put in the production of some good and/or the creation of some service is FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY ELSE.'" Does this include pimps, loan sharks, fraud, armed robbery, and taxes? Somehow I don't see those activities, which are cases of people "working for money," as being FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEONE ELSE. Perhaps you have a different point of view. Money can be acquired in all sorts of ways that are NOT for the benefit of anyone else. Or are you restricting the use of the word "work" to only those actions which actually do benefit others?

6) You write: " With money, the amazing thing is, that no one has to think for somebody else, or judge the productivity of somebody else, or has to make decisions of the contribution of somebody else." Have you never been employed? If you were didn't your boss tell you what to do and probably how to do it? That's thinking for you as I see it. Didn't your boss judge your productivity? Didn't your boss make decisions of the contribution of somebody else? Now in my system that statement is true but it is definitely NOT true of any physical object money system.

7) You give the impression that people will only work if they are coerced to work. I find that naïve in the extreme. Despite the fact that people almost have to have money to survive in today's world, most people would rather do work of some sort than to sit idle day after day. Most people do want the rewards that can be gained by working. Also, psychologists have found that rewards are a stronger motivation than punishments. You may have noticed that slaves don't work as hard as small business owners.

Larry K. Mason

[Konrad Swart]

Dear Larry.

I must admit, that I have read your article only superficially. There a lot
of people who assert all kinds of things about money. One I have had a
conversation with was Paul Grignon. He had developed an alternative money
system, which was based on the belief that money is debt. And, instead of
remedying this, he proposed a system whereby the only kind of money that
could exist was one wherein we all would be personally in debt with
everybody else.

Maybe I responded too fast. After having written my response, I realized
that there is at least one positive thing about you. And that is, that you
make an attempt to think about money in an independent way. And I should
have had more respect for that.

In any case, let me try to remedy it, and give a more adequate response.

**Okay. Let me give a response here. In the past it used to be possible for
humans to exist without any division of labor. The result, however, was that
we could only live in a small region in Africa. One of the points of BoI is,
that without a life support system nobody is able to live. So, if we try to
rely on nature alone, we cannot live in most places on earth.

**The way we succeed in survival, and in living, is by subjecting the
environment to ourselves. This is the very converse of what animals do, and
what evolution does, which depends on a capacity to adapt themselves to the
environment. This, by the way, is what causes a fundamental distinction
between animals and human beings. We subject the environment to ourselves
THROUGH our social systems, on whose existence our own existence depends.

**Let me cut to the chase. What I am getting at, is that we are so utterly
dependent on division of labor, and therefore on the phenomenon of VALUE,
that without this division of labor there is NO WAY that so many people are
able to survive. In fact, this has developed at a point now, that without
the PRIMARY TOOL for division of labor, that is, MONEY, it will not be
possible to implement division of labor in an effective enough way so that
it allows the billions of people who are now living to survive, let alone to
live or to thrive.

**Therefore, if some people, or some group of people have control over how
much other people earn, or how well they are rewarded, then this is
tantamount to having control over their very lives.

**Therefore, in this sense, the very control these payers have over money is
itself THE ULTIMATE TOOL for coercion. So your 'ability to reward' is not
something else than an ability to coerce, but is the most powerful means of
coercion there can be.

You don't seem to have understood that at all. You cannot believe it to be
true. So I ask you, given that you have become a payer and can, as an
individual, pay up to $50 (in today's prices) to other individuals of your
choice, how would you coerce anyone else? (If you really understand my
system you should be able to give a rational answer to that question.)

**I just did.

4) If it costs you nothing at all to give someone else something, something
which doesn't belong to you or to anyone else, is such giving "altruistic"?

**This is a mistake. If I belong to a group of people who are the only who
can create money by paying, then I am, in fact, giving something that
belongs to others. I see a huge confusion here about money and value. A
confusion, by the way, I see in almost everybody.

**The altruism is implied, because we must TRUST those payers to make the
right decisions. Therefore they must qualify to become payers. And the only
way I can see this happen, is that they are judged not on their ability to
enrich themselves, but to enrich others.

"A regard for or a devotion to the interests of others" is how my dictionary
defines "altruism." So it seems to me that most successful small businesses
would have to use altruism to succeed.

**Right!

If the business does not pay attention to and seek to promote THE BENEFIT
OF SOMEONE ELSE it probably will not be in business for long.

**Right!

So isn't capitalism and the free market based on altruism?

**My point is that selfishness does not exclude altruism, as many seem to
believe. They can go together. So capitalism is based on both altruism and
selfishness, because the businessmen pay attention to and seek to benefit of
somebody else, as you say. But they do that BECAUSE they want to benefit
themselves. So their ACTIONS are altruistic, but their MOTIVES are selfish.
So, the production of goods and the creation of services are not the direct
result of motives (that is, my motive is not enough to bake a bread), but
are the direct result of actions. (Baking a bread requires action. It can
even result from action, if the motive is not there.) Without the motive,
however, and in most cases, the action will not be there in an individual
who is free. Therefore the correct way to say it, is that production of
goods and the creation of services are the direct result of actions, but the
indirect result of motives. As far as actions are concerned, they are
altruistic. But seen from the perspective of motives, they are selfish.

But perhaps you have some other definition of "altruism" in which the
persons who show it are sacrificing themselves for others. Well, the payers
are not sacrificing when they pay since it isn't their money. The payers
give up luxuries to be payers but that is a free choice in which they
exchange those luxuries for other rewards, so that, too, is a selfish action
as in barter.

**My point was, that the altruism is definitely there. But it is the result
of selfishness, and therefore is not the primary motive. The primary motive
is selfishness. Or at least, economy can function based on selfishness as
the primary motive, and the altruism as the action resulting from this
motive.

5) You use the quote "'if you work for money, then all of the time you need,
and all of the effort you put in the production of some good and/or the
creation of some service is FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY ELSE.'"

...Does this include pimps,

**sometimes. It might be, that some girls have not a clue how to offer their
sexual services, or know how to protect themselves in such a world, even if
they do, and therefore some might require a pimp.

..loan sharks,

**sometimes. It is possible, that people can receive more value than the
cost they make, despite paying an amount of interest that is 100%, 200% or
even more, as I demonstrate in my book.

..fraud,

**the problem with fraud is, that as long as you do not have a clear
definition of value, of money, and how they are connected, you cannot
identify it, and therefore cannot always determine whether some action is
fraudulent or not.

..armed robbery,

**your system does not make armed robbery impossible, because even at the
times that there was no money, robbery definitely took place, despite your
assertion of the contrary. Labor can always be avoided just by robbing
people from the result of their labor, whether money exists or not. So your
moneyless free society is, in principle, just as susceptible to armed
robbery as one wherein money exists.

**In other words, it is not the existence of money that is the ultimate
source of robbery, but it is something else. And what is that?


** Frédéric Bastiat has made this clear to me. He explained that there are
three things involved. You have need, effort, and satisfaction. Both need
and effort are sources of pain. From these three, need, effort and
satisfaction, only effort can be lifted from your own shoulders and put onto
the shoulders of somebody else. Whatever system you invent, this will always
be the case. Therefore armed robbery cannot be excluded as a matter of
principle. The only thing you might try to do to counteract armed robbery,
is by convincing that if you try to base a social order on robbery, armed or
not, you destroy the motive, which is the very drive for any production of
goods and/or creation of services. Therefore, in such a society, the robber
will contribute to a society whereby he himself will also be worse off. This
is what my books are trying to make clear.

..and taxes?

**Taxes are, in my eyes, a more subtle successor of slavery. Instead of
owning the person, you own the result of the labor of persons. It is one of
the means that some people use to lift the pain of labor from their own
shoulders, and put them on others.

Somehow I don't see those activities, which are cases of people "working for
money," as being FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

**It is a matter of definition. In my book I have given a very precise
definition of economic value, which makes the distinction between pimps,
loan sharks, fraudeurs, armed robbers, tax collectors, and people who
actually work for their existence very clear. (You should also add bankers
who rob others through the fraudulent means of fractional reserve banking to
this list.) Both the tea party and the occupy groups are right, but are
wrong by making a unique identification. They mistake part of the problem
for the whole problem. The tea party is protesting against the violent and
coercive nature of government, while the occupy group is protesting against
the fraudulent nature of banks. The target of the tea party should be taxes
and taxation. And the target of the occupy movement should be fractional
reserve banking, and the institutes of central banking that are the result
of this. Both governments and banking are schemes of some people trying to
avoid the pain of labor by trying to place it on the shoulders of others.
Only their methods are different. Governments do it through threat of
violence, and banks do it through fraudulent money schemes.

Perhaps you have a different point of view. Money can be acquired in all
sorts of ways that are NOT for the benefit of anyone else. Or are you
restricting the use of the word "work" to only those actions which actually
do benefit others?

**Yes, I am. I restrict the use of the word 'work' to apply only to the
creation of value, of which I have a very precise definition. It might
surprise you to hear, that I make a sharp distinction between utility and
value in my book, up to the point that they can exclude each other
completely. In my book I show that it is possible to have something very
useful, which has no value whatsoever. (The example in my book is the air we
breathe.) But you can also have something of tremendous value, which has no
utility at all. (The example in my book is electronic money.)

**The recognition of the complete difference and logical independence of
utility and value was, to me, quite a breakthrough. It was inspired by
Fréderic Bastiat, who made clear to me, in his book: 'Economic Harmonies',
that economic value only arises when there is some problem to solve, or some
difficulty to overcome. This opened my mind for the possibility that
economic value might be a negative thing. It isn't, but understanding his
point made it possible to formulate my definition of economic value as
precise as I have done in my book.

6) You write: " With money, the amazing thing is, that no one has to think
for somebody else, or judge the productivity of somebody else, or has to
make decisions of the contribution of somebody else." Have you never been
employed?

**In my life, I have been employed only for 2 months. I am 58 now, and I
have, under various circumstances, have had the very good fortune to be able
to devote my entire life to studying, and still am doing this. As such my
life is much like that of Fréderic Bastiat, who lived in similar
circumstances.

If you were didn't your boss tell you what to do and probably how to do it?
That's thinking for you as I see it. Didn't your boss judge your
productivity? Didn't your boss make decisions of the contribution of
somebody else?

**Maybe bosses do that. But their decisions do not happen in a vacuum, and
are not as free as you suggest. They are directed by the primary drive to
earn as much as possible for themselves. And that requires that they look at
the market, and at the prices they must pay for the resources they need to
make their employees work for them. This includes the wages they have to pay
their own personnel. This makes their personnel to become a part of the very
market they try to get a profit from. So they are not just the commanders of
their personnel, but, indirectly, they are also employed by them, in their
capacity of consumers. So your statement is an oversimplification.

Now in my system that statement is true but it is definitely NOT true of any
physical object money system.

**As I just have explained, this is a too simple statement.

7) You give the impression that people will only work if they are coerced to
work. I find that naïve in the extreme.

**Oh, really? I quote Bastiat again. There are three things: needs, effort,
and satisfaction. From those three, only effort can be put on the shoulders
of somebody else. Moreover, the pain center resides in the right hemisphere
of the brain, which is not for nothing the largest half of the brain. The
pleasure center resides in the left hemisphere of the brain.

**Our language even reflects this. With 'fulfilling a need', we ultimately
are saying: 'eliminating or reducing some pain'. And with 'satisfying a
desire', we ultimately are saying: 'bringing pleasure in our lives'. We all
have both needs and desires. But from those two, the needs have the highest
priority. In general, people can be without the satisfaction of their
desires. But there is nothing people are not prepared to do to eliminate or
reduce pain. Or, to say it differently, in individuals who most people
respect, needs dominate over desires.

**Most of our needs or our desires cannot be fulfilled without requiring
some form of effort. Effort is pain. There must be a very compelling reason
to accept pain. And the only thing I can think of, is that abstaining from
work leads either in the short run or in the long run to even more pain, and
this is realized. That is what most people drive to go to work.

Despite the fact that people almost have to have money to survive in today's
world, most people would rather do work of some sort than to sit idle day
after day. Most people do want the rewards that can be gained by working.
Also, psychologists have found that rewards are a stronger motivation than
punishments. You may have noticed that slaves don't work as hard as small
business owners.

**The situation is far more complex than you think. HABIT can transform a
desire into a need, as, again, Fréderic Bastiat has made clear to me. This
is also something I discuss in my book at length. My test always is the
following: 'if you have all of the money in the world you will ever need or
desire, would you continue to work?' Looking at very successful people I see
the answer to be clear. In most cases they just stop working.

**Let me be more specific in this, and correct your (in my eyes very, very
simple) conclusion. What successful people lack is PASSION. And the reason
for this is, that passion arises when there is ONE aim in your life that is
able to address BOTH emotional centers in the brain. You see, the pain
center resides in the right hemisphere of the brain, and the pleasure center
resides in the left hemisphere of the brain. As a result, the left
hemisphere of the brain does not understand pain, while the right hemisphere
of the brain does not understand pleasure.

**So the right hemisphere of the brain only wants one thing: reaching a
situation wherein it is guaranteed that any form of pain that can emerge can
be eliminated by one way or another. Reaching that situation is another word
for: 'accomplishing security'.

**The left hemisphere on the other hand, also wants only one thing: having a
guaranteed access to enough sources of pleasure. Reaching that situation is
another word for: 'being happy'.

**The problem is, that both situations are, for most people, incompatible.
Since the right hemisphere is larger than the left hemisphere, emotionally
speaking, and in almost all people, striving for security has a higher
priority than striving for happiness. In most practical cases, whenever
people only strive for security (and most people are doing just that), and
they reach the highest state of security there can be, only then they become
aware that that their lives are incomplete. It is a specific emotion that
emerges from the left hemisphere, that tells them that. And that emotion is
called: BOREDOM. And the reason that this emotion emerges is that they have
neglected almost half of their brains, the left hemisphere, and with it,
half of their potential of their lives. They have neglected happiness. So
the end result is that they are secure, but bored. And that is a form of
pain the right hemisphere of our brains is not equipped to deal with.

**Most people deal with this by adopting some hobby. That is, they strive
for more free time, and then choose some activity that is not related to the
actions needed to uphold security. They spend some money, become collectors,
or do some other activity that does not require any service to others, and
therefore avoid the pain of real work. So they eliminate some of the
boredom, but what they still lack is passion.

**As an aside, and for completeness' sake, I want to remark, that if people
ignore the right hemisphere, and only strive for happiness, the inevitable
result is a life of momentary happiness and a total lack of security. In
other words, this is the world of the addicted person. So every drug addict
is out of balance, and is rightly seen as a misfit, exactly because he does
not give a hoot about security. It is an improper functioning, or lack of
functioning of the right hemisphere of the brains. Moreover, because of his
extreme left hemisphere dominance, he does not understand pain, either that
of himself or that of other people. That is why these people do not hesitate
to inflict much pain on other people. They lack the empathy to really
understand what they are doing. And that is exactly why addicted people are
considered to be misfits.

**Passion is the answer to this. Passion ONLY arises, when there is ONE goal
in your life, that is able to become both a source of security (that is, a
source of eliminating pain) AND a source of happiness (guaranteed access to
pleasure). If you find, or rather succeed in creating one goal in your life
that is able to accomplish both, the result is that both the right
hemisphere and the left hemisphere become in harmony with each other THROUGH
a single goal that connects them both. And that is, because both the right
hemisphere and the left hemisphere of the brains have DIFFERENT reasons to
support that ONE goal. The result of this is that both emotional centers
work together to create ONE emotion, composed of TWO emotions that combine
in that one emotion. And THAT emotion is PASSION.

**So, indeed, if somebody does not need to work, and does no work, he is
neither busy eliminating the pains he has, for example because he does not
NEED to do that. (He has enough money, for example.) Nor is he busy to reach
higher levels of happiness. The first leads to boredom, and the second leads
to addiction. And, indeed, there are cases of people reaching security
through their success, that become addicts. I think, for example about Elvis
Presley and Whitney Houston, both being people who killed themselves in
their hunt for pleasure.

**But the situation is much more complex than you assert.

**My final point is, that as far as I understand your 'system', it does not
take the full complexity of what we, human beings, are, and what our
situation is on this planet, sufficiently into account. That is why,
frankly, I do not bother to give it much of my time and attention. Because
it does not justice to the complexity of the human situation (especially the
part David Deutsch explains, namely that in most places on our planet we
cannot survive, let alone live without adapting the environment to
ourselves, which implies WORK as a NECESSARY condition for our survival), it
is a theory that has far too little power to address the problems of the
modern world we live in, and which we have created.

**Nice, that you think about such matters. It holds promise. But first study
at least Fréderic Bastiat's books, which you can find on the following
webpage.

http://mises.org/Literature/Author/123/Frederic-Bastiat

Greetings,

Konrad.







Larry K. Mason

[Elliot Temple]

On May 9, 2013, at 5:28 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:53 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My guess is you won't say that though. Because my guess is you *do* think you have a solution to these problems.
>
> But that's for future posts. Or am I not allowed to present my ideas in the fashion which seems to me the means most easy to understand?

You are allowed to. And others are allowed to say it's hard to understand and criticize, and suggest other methods of approaching the topic. And if they do that, it isn't commentary on you as a person; it's about the ideas (including ideas about what fashion of presentation is easy to understand, which is a type of idea, and which you may be mistaken about).

>
>>> As it says in the prefix " The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such." I am showing how physical object money brings about problems. Do you have anything to say about this part of the explanation?
>
>> If that is your intent, you are making a serious mistake in how you are thinking about it.
>
>> Maybe someone else can put a recognized name to the particular fallacy your approach to these problems exhibits. I've seen this kind of mistake enough times before to recognize it, but don't have a specific name for it so instead I'll describe it.
>
> I think what you are referring to is that a necessary condition is not necessarily a sufficient condition to produce the effect to be explained. In the case of the amorality of money as we know it, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Many amoral physical objects are employed to produce far more benefits than harm, for example. The point of this particular post is that money can be used to do harm.
>
>> There are all kinds of prerequisites to evil. Things that, if they weren't there, the specified evil couldn't happen. Money is quite often one of them. So is, for example, language. A lot of what you say about our conception of money could also be said about our language.
>
> In the case of the amorality of money that is quite true.
>
>> A prerequisite for evil is not the same as its cause and is not, itself, evil. It is merely the environment in which evil can occur.
>
> Almost true. I think you meant "one environment in which evil can occur" rather than "the only environment..."
>
>> That you can cite many evil things which could not be done if money was not conceived as a physical object, does not make such a conception of money bad.
>
> The use of money for both good and evil merely makes it amoral, not bad. Many good things are done with money as well.
>
>> Quite a number of evil things could not be accomplished if our language was incapable of communicating evil ideas. That doesn't mean that having a language capable of communicating evil ideas is, itself, evil or problematic.
>
> It merely means that language is amoral. It is neither good nor evil in and of itself.

No, language and money are both good because they help us have a modern civilization.

Next you will say hammers are amoral. Wrong. Hammers help us build, so they are good.

Getting rid of hammers, money or language would not be morally neutral, it'd be extremely destructive and evil.


Anyway I liked Jason's point about language. It's a good comparison. I think the basic issue is money gets involved in all kinds of things (including some bad ones) because it's so extremely good, useful, powerful, prevalent, etc... If something is used millions of times a day, then even if a very tiny fraction are bad, you will easily come up with lots of bad examples. But the vast vast majority of uses were really good and important. Just like with language too.

-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/

[Elliot Temple]

On May 9, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> You are correct. That was an error on my part. It should have been something along the lines of "why is it possible for money to be used for such evil purposes?"

So you want to set up a money that is **impossible** to be used for evil purposes?

That is a bad, misconceived goal. It's a mistake. As BoI explains, problems are inevitable. Making problems impossible is itself impossible.

It's also a misconceived approach for other reasons. For example, because it's authoritarian. If you limit how things are used, your limits could contain mistakes. It's better to let individuals judge for themselves what are good and bad uses, instead of trying to control everything.


-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[Elliot Temple]

On May 9, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nevermind...your unique terminology and web site solves this problem.
> Googling parts of your posts easily lands here:
> http://nopom.info/index.html
>
> You could have saved us all the trouble by simply posting that link
> yourself in the prefix to each message. Carry on...

Oh.

So for example:

http://nopom.info/FAQ/socialism.html

> Probably the first hint of socialism comes from the sixth principle of the new money which states: "Goods and services designated 'necessities' are free to all, as needed."


As Ayn Rand would ask:

Free to all ... and provided by whom?


Also if you have transactions where more money is created ("earned") than used up, doesn't that create inflation? Aren't you paying for this "free lunch" by inflation (in other words, by devaluing the currency. you get the wealth to give out the freebies by taking a little from everyone who has wealth).

http://nopom.info/FAQ/who_pays.html

This page says timber is free, too (not just food, housing, clothes (only cheap ugly ones?), medicine(?), etc). So that would make it even more inflationary.



Basically what's going on here is economic illiteracy. It's not refuting or improving on Mises, it's just ignoring Mises and the rest. (Note, btw, how earlier Larry said Mises is irrelevant and refused to comment on his ideas. But when you are contradicting established ideas in a field, you should comment on them. And when they seem to already include refutations of what you are saying, then you should be addressing those apparent pre-existing refutations of what you say. If you ignore them, what are people to think besides that your ideas are refuted?)

[Mason, Larry K]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 8:36 PM Konrad Swart <dim...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Dear Larry.

>I must admit, that I have read your article only superficially. There a lot of people who assert all kinds of things about money. One I have had a >conversation with was Paul Grignon. He had developed an alternative money system, which was based on the belief that money is debt. And, >instead of remedying this, he proposed a system whereby the only kind of money that could exist was one wherein we all would be personally >in debt with everybody else.

>Maybe I responded too fast. After having written my response, I realized that there is at least one positive thing about you. And that is, that >you make an attempt to think about money in an independent way. And I should have had more respect for that.

>In any case, let me try to remedy it, and give a more adequate response.

Thank you, Konrad, for your kindness in giving my statements more thought. Your attitude speaks well of your mind.

Further comments below with your "second pass."

>>On Friday, May 10, 2013 8:27 AM Konrad Swart <dim...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>>>I have read the link below, about this alternate form of money of Larry K.

>>The link below is http://www.nopom.info/ an ad free site.

>>> Since this is, at present at least, my specialization, I decided to comment on it.
>

>>>The problem of this money solution, as well as its introduction, the
explanation of why a market when it introduces money is no longer free, is
>>that it is completely ad hominem. The part that describes the problem just
appears to be a logical explanation because it substitutes people >with certain behaviors for real underlying concepts. It replaces pictures of that what might be as if it is already done, or at least possible. As >such it 'slurs over huge difficulties', indeed, shows not even an awareness of them.
>

>>>I think that the writer of this piece will disagree with me, and dismiss
>my statement as one of somebody 'who is not smart', or 'who is not >smart enough to see the revolutionary nature of this particular solution'. To this I respond, that I have a (maybe small) reputation of >somebody, who is able to put things on his head, and still to make sense. To give just a simple example, consider ordinary money. Both Adam >Smith and Ayn Rand asserted that capitalism is connected to selfishness. Both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand were unable to see how revolutionary >money itself is. Money FUSES selfishness with altruism in the following manner: 'if you work for money, then all of the time you need, and all >of the effort you put in the production of some good and/or the creation of some service is FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY ELSE. So >EVERYBODY who works for money, works to help in the fulfillment of a need and/or the satisfaction of a desire of somebody else. EVERY >MINUTE, EVERY SECOND spent in the earning of money goes to benefiting somebody else.
>>>It is MOTIVATED BY selfishness, but the ACTIONS are fully for the benefit
>>>for others. Therefore money represents a 100% synthesis of >selfishness and altruism.
>
>>>Indeed, if all people work for money, and see this as the only ethical way
>>>to take care of themselves, we all take care of each other THROUGH >taking care of ourselves BY WAY OF causing money to have buying power FOR ALL OF US. So all who work for money contribute to money ?>having buying power. And that is exactly how not only 'society' benefits, but how society even emerges AS a term designating the totality of all >individuals, each taking individual decisions. So using 'the public' in this sense does not contain the contradiction of this 'solution'.
>
>>>With money, the amazing thing is, that no one has to think for somebody
else, or judge the productivity of somebody else, or has to make >decisions of the contribution of somebody else. Each one of us just concentrates on how HE as AN INDIVIDUAL can benefit others. And the >way each one of us makes such decisions is simply by looking where he (I) can make the largest amount of money from our own capacity to >produce. The Ricardian principle of Comparative Cost then will make certain that EVERYBODY is able to find SOME niche wherein he can earn >enough money to take care of himself.
>
>>>(By the way, this Larry K. Mason also thinks that it is possible to have a
>>>society wherein nobody has to work for daily sustenance, because he >writes:
>>>"Since no one has to work to live (remember one does not have to pay for
>>>necessities), no one would have to do any work unless they were >willing."
>>>This is naïve to the extreme.
>
>

>>>I also have an alternative to money, which, by the way, is totally virtual.
>>>But, contrary to my form of money, it is based on a solid foundation. One
>>>that clarifies why gold and silver have functioned so well as money. >So it is not in contradiction with the idea of commodity money, but is even an extension of it, a next step.
>
>>>I hope to make my book on money and value available soon. It will be made
>>>available as a (free) downloadable pdf file. In that book a far more
>>>thorough explanation of the issues I have raised here can be found.
>

>>I am the Larry K. Mason to whom you refer.

>>I regret to say that you understand almost nothing at all about the system I propose. You read the single link about "Free Market Money" without reading (or listening to) the novel "Invisible Hand." You believe you understand I am sure. You are clearly well read in economics and quite literate. You have every valid reason for believing that your conclusions expressed above are quite reasonable.

>>I would be happy to read your book especially if you plan a kindle copy because that would be very convenient.

>>To address a couple of your points from your comments above.

>>1) My new form of money is not based on or rooted in altruism. In fact it provides a selfish motive for people to do good things for each other.

>>2) When I use the word "public" I am referring to the individuals of which "the public" is composed. Nothing more and nothing less. I am not implying (regardless of what you may infer) an individual who makes judgments.

>>3) The payers have no ability to coerce, only the ability to reward.

>**Okay. Let me give a response here. In the past it used to be possible for humans to exist without any division of labor. The result, however, was that we could only live in a small region in Africa. One of the points of BoI is, that without a life support system nobody is able to live. So, if we try to rely on nature alone, we cannot live in most places on earth.

Yes.

>**The way we succeed in survival, and in living, is by subjecting the environment to ourselves. This is the very converse of what animals do, and what evolution does, which depends on a capacity to adapt themselves to the environment. This, by the way, is what causes a fundamental distinction between animals and human beings. We subject the environment to ourselves THROUGH our social systems, on whose existence our own existence depends.

Yes.

>**Let me cut to the chase. What I am getting at, is that we are so utterly dependent on division of labor, and therefore on the phenomenon of VALUE, that without this division of labor there is NO WAY that so many people are able to survive. In fact, this has developed at a point now, that without the PRIMARY TOOL for division of labor, that is, MONEY, it will not be possible to implement division of labor in an effective enough way so that it allows the billions of people who are now living to survive, let alone to live or to thrive.

Yes. We are quite dependent on having a very good money, an effective money, a dependable medium of exchange, a consistent standard unit of account, and a reliable store of value. None of which are being provided by our present physical object money. We need a much improved money.

>**Therefore, if some people, or some group of people have control over how much other people earn, or how well they are rewarded, then this is tantamount to having control over their very lives.

Yes. That's one of the major problems with our physical object money. That's the main source of oppression.

>**Therefore, in this sense, the very control these payers have over money is itself THE ULTIMATE TOOL for coercion. So your 'ability to reward' is not something else than an ability to coerce, but is the most powerful means of coercion there can be.

Please explain how the payers' limited ability to reward (their only power) gives them individually or as a group a means of coercion. If you understand my system you will find that question very easy to answer.

>>You don't seem to have understood that at all. You cannot believe it to be true. So I ask you, given that you have become a payer and can, as an individual, pay up to $50 (in today's prices) to other individuals of your
choice, how would you coerce anyone else? (If you really understand my
system you should be able to give a rational answer to that question.)

>**I just did.

Sorry. You did not. You gave a good answer for a physical object money but not a rational answer for the money I suggest.

>>4) If it costs you nothing at all to give someone else something, something which doesn't belong to you or to anyone else, is such giving "altruistic"?

>**This is a mistake. If I belong to a group of people who are the only who can create money by paying, then I am, in fact, giving something that belongs to others. I see a huge confusion here about money and value. A confusion, by the way, I see in almost everybody.

>**The altruism is implied, because we must TRUST those payers to make the right decisions. Therefore they must qualify to become payers. And the only way I can see this happen, is that they are judged not on their ability to enrich themselves, but to enrich others.

But we don't have to TRUST those payers to make the right decisions. No one has to qualify (other than by being a living adult) in order to become a payer. You lack information about what I propose. Your conclusions are quite rational given your current knowledge base.

>>"A regard for or a devotion to the interests of others" is how my dictionary defines "altruism." So it seems to me that most successful small businesses would have to use altruism to succeed.

>**Right!

>> If the business does not pay attention to and seek to promote THE BENEFIT OF SOMEONE ELSE it probably will not be in business for long.

>**Right!

>>So isn't capitalism and the free market based on altruism?

>**My point is that selfishness does not exclude altruism, as many seem to believe. They can go together. So capitalism is based on both altruism and selfishness, because the businessmen pay attention to and seek to benefit of somebody else, as you say. But they do that BECAUSE they want to benefit themselves. So their ACTIONS are altruistic, but their MOTIVES are selfish.

Yes.

>**So, the production of goods and the creation of services are not the direct result of motives (that is, my motive is not enough to bake a bread), but are the direct result of actions. (Baking a bread requires action. It can even result from action, if the motive is not there.) Without the motive, however, and in most cases, the action will not be there in an individual who is free. Therefore the correct way to say it, is that production of goods and the creation of services are the direct result of actions, but the indirect result of motives. As far as actions are concerned, they are altruistic. But seen from the perspective of motives, they are selfish.

Yes. I quite agree. My system uses that as a basic principle.

>>But perhaps you have some other definition of "altruism" in which the persons who show it are sacrificing themselves for others. Well, the payers are not sacrificing when they pay since it isn't their money. The payers give up luxuries to be payers but that is a free choice in which they exchange those luxuries for other rewards, so that, too, is a selfish action as in barter.

>**My point was, that the altruism is definitely there. But it is the result of selfishness, and therefore is not the primary motive. The primary motive is selfishness. Or at least, economy can function based on selfishness as the primary motive, and the altruism as the action resulting from this motive.

The system of money I propose is based on selfishness as the primary motive and the altruism as the actions that result from that motive.

>>5) You use the quote "'if you work for money, then all of the time you need, and all of the effort you put in the production of some good and/or the creation of some service is FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY ELSE.'"

...Does this include pimps,

>**sometimes. It might be, that some girls have not a clue how to offer their sexual services, or know how to protect themselves in such a world, even if they do, and therefore some might require a pimp.

>>..loan sharks,

>**sometimes. It is possible, that people can receive more value than the cost they make, despite paying an amount of interest that is 100%, 200% or even more, as I demonstrate in my book.

>..fraud,

>**the problem with fraud is, that as long as you do not have a clear definition of value, of money, and how they are connected, you cannot identify it, and therefore cannot always determine whether some action is fraudulent or not.

>..armed robbery,

>**your system does not make armed robbery impossible, because even at the times that there was no money, robbery definitely took place, despite your assertion of the contrary. Labor can always be avoided just by robbing people from the result of their labor, whether money exists or not. So your moneyless free society is, in principle, just as susceptible to armed robbery as one wherein money exists.

My system makes the taking of money by force or fraud impossible. The money I propose is not transferrable. The robbery of physical objects is always possible but, of course, in my system, those stolen objects cannot be sold for money, only bartered. Thus the motive for robbery is greatly reduced.

>**In other words, it is not the existence of money that is the ultimate source of robbery, but it is something else. And what is that?

I am only proposing to fix the money part of culture, not create a utopia.

** Frédéric Bastiat has made this clear to me. He explained that there are three things involved. You have need, effort, and satisfaction. Both need and effort are sources of pain. From these three, need, effort and satisfaction, only effort can be lifted from your own shoulders and put onto the shoulders of somebody else. Whatever system you invent, this will always be the case. Therefore armed robbery cannot be excluded as a matter of principle. The only thing you might try to do to counteract armed robbery, is by convincing that if you try to base a social order on robbery, armed or not, you destroy the motive, which is the very drive for any production of goods and/or creation of services. Therefore, in such a society, the robber will contribute to a society whereby he himself will also be worse off. This is what my books are trying to make clear.

In my system the potential robber will find many ways that require far less effort to gain satisfactions.

>>..and taxes?

>**Taxes are, in my eyes, a more subtle successor of slavery. Instead of owning the person, you own the result of the labor of persons. It is one of the means that some people use to lift the pain of labor from their own shoulders, and put them on others.

>>Somehow I don't see those activities, which are cases of people "working for money," as being FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

>**It is a matter of definition. In my book I have given a very precise definition of economic value, which makes the distinction between pimps, loan sharks, fraudeurs, armed robbers, tax collectors, and people who actually work for their existence very clear. (You should also add bankers who rob others through the fraudulent means of fractional reserve banking to this list.) Both the tea party and the occupy groups are right, but are wrong by making a unique identification. They mistake part of the problem for the whole problem. The tea party is protesting against the violent and coercive nature of government, while the occupy group is protesting against the fraudulent nature of banks. The target of the tea party should be taxes and taxation. And the target of the occupy movement should be fractional reserve banking, and the institutes of central banking that are the result of this. Both governments and banking are schemes of some people trying to avoid the pain of labor by trying to place it on the shoulders of others.
Only their methods are different. Governments do it through threat of violence, and banks do it through fraudulent money schemes.

In my subjective point of view, none of these actions are intended to be for the benefit of someone else. It's just an opinion.

>>Perhaps you have a different point of view. Money can be acquired in all sorts of ways that are NOT for the benefit of anyone else. Or are you restricting the use of the word "work" to only those actions which actually do benefit others?

>**Yes, I am. I restrict the use of the word 'work' to apply only to the creation of value, of which I have a very precise definition. It might surprise you to hear, that I make a sharp distinction between utility and value in my book, up to the point that they can exclude each other completely. In my book I show that it is possible to have something very useful, which has no value whatsoever. (The example in my book is the air we
breathe.) But you can also have something of tremendous value, which has no utility at all. (The example in my book is electronic money.)

Given your definition of "work" there are many people who have jobs that are not working. :-)

**The recognition of the complete difference and logical independence of utility and value was, to me, quite a breakthrough. It was inspired by Fréderic Bastiat, who made clear to me, in his book: 'Economic Harmonies', that economic value only arises when there is some problem to solve, or some difficulty to overcome. This opened my mind for the possibility that economic value might be a negative thing. It isn't, but understanding his point made it possible to formulate my definition of economic value as precise as I have done in my book.

Yes.

>> 6) You write: " With money, the amazing thing is, that no one has to think for somebody else, or judge the productivity of somebody else, or has to make decisions of the contribution of somebody else." Have you never been employed?

>**In my life, I have been employed only for 2 months. I am 58 now, and I have, under various circumstances, have had the very good fortune to be able to devote my entire life to studying, and still am doing this. As such my life is much like that of Fréderic Bastiat, who lived in similar circumstances.

Though I have had a number of jobs I have continued to study quite a variety of things (I am 71 now) including quantum physics (how I happened across David's wonderful book). I recommend studying as long as you live.

>>If you were didn't your boss tell you what to do and probably how to do it?
That's thinking for you as I see it. Didn't your boss judge your productivity? Didn't your boss make decisions of the contribution of
somebody else?

>**Maybe bosses do that. But their decisions do not happen in a vacuum, and are not as free as you suggest. They are directed by the primary drive to earn as much as possible for themselves. And that requires that they look at the market, and at the prices they must pay for the resources they need to make their employees work for them. This includes the wages they have to pay their own personnel. This makes their personnel to become a part of the very market they try to get a profit from. So they are not just the commanders of their personnel, but, indirectly, they are also employed by them, in their capacity of consumers. So your statement is an oversimplification.

I do not in any way suggest that the boss's decisions are free. Most bosses also have a boss and so on up to boards of directors or whatever. But they are NOT required to look at the market. They only have to keep their boss happy, not the market in general. Also, most bosses do have some control over pay but it isn't their own money that they use to pay. That money belongs to the company or the stockholders or whatever. Again, the employee only has to keep his individual boss happy. The top boss is trying to gain money, power, prestige, and so forth and is only partially dependent on any market for those things. This is also a product of the physical object nature of our money. Your description just above is of the ideal, theoretical case, not the "dog eat dog" "rat race" of the real world.

>>Now in my system that statement is true but it is definitely NOT true of any physical object money system.

>**As I just have explained, this is a too simple statement.

>>7) You give the impression that people will only work if they are coerced to work. I find that naïve in the extreme.

>**Oh, really? I quote Bastiat again. There are three things: needs, effort, and satisfaction. From those three, only effort can be put on the shoulders of somebody else. Moreover, the pain center resides in the right hemisphere of the brain, which is not for nothing the largest half of the brain. The pleasure center resides in the left hemisphere of the brain.

I work for pleasure. I coach youth sports for pleasure (and there's lots of physical effort and thinking time devoted to that). I enjoyed my careers (both of them) and was disappointed to have to stop working for pay. I wrote the book I am hoping you will read. Most authors consider that work. I enjoyed it. I did not and do not work to make pain stop (either physical or mental). Now I agree that I need these activities. Coaching, for example, gets me needed exercise. But the effort gains me real satisfaction. I think that's true of almost everyone. It's a rare person who can sit around staring at the TV (or whatever) when they are physically and psychologically capable of effort and action. (See preschool age children.)

>**Our language even reflects this. With 'fulfilling a need', we ultimately are saying: 'eliminating or reducing some pain'. And with 'satisfying a desire', we ultimately are saying: 'bringing pleasure in our lives'. We all have both needs and desires. But from those two, the needs have the highest priority. In general, people can be without the satisfaction of their desires. But there is nothing people are not prepared to do to eliminate or reduce pain. Or, to say it differently, in individuals who most people respect, needs dominate over desires.

Needs are satisfied via access to necessities (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education). Desires go far beyond those necessities. Our economy is more than capable of providing these basics to everyone. There's no shortage of these basics. So we don't have to force people to work by imposing pain upon them. We can entice them to work with pleasures. The carrot works better than the stick.

>**Most of our needs or our desires cannot be fulfilled without requiring some form of effort. Effort is pain. There must be a very compelling reason to accept pain. And the only thing I can think of, is that abstaining from work leads either in the short run or in the long run to even more pain, and this is realized. That is what most people drive to go to work.

Effort is absolutely not pain at all. I again refer you to young children. I refer you to people playing golf. I refer you to Einstein working on his science on his death bed. Effort as a response to the threat of punishment is pain. Most people don't like their jobs. That, too, is a consequence of the nature of our money.

>>Despite the fact that people almost have to have money to survive in today's world, most people would rather do work of some sort than to sit idle day after day. Most people do want the rewards that can be gained by working.
Also, psychologists have found that rewards are a stronger motivation than punishments. You may have noticed that slaves don't work as hard as small business owners.

>**The situation is far more complex than you think. HABIT can transform a desire into a need, as, again, Fréderic Bastiat has made clear to me. This is also something I discuss in my book at length. My test always is the
following: 'if you have all of the money in the world you will ever need or desire, would you continue to work?' Looking at very successful people I see the answer to be clear. In most cases they just stop working.

I have all the money that I can envision needing for the rest of my life. Yes, I like to work. How about those rich old movie stars? :-)
People do retire because they don't like the work environment which is "poisoned" by the nature of our money. But it isn't the effort of work, it's the coercion of the job.

>**Let me be more specific in this, and correct your (in my eyes very, very
simple) conclusion. What successful people lack is PASSION. And the reason for this is, that passion arises when there is ONE aim in your life that is able to address BOTH emotional centers in the brain. You see, the pain center resides in the right hemisphere of the brain, and the pleasure center resides in the left hemisphere of the brain. As a result, the left hemisphere of the brain does not understand pain, while the right hemisphere of the brain does not understand pleasure.

I find that hard to believe. Those who are most successful at skilled work are quite passionate about their job. (Being from North Carolina I have to reference Michael Jordan at this point. :-) ) Musicians put in thousands of hours of practice and they don't stop practicing in most cases until they physically can do no more.

>**So the right hemisphere of the brain only wants one thing: reaching a situation wherein it is guaranteed that any form of pain that can emerge can be eliminated by one way or another. Reaching that situation is another word
for: 'accomplishing security'.

I really don't think that matches reality at all.

>**The left hemisphere on the other hand, also wants only one thing: having a guaranteed access to enough sources of pleasure. Reaching that situation is another word for: 'being happy'.

>**The problem is, that both situations are, for most people, incompatible.
Since the right hemisphere is larger than the left hemisphere, emotionally speaking, and in almost all people, striving for security has a higher priority than striving for happiness. In most practical cases, whenever people only strive for security (and most people are doing just that), and they reach the highest state of security there can be, only then they become aware that that their lives are incomplete. It is a specific emotion that emerges from the left hemisphere, that tells them that. And that emotion is
called: BOREDOM. And the reason that this emotion emerges is that they have neglected almost half of their brains, the left hemisphere, and with it, half of their potential of their lives. They have neglected happiness. So the end result is that they are secure, but bored. And that is a form of pain the right hemisphere of our brains is not equipped to deal with.

>**Most people deal with this by adopting some hobby. That is, they strive for more free time, and then choose some activity that is not related to the actions needed to uphold security. They spend some money, become collectors, or do some other activity that does not require any service to others, and therefore avoid the pain of real work. So they eliminate some of the boredom, but what they still lack is passion.

Being of service to others can be pleasurable. There are lots of retired people doing volunteer work which is of real service to others.

>**As an aside, and for completeness' sake, I want to remark, that if people ignore the right hemisphere, and only strive for happiness, the inevitable result is a life of momentary happiness and a total lack of security. In other words, this is the world of the addicted person. So every drug addict is out of balance, and is rightly seen as a misfit, exactly because he does not give a hoot about security. It is an improper functioning, or lack of functioning of the right hemisphere of the brains. Moreover, because of his extreme left hemisphere dominance, he does not understand pain, either that of himself or that of other people. That is why these people do not hesitate to inflict much pain on other people. They lack the empathy to really understand what they are doing. And that is exactly why addicted people are considered to be misfits.

>**Passion is the answer to this. Passion ONLY arises, when there is ONE goal in your life, that is able to become both a source of security (that is, a source of eliminating pain) AND a source of happiness (guaranteed access to pleasure). If you find, or rather succeed in creating one goal in your life that is able to accomplish both, the result is that both the right hemisphere and the left hemisphere become in harmony with each other THROUGH a single goal that connects them both. And that is, because both the right hemisphere and the left hemisphere of the brains have DIFFERENT reasons to support that ONE goal. The result of this is that both emotional centers work together to create ONE emotion, composed of TWO emotions that combine in that one emotion. And THAT emotion is PASSION.

>**So, indeed, if somebody does not need to work, and does no work, he is neither busy eliminating the pains he has, for example because he does not NEED to do that. (He has enough money, for example.) Nor is he busy to reach higher levels of happiness. The first leads to boredom, and the second leads to addiction. And, indeed, there are cases of people reaching security through their success, that become addicts. I think, for example about Elvis Presley and Whitney Houston, both being people who killed themselves in their hunt for pleasure.

There are many others who have fallen prey to addictions of various sorts. You will notice the role that physical object money has played in those cases as well.

>**But the situation is much more complex than you assert.

>**My final point is, that as far as I understand your 'system', it does not take the full complexity of what we, human beings, are, and what our situation is on this planet, sufficiently into account. That is why, frankly, I do not bother to give it much of my time and attention. Because it does not justice to the complexity of the human situation (especially the part David Deutsch explains, namely that in most places on our planet we cannot survive, let alone live without adapting the environment to ourselves, which implies WORK as a NECESSARY condition for our survival), it is a theory that has far too little power to address the problems of the modern world we live in, and which we have created.

You don't understand my "system" at all. I think you would change your mind if you read or listened to the novel. You are a rational person and the concepts are not difficult when approached in the proper context. The novel provides that context.

>**Nice, that you think about such matters. It holds promise. But first study at least Fréderic Bastiat's books, which you can find on the following webpage.

>http://mises.org/Literature/Author/123/Frederic-Bastiat

I have read (translations) of Bastiat already (and Mises) and they are astute, critical thinkers but they are solely and strictly in the context of a physical object money. That " box" colors and constrains their ideas.

Larry Mason

[Mason, Larry K]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:23 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>On May 9, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> You are correct. That was an error on my part. It should have been something along the lines of "why is it possible for money to be used for such evil purposes?"

>So you want to set up a money that is **impossible** to be used for evil purposes?

Yes, I would like to approximate that situation. I don't think it can be done perfectly but I think that it is possible to make its use for evil purposes quite rare. If you have any sense (and I think you do) you will find that almost impossible to believe.

>That is a bad, misconceived goal. It's a mistake. As BoI explains, problems are inevitable. Making problems impossible is itself impossible.

Solving problems is how we make progress. Didn't you read BoI at all? Remember what is set in stone. There were two of them. One is that there will be problems. What was the other? Why do you think the title of the book refers to infinity? You would appear to be attempting to say that progress is impossible and that only the revealed truth of Mises or others is acceptable. I hope I am wrong about that. But your writing " That is a bad, misconceived goal. It's a mistake." Sure sounds to me like you are telling me it is impossible to solve that problem so I should not try.

>It's also a misconceived approach for other reasons. For example, because it's authoritarian. If you limit how things are used, your limits could contain mistakes. It's better to let individuals judge for themselves what are good and bad uses, instead of trying to control everything.

Your idea that my solution is authoritarian is wrong. You don't know what my solution is. But that's consistent with attempts to prevent the solution of problems. You are trying to control me by your statements here. You would have me give up and stop trying to think of solutions. Do you have any authorities that I should use rather than thinking for myself?

[Mason, Larry K]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:31 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>On May 9, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nevermind...your unique terminology and web site solves this problem.
>> Googling parts of your posts easily lands here:
>> http://nopom.info/index.html
>
>> You could have saved us all the trouble by simply posting that link
>> yourself in the prefix to each message. Carry on...

>Oh.

>So for example:

>http://nopom.info/FAQ/socialism.html

>> Probably the first hint of socialism comes from the sixth principle of the new money which states: "Goods and services designated 'necessities' are free to all, as needed."


>As Ayn Rand would ask:

>Free to all ... and provided by whom?

I hope Ayn would read the whole solution rather than just a tiny part in order to find the answer to that question.

In a free market, who provides the goods and services which people want to consume? Those people who want to earn money to exchange for the things they would like to buy and those people who like to use barter to get what they want. That is the situation with my solution. Those who want to earn money to buy other things produce the goods and services designated "necessities" in my system. It's a free market system which employs a true free market.

>Also if you have transactions where more money is created ("earned") than used up, doesn't that create inflation? Aren't you paying for this >"free lunch" by inflation (in other words, by devaluing the currency. you get the wealth to give out the freebies by taking a little from everyone >who has wealth).

The supply of money is a dependent condition which is controlled by the supply of goods and services for sale.
There is no currency in my system.
In my system there are no taxes of any kind on anybody by any agency of any government. Read my lips. No taxes.
My system is also pure private property. All property that is owned is owned by individuals not groups. The government owns nothing at all. Companies own nothing at all. Families own nothing jointly.

>http://nopom.info/FAQ/who_pays.html

>This page says timber is free, too (not just food, housing, clothes (only cheap ugly ones?), medicine(?), etc). So that would make it even more >inflationary.

This says that timber is not bought and sold. Only items designated as "luxuries" are bought and sold. You really need to understand my system before you try to explain it to me. Capital goods (and labor) are not bought or sold, only luxuries.

>Basically what's going on here is economic illiteracy. It's not refuting or improving on Mises, it's just ignoring Mises and the rest. (Note, btw, >how earlier Larry said Mises is irrelevant and refused to comment on his ideas. But when you are contradicting established ideas in a field, you >should comment on them. And when they seem to already include refutations of what you are saying, then you should be addressing those >apparent pre-existing refutations of what you say. If you ignore them, what are people to think besides that your ideas are refuted?)

Yes, you are showing you don't understand my system at all. If you cannot read it for understanding then you will never understand. I suggest that you assume (for a time) that I actually know what I'm talking about and reading the novel "Invisible Hand" and then tell me where I have gone wrong.

Larry Mason

[Elliot Temple]

On May 11, 2013, at 10:00 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:23 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>> On May 9, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>> You are correct. That was an error on my part. It should have been something along the lines of "why is it possible for money to be used for such evil purposes?"
>
>> So you want to set up a money that is **impossible** to be used for evil purposes?
>
> Yes, I would like to approximate that situation. I don't think it can be done perfectly but I think that it is possible to make its use for evil purposes quite rare. If you have any sense (and I think you do) you will find that almost impossible to believe.
>
>> That is a bad, misconceived goal. It's a mistake. As BoI explains, problems are inevitable. Making problems impossible is itself impossible.
>
> Solving problems is how we make progress. Didn't you read BoI at all?

This is absurd. If Larry had read BoI more carefully, he would see my name emphasized in the acknowledgements. I did not get to be the owner of the BoI list by not reading the book, which I have read repeatedly. And, since he asks, I have also discussed what it means with the author for many, many hours over a period of a decade. And read many times the length of BoI in non-published writing of DD's. Not only have I read BoI "at all", I am an expert.

This is ridiculous. It reminds me of a story. My friend worked at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) for a while. He says people have argued with him about how "Ayn" is pronounced. He tells them the right pronunciation and they still argue and won't listen. As much as authority is a mistake, it's pretty damn dumb to argue with an ARI guy about an issue like how to pronounce "Ayn". It's ridiculous.

It's totally possible for a genuine expert to be wrong and be corrected by a non-expert. But 98% of the people arguing with him about his expertise are clueless idiots greatly exceeding the bounds of their knowledge. They think he's wrong not because they have a new insight, but because they never learned the basics. They know way less than him, not more. They are ridiculous.

If someone isn't in that ridiculous, ignorant category and has an informed argument, they need to do something to differentiate themselves.


Larry's question is basically a factually false personal attack. Plus a big element of having no idea who he is talking to, and no respect for the community where he's new, and not caring. It comes off like the 98% of people making ignorant arguments, instead of differentiating itself as knowing what it's talking about. (This is a limited commented, applying just to issues like what BoI says and whether I'm familiar with BoI.)

I would have explained my point to Larry more, if he had asked about it and tried to learn. Here on BoI list, knowledge is on offer, if that is what one is seeking. Instead, Larry flamed me, so I offer the below:

> Remember what is set in stone. There were two of them. One is that there will be problems. What was the other?

This is extremely condescending.

> Why do you think the title of the book refers to infinity?

Condescending. The meaning of these statements is to imply I'm a young child, and to treat me in the (immoral) ways young children are often treated by teachers.

The purpose of the list is not to post personal attacks against its owner. This is unacceptable.


I get that Larry feels attacked and is lashing out in return. However, that is simply not allowed here. Participation here requires more rationality than that. If emotional, don't post again until after.

That Larry feels attacked does not mean he was actually attacked. If Larry was attacked (or thinks he was), an appropriate thing to do would be to criticize the attack, not seek revenge (or he could ignore it). For example, in this post I've criticized Larry's attack on me, rather than flaming Larry in return.

Further, Larry felt attacked in general or by some other post(s), but he's lashed out in reply to this one which was impersonal and wasn't what got him mad. So that is extra unacceptable.



I also get that people have trouble understanding the difference between an attack or flame, and a criticism or argument. There are many skills which can help one post better. It is everyone's responsibility to learn them. Yes that takes effort and attention. People can ask questions to aid this process, and post their thinking on the matter to get criticism to help them improve it. Help is available to people who wish to learn these skills.


-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/

[Anonymous Person]

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:31 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>>On May 9, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nevermind...your unique terminology and web site solves this problem.
>>> Googling parts of your posts easily lands here:
>>> http://nopom.info/index.html
>>
>>> You could have saved us all the trouble by simply posting that link
>>> yourself in the prefix to each message. Carry on...
>
>>Oh.
>
>>So for example:
>
>>http://nopom.info/FAQ/socialism.html
>
>>> Probably the first hint of socialism comes from the sixth principle of the new money which states: "Goods and services designated 'necessities' are free to all, as needed."
>
>
>>As Ayn Rand would ask:
>
>>Free to all ... and provided by whom?
>
> I hope Ayn would read the whole solution rather than just a tiny part in order to find the answer to that question.
>
> In a free market, who provides the goods and services which people want to consume? Those people who want to earn money to exchange for the things they would like to buy and those people who like to use barter to get what they want. That is the situation with my solution. Those who want to earn money to buy other things produce the goods and services designated "necessities" in my system. It's a free market system which employs a true free market.

And if the demand for "necessities" (such as factories) is higher than
the supply, then what? How will disputes be decided about who gets
what? What if fifty million people want a factory, but there's only
fifty thousand factories?

Won't people who want more necessities start bartering with neighbors
to get necessities that aren't currently available for free? I'll give
you a bag of corn for your bag of sugar, since there's no free sugar
or corn available currently.

And then doesn't the double coincidence of wants problem get in the
way, so people will reinvent regular money to deal with it?

>>Also if you have transactions where more money is created ("earned") than used up, doesn't that create inflation? Aren't you paying for this >"free lunch" by inflation (in other words, by devaluing the currency. you get the wealth to give out the freebies by taking a little from everyone >who has wealth).
>
> The supply of money is a dependent condition which is controlled by the supply of goods and services for sale.
> There is no currency in my system.
> In my system there are no taxes of any kind on anybody by any agency of any government. Read my lips. No taxes.
> My system is also pure private property. All property that is owned is owned by individuals not groups. The government owns nothing at all. Companies own nothing at all. Families own nothing jointly.

Here you say that *all* property is owned by individuals. But in
another email you contradict yourself. You wrote, "I contend that the
owner is always either some individual person or some "party" which is
again singular no matter how many persons are a part of that set of
persons. So if someone gives some item to a couple as a wedding gift,
the couples own the item. The couple is the party."

If you can't keep your own position straight, perhaps you shouldn't
yell at others and insist they study it more carefully. Maybe you
should go through and remove the contradictions before trying so much
to persuade others to adopt your view.

Maybe you should consider whether you are competent to figure out a
high quality complex system, when you lack the skill to write a few
emails explaining yourself without direct contradictions. There is no
shame in lacking such skill; the only shame would be in evading that
reality and refusing to work on improving.

I'm not trying to insult you. I say this in all seriousness. This is
my best advice. If you think it's bad advice, tell me: what would you
advise someone who posts a complex system full of contradictions?

>>http://nopom.info/FAQ/who_pays.html
>
>>This page says timber is free, too (not just food, housing, clothes (only cheap ugly ones?), medicine(?), etc). So that would make it even more >inflationary.
>
> This says that timber is not bought and sold. Only items designated as "luxuries" are bought and sold. You really need to understand my system before you try to explain it to me. Capital goods (and labor) are not bought or sold, only luxuries.

Food and timber producers earn money to spend on luxuries. This
creates inflation because, in this case, money is coming into the
system but not out.

Money being earned, without also being subtracted from someone else,
increases the total amount of money. That is called inflation.

>>Basically what's going on here is economic illiteracy. It's not refuting or improving on Mises, it's just ignoring Mises and the rest. (Note, btw, >how earlier Larry said Mises is irrelevant and refused to comment on his ideas. But when you are contradicting established ideas in a field, you >should comment on them. And when they seem to already include refutations of what you are saying, then you should be addressing those >apparent pre-existing refutations of what you say. If you ignore them, what are people to think besides that your ideas are refuted?)
>
> Yes, you are showing you don't understand my system at all. If you cannot read it for understanding then you will never understand. I suggest that you assume (for a time) that I actually know what I'm talking about and reading the novel "Invisible Hand" and then tell me where I have gone wrong.

Do you agree or disagree that you have contradicted Mises?

[Mason, Larry K]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:54 PM Anonymous Person <unattrib...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:31 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>>>On May 9, 2013, at 9:11 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nevermind...your unique terminology and web site solves this problem.
>>>> Googling parts of your posts easily lands here:
>>>> http://nopom.info/index.html
>>
>>>> You could have saved us all the trouble by simply posting that link
>>>> yourself in the prefix to each message. Carry on...
>
>>>Oh.
>
>>>So for example:
>
>>>http://nopom.info/FAQ/socialism.html
>
>>>> Probably the first hint of socialism comes from the sixth principle of the new money which states: "Goods and services designated 'necessities' are free to all, as needed."
>
>
>>>As Ayn Rand would ask:
>
>>>Free to all ... and provided by whom?
>
>> I hope Ayn would read the whole solution rather than just a tiny part in order to find the answer to that question.
>
>> In a free market, who provides the goods and services which people want to consume? Those people who want to earn money to exchange for the things they would like to buy and those people who like to use barter to get what they want. That is the situation with my solution. Those who want to earn money to buy other things produce the goods and services designated "necessities" in my system. It's a free market system which employs a true free market.

>And if the demand for "necessities" (such as factories) is higher than the supply, then what? How will disputes be decided about who gets what? What if fifty million people want a factory, but there's only fifty thousand factories?

Factories are capital goods, not consumer necessities. My system has only private property. If someone who owns capital wants to give it to you and you accept responsibility for that capital then you would own that capital. But you could not use the money of my system to buy capital.

>Won't people who want more necessities start bartering with neighbors to get necessities that aren't currently available for free? I'll give you a bag of corn for your bag of sugar, since there's no free sugar or corn available currently.

If anyone in my system wants to use barter they may. But if you give your neighbor a bag of corn which your neighbor eats, you would be paid for the net benefit to your neighbor whether or not he gave you a bag of sugar.

>And then doesn't the double coincidence of wants problem get in the way, so people will reinvent regular money to deal with it?

That double coincidence thing is one of the big reasons why economies need an effective, smoothly functioning medium of exchange. That's what the money is my system provides.

>>>Also if you have transactions where more money is created ("earned") than used up, doesn't that create inflation? Aren't you paying for this >>>"free lunch" by inflation (in other words, by devaluing the currency. you get the wealth to give out the freebies by taking a little from everyone >who has wealth).
>
>> The supply of money is a dependent condition which is controlled by the supply of goods and services for sale.
>> There is no currency in my system.
>> In my system there are no taxes of any kind on anybody by any agency of any government. Read my lips. No taxes.
>> My system is also pure private property. All property that is owned is owned by individuals not groups. The government owns nothing at all. Companies own nothing at all. Families own nothing jointly.

>Here you say that *all* property is owned by individuals. But in another email you contradict yourself. You wrote, "I contend that the owner is always either some individual person or some "party" which is again singular no matter how many persons are a part of that set of persons. So if someone gives some item to a couple as a wedding gift, the couples own the item. The couple is the party."

Please note that the quote you provided is a description of physical object money ownership. It is NOT a description of the kind of money I propose. I am pointing out how physical object money produces the conditions which result in serious problems. In my system the gift could be given to either the bride or the groom but not to both jointly. Of course, the couple are perfectly free to share in the use of the gift but that's the gift owner's decision and right.

>If you can't keep your own position straight, perhaps you shouldn't yell at others and insist they study it more carefully. Maybe you should go through and remove the contradictions before trying so much to persuade others to adopt your view.

Please point out the contradictions and I will attempt to eliminate them.

>Maybe you should consider whether you are competent to figure out a high quality complex system, when you lack the skill to write a few emails explaining yourself without direct contradictions. There is no shame in lacking such skill; the only shame would be in evading that reality and refusing to work on improving.

Perhaps you should be sure you are right about the contradictions before you decide that I am not competent.

>I'm not trying to insult you. I say this in all seriousness. This is my best advice. If you think it's bad advice, tell me: what would you advise someone who posts a complex system full of contradictions?

Please point out the contradictions. I will attempt to eliminate them.

>>>http://nopom.info/FAQ/who_pays.html
>
>>>This page says timber is free, too (not just food, housing, clothes (only cheap ugly ones?), medicine(?), etc). So that would make it even more >inflationary.
>
>> This says that timber is not bought and sold. Only items designated as "luxuries" are bought and sold. You really need to understand my system before you try to explain it to me. Capital goods (and labor) are not bought or sold, only luxuries.

>Food and timber producers earn money to spend on luxuries. This creates inflation because, in this case, money is coming into the system but not out.

In my system there are three kinds of goods and services. 1) consumer goods and services designated as "necessities" (must include all actual necessities but may include other things as well (like coffee). 2) capital goods and services (tools and labor used to produce). 3) consumer goods and services designated as "luxuries." Only the luxuries are bought and sold. The supply of luxuries determines the amount of money. As luxury goods and services are produced, a corresponding amount of money is credited to the accounts of producers of all three kinds of goods and services based on the net benefit to others derived from the actions of those producers.

Therefore, there is no inflation and the persons selling the luxuries (like clerks in a department store) don't care what the prices are since they are paid for net benefits to others, not for the product they sell. (That's hard for folks to grasp. The producers of luxury goods and services are paid for the net benefit of their actions in production (and distribution) of luxury goods. They are not paid for producing them nor for distributing them but only for any net benefit.) Prices do not change because there is no need for any change in prices. What changes is the net benefit. That influences the earnings of producers.

>Money being earned, without also being subtracted from someone else, increases the total amount of money. That is called inflation.

Please note that what you say is true of a physical object money but not true of the money I propose. Money spent in my system ceases to exist. When money is spent in my system, some good or service that was bought is no longer for sale. Thus the balance between the amount of money to spend and the goods and services to be bought is maintained. (If more luxuries are produced then more money comes into existence to buy them.)

>>>Basically what's going on here is economic illiteracy. It's not
>>>refuting or improving on Mises, it's just ignoring Mises and the rest.
>>>(Note, btw, >how earlier Larry said Mises is irrelevant and refused to
>>>comment on his ideas. But when you are contradicting established ideas
>>>in a field, you >should comment on them. And when they seem to already
>>>include refutations of what you are saying, then you should be
>>>addressing those >apparent pre-existing refutations of what you say.
>>>If you ignore them, what are people to think besides that your ideas
>>>are refuted?)
>
>> Yes, you are showing you don't understand my system at all. If you cannot read it for understanding then you will never understand. I suggest that you assume (for a time) that I actually know what I'm talking about and reading the novel "Invisible Hand" and then tell me where I have gone wrong.

>Do you agree or disagree that you have contradicted Mises?

What statement of Mises have I contradicted? I wrote (if you will look at the actual words) that Mises did not write about (to my knowledge) the physical object nature of money and the consequences thereof. Since that is the topic of this series of posts so far as I can tell, Mises writings in economics do not apply here. If you think that is not the case, please point out anything I have written in these posts that contradicts Mises because I am unaware of any conflict. So I disagree that I have contradicted Mises (but could be shown to be wrong as I am not an expert on Mises).

[Alan Forrester]

On 12 May 2013, at 14:20, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>> And if the demand for "necessities" (such as factories) is higher than the supply, then what? How will disputes be decided about who gets what? What if fifty million people want a factory, but there's only fifty thousand factories?
>
> Factories are capital goods, not consumer necessities. My system has only private property. If someone who owns capital wants to give it to you and you accept responsibility for that capital then you would own that capital. But you could not use the money of my system to buy capital.

So there would be no market for trading production goods and money?

In "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth" Ludwig von Mises pointed out that socialism is problematic because it does not allow a market where production goods can be traded for money:

http://mises.org/econcalc.asp

It sounds like your system suffers from the same flaw. Do you have an answer for this criticism?

Alan

[Mason, Larry K]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:43 AM Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 12 May 2013, at 14:20, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>> And if the demand for "necessities" (such as factories) is higher than the supply, then what? How will disputes be decided about who gets what? What if fifty million people want a factory, but there's only fifty thousand factories?
>
>> Factories are capital goods, not consumer necessities. My system has only private property. If someone who owns capital wants to give it to you and you accept responsibility for that capital then you would own that capital. But you could not use the money of my system to buy capital.

>So there would be no market for trading production goods and money?

That depends on what you mean by "market." If you mean the use of money in buying and selling production goods and services then that is correct. If you mean there would be no transfer of ownership of production goods then that is incorrect.

One can earn money by giving capital goods to some other person who uses those goods to help produce net benefit for others. So one can increase one's supply of money by giving capital goods in my system just as one can gain money by exchanging capital goods for money in the present U.S. economy. In my system, any money one gains is pure "profit" which can be used to buy luxuries. In the current U.S. economy, the sales price of the capital goods would be used (in general) to pay overhead, labor, raw materials, taxes, fees, and other expenses. The remainder (commonly called "profit") would be available to the former owner to pay for consumer necessities and/or more capital and only a small part would remain to pay for consumer luxuries. So the party who gives capital goods can gain money by that giving in my system but cannot lose money. In the current U.S. system, the party who gives capital goods in trade for money may gain, lose, or break even on money. So the net effect of the difference between the two systems is that with my system the downside risk in minimized and the giver's attention to what the recipient actually does with the goods is dramatically increased.

>In "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth" Ludwig von Mises pointed out that socialism is problematic because it does not >allow a market where production goods can be traded for money:

And he's right about the lack of a free market for production goods. Socialism is problematic for other reasons as well.

There will exist in a socialist economy social interaction which might roughly correspond to a market for production goods but it's more trading favors, exercising power, bribes, and so forth as the various state managers "jockey for position" within the hierarchy.

>http://mises.org/econcalc.asp

>It sounds like your system suffers from the same flaw. Do you have an answer for this criticism?

My system has a completely free market between the payers and the producers. (Those whose actions result in net benefits to others are "producers.") The payers are buying net benefits (not goods and not services but the benefits) from the producers by increasing the amount of money in the accounts of the producers as the benefits become manifest for so long as the consequences can be identified. Any of the many payers can pay any of the many producers. There is only one product (net benefits) and anyone may enter the market as a producer. There is no regulation of the market. In other words, my system provides a free market without the need for any laws or enforcement mechanism. One consequence of this free market is that all property is individually owned.

Similarly, the relationship between the payers and the consumers (everyone) is also a free market. Everyone can provide social rewards and punishments to any payer they meet. There are many payers and they are widely distributed throughout the population. Thus, the payers are rewarded and punished based on the consumers' experience of benefits. If the consumers like how they are treated by producers, they will reward the payers they interact with. If they are unhappy / dissatisfied with their experience, they will show their displeasure to the payers. Thus, the payers are trading net benefits to the consumers for social rewards.

Finally, there is no organization (such as government) which is able to enforce any control of the producers other than the rewards they receive from the payers. The producers are perfectly free to produce what and how they like or nothing at all. But if they want money and what it can buy, they will produce net benefits to others.

[Alan Forrester]

On 14 May 2013, at 15:14, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:43 AM Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 May 2013, at 14:20, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> And if the demand for "necessities" (such as factories) is higher than the supply, then what? How will disputes be decided about who gets what? What if fifty million people want a factory, but there's only fifty thousand factories?
>>>
>>> Factories are capital goods, not consumer necessities. My system has only private property. If someone who owns capital wants to give it to you and you accept responsibility for that capital then you would own that capital. But you could not use the money of my system to buy capital.
>>
>> So there would be no market for trading production goods and money?
>
> That depends on what you mean by "market." If you mean the use of money in buying and selling production goods and services then that is correct. If you mean there would be no transfer of ownership of production goods then that is incorrect.

So what's your answer to von Mises' criticism of the idea of being unable to trade money for production goods?

http://mises.org/econcalc/ch2.asp

"There are two conditions governing the possibility of calculating value in terms of money. Firstly, not only must goods of a lower, but also those of a higher order, come within the ambit of exchange, if they are to be included. If they do not do so, exchange relationships would not arise. True enough, the considerations which must obtain in the case of Robinson Crusoe prepared, within the range of his own hearth, to exchange, by production, labor and flour for bread, are indistinguishable from those which obtain when he is prepared to exchange bread for clothes in the open market, and, therefore, it is to some extent true to say that every economic action, including Robinson Crusoe's own production, can be termed exchange. Moreover, the mind of one man alone--be it ever so cunning, is too weak to grasp the importance of any single one among the countlessly many goods of a higher order. No single man can ever master all the possibilities of production, innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make straightway evident judgments of value without the aid of some system of computation. The distribution among a number of individuals of administrative control over economic goods in a community of men who take part in the labor of producing them, and who are economically interested in them, entails a kind of intellectual division of labor, which would not be possible without some system of calculating production and without economy.

"The second condition is that there exists in fact a universally employed medium of exchange--namely, money --which plays the same part as a medium in the exchange of production goods also. If this were not the case, it would not be possible to reduce all exchange-relationships to a common denominator."

> One can earn money by giving capital goods to some other person who uses those goods to help produce net benefit for others.

How do you decide who gets the rights to the income from those capital goods?

> So one can increase one's supply of money by giving capital goods in my system just as one can gain money by exchanging capital goods for money in the present U.S. economy. In my system, any money one gains is pure "profit" which can be used to buy luxuries. In the current U.S. economy, the sales price of the capital goods would be used (in general) to pay overhead, labor, raw materials, taxes, fees, and other expenses. The remainder (commonly called "profit") would be available to the former owner to pay for consumer necessities and/or more capital and only a small part would remain to pay for consumer luxuries. So the party who gives capital goods can gain money by that giving in my system but cannot lose money.

So let's suppose that the capital goods are used in such a way that it produces a net loss rather than a net benefit. Who pays for the net loss?

> In the current U.S. system, the party who gives capital goods in trade for money may gain, lose, or break even on money. So the net effect of the difference between the two systems is that with my system the downside risk in minimized and the giver's attention to what the recipient actually does with the goods is dramatically increased.

So if Jim uses a production good provided by Pete does Jim own it outright or not? If Pete disagrees with Jim's plans for the production good can he take it back?

>> In "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth" Ludwig von Mises pointed out that socialism is problematic because it does not allow a market where production goods can be traded for money:
>
> And he's right about the lack of a free market for production goods. Socialism is problematic for other reasons as well.
>
> There will exist in a socialist economy social interaction which might roughly correspond to a market for production goods but it's more trading favors, exercising power, bribes, and so forth as the various state managers "jockey for position" within the hierarchy.
>
>> http://mises.org/econcalc.asp
>>
>> It sounds like your system suffers from the same flaw. Do you have an answer for this criticism?
>
> My system has a completely free market between the payers and the producers. (Those whose actions result in net benefits to others are "producers.") The payers are buying net benefits (not goods and not services but the benefits) from the producers by increasing the amount of money in the accounts of the producers as the benefits become manifest for so long as the consequences can be identified. Any of the many payers can pay any of the many producers. There is only one product (net benefits) and anyone may enter the market as a producer. There is no regulation of the market. In other words, my system provides a free market without the need for any laws or enforcement mechanism. One consequence of this free market is that all property is individually owned.

You seem to think that this is an solution to the problem. It is just a statement of the problem. You are assuming, with no explanation, that it is possible to identify net benefits without a market in which production goods can be traded for money. How are net benefits identified?

> Similarly, the relationship between the payers and the consumers (everyone) is also a free market. Everyone can provide social rewards and punishments to any payer they meet. There are many payers and they are widely distributed throughout the population. Thus, the payers are rewarded and punished based on the consumers' experience of benefits. If the consumers like how they are treated by producers, they will reward the payers they interact with. If they are unhappy / dissatisfied with their experience, they will show their displeasure to the payers. Thus, the payers are trading net benefits to the consumers for social rewards.

So a person who wants to run a car factory will build the cars out of social rewards? What does "social reward" mean? You can't build cars out of approval or hugs.

> Finally, there is no organization (such as government) which is able to enforce any control of the producers other than the rewards they receive from the payers. The producers are perfectly free to produce what and how they like or nothing at all. But if they want money and what it can buy, they will produce net benefits to others.

So if people wanted to go back to having a market in which they traded production goods for money the government wouldn't stop them?

Alan

[Mason, Larry K]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:43 PM Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 14 May 2013, at 15:14, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:43 AM Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 12 May 2013, at 14:20, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And if the demand for "necessities" (such as factories) is higher than the supply, then what? How will disputes be decided about who gets what? What if fifty million people want a factory, but there's only fifty thousand factories?
>>>
>>>> Factories are capital goods, not consumer necessities. My system has only private property. If someone who owns capital wants to give it to you and you accept responsibility for that capital then you would own that capital. But you could not use the money of my system to buy capital.
>>
>>> So there would be no market for trading production goods and money?
>
>> That depends on what you mean by "market." If you mean the use of money in buying and selling production goods and services then that is correct. If you mean there would be no transfer of ownership of production goods then that is incorrect.

>So what's your answer to von Mises' criticism of the idea of being unable to trade money for production goods?

>http://mises.org/econcalc/ch2.asp

>"There are two conditions governing the possibility of calculating value in terms of money. Firstly, not only must goods of a lower, but also those of a higher order, come within the ambit of exchange, if they are to be included. If they do not do so, exchange relationships would not arise. True enough, the considerations which must obtain in the case of Robinson Crusoe prepared, within the range of his own hearth, to exchange, by production, labor and flour for bread, are indistinguishable from those which obtain when he is prepared to exchange bread for clothes in the open market, and, therefore, it is to some extent true to say that every economic action, including Robinson Crusoe's own production, can be termed exchange. Moreover, the mind of one man alone--be it ever so cunning, is too weak to grasp the importance of any single one among the countlessly many goods of a higher order. No single man can ever master all the possibilities of production, innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make straightway evident judgments of value without the aid of some system of computation. The distribution among a number of individuals of administrative control over economic goods in a community of men who take part in the labor of producing them, and who are economically interested in them, entails a kind of intellectual division of labor, which would not be possible without some system of calculating production and without economy.

>"The second condition is that there exists in fact a universally employed medium of exchange--namely, money --which plays the same part as a medium in the exchange of production goods also. If this were not the case, it would not be possible to reduce all exchange-relationships to a common denominator."

Mises is describing a two party trade of money for goods. In my system the producer is trading net benefit for money, a three party interaction. One aspect of producing net benefit is the giving of production goods. Another is the realization of net benefit. A third aspect is the paying of money for the realized net benefits. The money in my system does function as a medium of exchange. So in effect, production goods are being traded for money. It's just not in a way we are used to.

>> One can earn money by giving capital goods to some other person who uses those goods to help produce net benefit for others.

>How do you decide who gets the rights to the income from those capital goods?

Everyone who participated in the production of those capital goods share in the income the use of those goods generated. That's the payers
role.

>> So one can increase one's supply of money by giving capital goods in my system just as one can gain money by exchanging capital goods for money in the present U.S. economy. In my system, any money one gains is pure "profit" which can be used to buy luxuries. In the current U.S. economy, the sales price of the capital goods would be used (in general) to pay overhead, labor, raw materials, taxes, fees, and other expenses. The remainder (commonly called "profit") would be available to the former owner to pay for consumer necessities and/or more capital and only a small part would remain to pay for consumer luxuries. So the party who gives capital goods can gain money by that giving in my system but cannot lose money.

>So let's suppose that the capital goods are used in such a way that it produces a net loss rather than a net benefit. Who pays for the net loss?

If the use does more harm than good no money is paid. That's it. The harm done is the loss and that is suffered by those harmed.

>> In the current U.S. system, the party who gives capital goods in trade for money may gain, lose, or break even on money. So the net effect of the difference between the two systems is that with my system the downside risk in minimized and the giver's attention to what the recipient actually does with the goods is dramatically increased.

>So if Jim uses a production good provided by Pete does Jim own it outright or not? If Pete disagrees with Jim's plans for the production good can he take it back?

Jim owns it outright. If Pete dislikes Jim's plans he will probably not give Jim the good. While the good is Pete's property it's completely up to him whether he gives it to anyone and if so, to whom he gives it. But once given to Jim, Jim has all the property rights of ownership. Unless this is the case, the payers cannot hold the owner of property responsible for its use. If you are "just obeying orders" you have no responsibility for what you do with the good. If you have full ownership rights, you get the credit for the benefits and blame for the harm. Of course, Pete did give you the opportunity and gets credit for that (is held responsible for your having ownership of the good). Therefore Pete will very much care what you plan to do with the good and be very concerned about your reputation.

>>> In "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth" Ludwig von Mises pointed out that socialism is problematic because it does not allow a market where production goods can be traded for money:
>
>> And he's right about the lack of a free market for production goods. Socialism is problematic for other reasons as well.
>
>> There will exist in a socialist economy social interaction which might roughly correspond to a market for production goods but it's more trading favors, exercising power, bribes, and so forth as the various state managers "jockey for position" within the hierarchy.
>
>>> http://mises.org/econcalc.asp
>>
>>> It sounds like your system suffers from the same flaw. Do you have an answer for this criticism?
>
>> My system has a completely free market between the payers and the producers. (Those whose actions result in net benefits to others are "producers.") The payers are buying net benefits (not goods and not services but the benefits) from the producers by increasing the amount of money in the accounts of the producers as the benefits become manifest for so long as the consequences can be identified. Any of the many payers can pay any of the many producers. There is only one product (net benefits) and anyone may enter the market as a producer. There is no regulation of the market. In other words, my system provides a free market without the need for any laws or enforcement mechanism. One consequence of this free market is that all property is individually owned.

>You seem to think that this is an solution to the problem. It is just a statement of the problem. You are assuming, with no explanation, that it is possible to identify net benefits without a market in which production goods can be traded for money. How are net benefits identified?

My system uses a free market to identify net benefits. See the paragraph just below.

>> Similarly, the relationship between the payers and the consumers (everyone) is also a free market. Everyone can provide social rewards and punishments to any payer they meet. There are many payers and they are widely distributed throughout the population. Thus, the payers are rewarded and punished based on the consumers' experience of benefits. If the consumers like how they are treated by producers, they will reward the payers they interact with. If they are unhappy / dissatisfied with their experience, they will show their displeasure to the payers. Thus, the payers are trading net benefits to the consumers for social rewards.

>So a person who wants to run a car factory will build the cars out of social rewards? What does "social reward" mean? You can't build cars out of approval or hugs.

Payers are not paid for producing net benefits. Producers who are paid are not payers. One expects that the vast majority of those who produce cars are doing it for the money they earn thereby. I have no idea where you got the idea that cars were built out of social rewards. Those social rewards are the motivation for the payers, not for the producers. (Not that producers ignore social rewards.) Please remember that there are three parties in money transactions, producers (who receive money), consumers (who get the net benefits) and payers (who do the paying of money) when money is earned. In a way, it's very roughly analogous to a person hiring an agent to buy a good car for him. The payer is the agent figure who is paid by social rewards. (Don't push the analogy. It won't hold up. :-) )

>> Finally, there is no organization (such as government) which is able to enforce any control of the producers other than the rewards they receive from the payers. The producers are perfectly free to produce what and how they like or nothing at all. But if they want money and what it can buy, they will produce net benefits to others.

>So if people wanted to go back to having a market in which they traded production goods for money the government wouldn't stop them?

It would not be anyone else's business. Why should they care? In fact, if one nation were to adopt my system there's every reason to expect that currency of other nations would be readily available if people wanted to use it. But the use of that currency would have all the problems associated with physical object money. (Someone might seal it from you, for example. :-) )

[Anonymous Email]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> Mises is describing a two party trade of money for goods. In my system the producer is trading net benefit for money, a three party interaction. One aspect of producing net benefit is the giving of production goods. Another is the realization of net benefit. A third aspect is the paying of money for the realized net benefits. The money in my system does function as a medium of exchange. So in effect, production goods are being traded for money. It's just not in a way we are used to.

Could you please tell us how your system works?

Who is the third party you refer to?

Who decides how much benefit there is and therefore how much money is
earned? What if people disagree about what is beneficial or how much
so?

How are conflicts handled when two people want the same free
non-luxury? How is scarcity handled for non-luxuries?

You claim your money is a medium of exchange (for all types of goods).
But how is it a medium of exchange for factories? I can give/sell my
factory to someone. It benefits him and I get money. However more
money doesn't help me get a different factory, it only helps me get
luxuries. I cannot exchange my capital goods for other capital goods
via your money. So aren't you mistaken? Is it possible that you don't
know what a medium of exchange is?

When a luxury is bought, the buyer's money is reduced and the seller
gains money. The total amount of money stays equal. When a non-luxury
is bought, the buyer's money isn't reduced (because those are free)
but the seller's money is increased. Therefore your system is
inflationary -- the money supply keeps going up and up. How do you
address this large problem?

My guess is you haven't adequately considered the answers to all these
questions. I would suggest that you temporarily stop discussing this
topic and come back to it later. However if you really think you have
full complete correct answers to all these issues, and wish to
continue discussing money immediately, then it's important that you
answer these questions (and many more, these are just to get started).

I realize some of these questions have been asked before. But I don't
understand how discussing your money is supposed to be productive if
you don't explain how your money works.

[Richard Fine]

On 15 May 2013, at 01:43, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:43 PM Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:.

>
>> So let's suppose that the capital goods are used in such a way that it produces a net loss rather than a net benefit. Who pays for the net loss?
>
> If the use does more harm than good no money is paid. That's it. The harm done is the loss and that is suffered by those harmed.

In that case, what motivates people to avoid using capital goods in a
way that causes a net loss?

- Richard

[Mason, Larry K]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:18 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:

>On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> Mises is describing a two party trade of money for goods. In my system the producer is trading net benefit for money, a three party interaction. One aspect of producing net benefit is the giving of production goods. Another is the realization of net benefit. A third aspect is the paying of money for the realized net benefits. The money in my system does function as a medium of exchange. So in effect, production goods are being traded for money. It's just not in a way we are used to.

>Could you please tell us how your system works?

I am trying to but the concepts are not ones with which you are familiar. The best / easiest way to understand is to read (or listen to) my novel "Invisible Hand" at http://www.nopom.info/ (no ads there).

>Who is the third party you refer to?

The third party is the payer(s) whose role is to decide how much benefit (and / or harm) has come about as a consequence of human actions. Obviously that judgment is bound to be subjective which is why a free market "regulates" payments. (Exactly in the fashion that a free market with physical object money would work if there could be a true free market with physical object money.)

>Who decides how much benefit there is and therefore how much money is earned? What if people disagree about what is beneficial or how >much so?

People will disagree. That's the nature of a free market. The disagreements are handled just as prices are handled when people disagree about the "value" (to them at the moment) in a free market. If a producer disagrees, he can do something else or work where different payers will be judging his efforts. If a consumer disagrees, he can deny the payers his approval or express disapproval.

>How are conflicts handled when two people want the same free non-luxury? How is scarcity handled for non-luxuries?

The owner of the non-luxury is completely free to do with it as he likes. Just because someone wants that item does not put the owner under any obligation. So each of the persons who would like to consume (necessity) or use (production good) the non-luxury can make his case to the owner of that kind of good.

Scarcity of necessities results in the owners "rationing" their property. The behavior is a result of the market, of course. Doing so maximizes their income. There is no imposed rationing by any organization. Naturally, the monetary rewards for reducing the scarcity would be greater (free markets work that way) than for other production while the scarcity lasted depending on how important the effects of the scarcity were.

>You claim your money is a medium of exchange (for all types of goods).
>But how is it a medium of exchange for factories? I can give/sell my factory to someone. It benefits him and I get money. However more >money doesn't help me get a different factory, it only helps me get luxuries. I cannot exchange my capital goods for other capital goods via >your money. So aren't you mistaken? Is it possible that you don't know what a medium of exchange is?

The way to get someone to give you a factory is to have a good business plan showing how you would generate large amounts of net benefits. It's strikingly similar to going to a bank or other lender / investor today to borrow money to buy a factory. It's just that you cut out the "middle man" in going directly to the owner. If you have a good reputation and have been very successful at earning money (for yourself and those who gave you capital goods and services) then you will likely get a factory.

If you insist on defining "medium of exchange" as a two party exchange of a commodity (money as we know it) for some other good or service then what I propose is not a medium of exchange by that definition. But if you define "medium of exchange" as being the means by which the transfer of goods and services from person to person is motivated (which is a more general definition) then my money system is a medium of exchange. Just as one receives money in our current system for giving others goods and services, so one would receive money in my system for giving others goods and services. To me, that is the essence of a medium of exchange. The difference is in who provides the money. In the former case, the person receiving the goods and services provides the money. In the latter case (my system) the money is provided by a third party (the payers).

>When a luxury is bought, the buyer's money is reduced and the seller gains money. The total amount of money stays equal. When a non-luxury >is bought, the buyer's money isn't reduced (because those are free) but the seller's money is increased. Therefore your system is inflationary -- >the money supply keeps going up and up. How do you address this large problem?

In my system when a luxury is bought, the money ceases to exist. The producers of the luxury will receive some money soon (within a month?) for that benefit and may receive more later if other benefits become apparent later. The amount the producers receive will be less than the money paid by the purchaser. (For argument's sake we could say one third as much but the actual proportion would depend on the relative amount of luxury production and market forces (like the need for some kind of capital production being unusually high, for example).) So the total amount of money is not a constant. It varies with the production of luxury goods and services for sale. As luxuries are bought the money supply goes down. As luxuries are produced, the money supply goes up. Obviously, non-luxury items are not bought or sold.

>My guess is you haven't adequately considered the answers to all these questions. I would suggest that you temporarily stop discussing this >topic and come back to it later. However if you really think you have full complete correct answers to all these issues, and wish to continue >discussing money immediately, then it's important that you answer these questions (and many more, these are just to get started).

You are not familiar with my system which is only natural. I would suggest that we come back to this topic later, especially if you first read or listen to my novel. Then you will be quite able to write knowledgably about the flaws in my system. The novel will answer not just all the questions you have raised above but a host of others on issues you have not touched.

>I realize some of these questions have been asked before. But I don't understand how discussing your money is supposed to be productive if >you don't explain how your money works.

It is quite difficult to explain how my money works in that we have so very many "unconscious" assumptions about money and all the terms related to money that what I write in plain English about my kind of money is "twisted" in meaning. It's like describing an automobile from 1966 to a person from 1666 who keeps insisting that the engine on the car will only scare the horse and no one will want explosions on their wagon and ... well, you get the idea. Each aspect of my system tends to be taken by itself and "inserted" into a physical object money system as if that's how my system would use it. Your mind will tend to do that even when you try not to. (I know because it happened to me over and over and I was inventing the system. I had been thinking about it for over 30 years when I suddenly realized that the law would almost cease to exist and legislatures would lose almost all their functions, for example.) The book is the best way to understand because it helps your mind get context for the various aspects of the system.

[Mason, Larry K]

What motivates people in our current system to invest their money rather than keeping it in a no interest account?

Harm reduces one's income from other consequences of one's actions. If your past efforts produced continuing benefits that generate a continuing income, that income will be reduced by harm done by misuse of your capital goods. Your causing harm will be a part of your reputation and that will make producers of capital goods less likely to give you capital in the future. People who have worked with you in using the capital in a way that caused harm would also have lost money they might otherwise have gained and you, as the owner of the capital, are responsible for that loss. Such a reputation will make it more difficult for you to gain support for future projects.

Therefore, just like someone who does not repay a business loan may have problems getting another business load there is plenty of motivation to avoid causing harm.

And beyond that, everyone else involved in your capital goods use which caused harm will be trying to minimize the harm and prevent harm. So even if you are irresponsible, the actions of others might prevent harm and they would be paid for such help. This is unlike today's economic situation in which others would be far more likely to take the attitude "it's not my job" or "it's none of my business." In my system it's everyone's business to produce net benefits.

[Anonymous Email]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:18 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Mises is describing a two party trade of money for goods. In my system the producer is trading net benefit for money, a three party interaction. One aspect of producing net benefit is the giving of production goods. Another is the realization of net benefit. A third aspect is the paying of money for the realized net benefits. The money in my system does function as a medium of exchange. So in effect, production goods are being traded for money. It's just not in a way we are used to.
>
>>Could you please tell us how your system works?
>
> I am trying to but the concepts are not ones with which you are familiar. The best / easiest way to understand is to read (or listen to) my novel "Invisible Hand" at http://www.nopom.info/ (no ads there).
>
>>Who is the third party you refer to?
>
> The third party is the payer(s) whose role is to decide how much benefit (and / or harm) has come about as a consequence of human actions. Obviously that judgment is bound to be subjective which is why a free market "regulates" payments. (Exactly in the fashion that a free market with physical object money would work if there could be a true free market with physical object money.)
>
>>Who decides how much benefit there is and therefore how much money is earned? What if people disagree about what is beneficial or how >much so?
>
> People will disagree. That's the nature of a free market. The disagreements are handled just as prices are handled when people disagree about the "value" (to them at the moment) in a free market. If a producer disagrees, he can do something else or work where different payers will be judging his efforts. If a consumer disagrees, he can deny the payers his approval or express disapproval.

So who gets to be a payer? What if someone else wants to be the payer
instead and they disagree? How does it work? Isn't adding an extra
person to make some decision for every economic transaction a huge
amount of additional labor?

>>How are conflicts handled when two people want the same free non-luxury? How is scarcity handled for non-luxuries?
>
> The owner of the non-luxury is completely free to do with it as he likes. Just because someone wants that item does not put the owner under any obligation. So each of the persons who would like to consume (necessity) or use (production good) the non-luxury can make his case to the owner of that kind of good.

So instead of going to the store to buy bread, now I may to argue with
people about why I need bread? How is that not hell?

Today, I can trade money for bread. If the person wants bread again,
they can use that money to buy bread. But in your system, money
doesn't get you bread. If you give up bread you get money, but you
cannot give up money to get bread again (or to get any other
non-luxury).

So for exchange of non-luxuries, like your bread for my sugar, we'll
have to barter...?

> Scarcity of necessities results in the owners "rationing" their property. The behavior is a result of the market, of course. Doing so maximizes their income. There is no imposed rationing by any organization. Naturally, the monetary rewards for reducing the scarcity would be greater (free markets work that way) than for other production while the scarcity lasted depending on how important the effects of the scarcity were.

But because the monetary rewards cannot buy most things, many people
may not be interested.

>>You claim your money is a medium of exchange (for all types of goods).
>>But how is it a medium of exchange for factories? I can give/sell my factory to someone. It benefits him and I get money. However more >money doesn't help me get a different factory, it only helps me get luxuries. I cannot exchange my capital goods for other capital goods via >your money. So aren't you mistaken? Is it possible that you don't know what a medium of exchange is?
>
> The way to get someone to give you a factory is to have a good business plan showing how you would generate large amounts of net benefits. It's strikingly similar to going to a bank or other lender / investor today to borrow money to buy a factory. It's just that you cut out the "middle man" in going directly to the owner. If you have a good reputation and have been very successful at earning money (for yourself and those who gave you capital goods and services) then you will likely get a factory.

But then he gives me the factory and he gets "money", which he cannot
use to buy a different factory. He also cannot use it to buy bread,
timber or most other things.

(By the way, anything can be a production good. There is no objective
definition of which things are luxuries or not.)

>>When a luxury is bought, the buyer's money is reduced and the seller gains money. The total amount of money stays equal. When a non-luxury >is bought, the buyer's money isn't reduced (because those are free) but the seller's money is increased. Therefore your system is inflationary -- >the money supply keeps going up and up. How do you address this large problem?
>
> In my system when a luxury is bought, the money ceases to exist. The producers of the luxury will receive some money soon (within a month?) for that benefit and may receive more later if other benefits become apparent later. The amount the producers receive will be less than the money paid by the purchaser. (For argument's sake we could say one third as much but the actual proportion would depend on the relative amount of luxury production and market forces (like the need for some kind of capital production being unusually high, for example).)

So you're telling me if I sell 100 luxuries I will receive enough
money for them in order to buy 33 equally good luxuries? (And I
couldn't buy anything else with that money.) Who would want to get
into the luxury selling business then!?

>>My guess is you haven't adequately considered the answers to all these questions. I would suggest that you temporarily stop discussing this >topic and come back to it later. However if you really think you have full complete correct answers to all these issues, and wish to continue >discussing money immediately, then it's important that you answer these questions (and many more, these are just to get started).
>
> You are not familiar with my system which is only natural. I would suggest that we come back to this topic later, especially if you first read or listen to my novel. Then you will be quite able to write knowledgably about the flaws in my system. The novel will answer not just all the questions you have raised above but a host of others on issues you have not touched.

You have not persuaded me that your novel is worth my time.

>>I realize some of these questions have been asked before. But I don't understand how discussing your money is supposed to be productive if >you don't explain how your money works.
>
> It is quite difficult to explain how my money works in that we have so very many "unconscious" assumptions about money

Maybe some people do, but I have many conscious theories about money.
I've studied it some. Perhaps I have some assumptions too, but the
conscious theories are clashing with what you say and are the
motivaton for my objections.

If you wanted to impress me, what you would do is say, "I know what
theories you are talking about. I have studied them." And then
continue either "And here is where they are wrong. [Then you refute
Mises and others in major ways.]" or else "And here is why they do not
contradict what I'm saying. [Then you explain what Mises and others
were getting at, and what you're getting at, and how it might seem
incompatible -- and you understand that -- but actually it is
compatible.]"

But you haven't done anything like this. Instead you've shown every
sign of having no clue what you're talking about.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:03 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:

>On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:18 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>>>On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> Mises is describing a two party trade of money for goods. In my system the producer is trading net benefit for money, a three party interaction. One aspect of producing net benefit is the giving of production goods. Another is the realization of net benefit. A third aspect is the paying of money for the realized net benefits. The money in my system does function as a medium of exchange. So in effect, production goods are being traded for money. It's just not in a way we are used to.
>
>>>Could you please tell us how your system works?
>
>> I am trying to but the concepts are not ones with which you are familiar. The best / easiest way to understand is to read (or listen to) my novel "Invisible Hand" at http://www.nopom.info/ (no ads there).
>
>>>Who is the third party you refer to?
>
>> The third party is the payer(s) whose role is to decide how much
>> benefit (and / or harm) has come about as a consequence of human
>> actions. Obviously that judgment is bound to be subjective which is
>> why a free market "regulates" payments. (Exactly in the fashion that
>> a free market with physical object money would work if there could be
>> a true free market with physical object money.)
>
>>>Who decides how much benefit there is and therefore how much money is earned? What if people disagree about what is beneficial or how >>much so?
>
>> People will disagree. That's the nature of a free market. The disagreements are handled just as prices are handled when people disagree about the "value" (to them at the moment) in a free market. If a producer disagrees, he can do something else or work where different payers will be judging his efforts. If a consumer disagrees, he can deny the payers his approval or express disapproval.


>So who gets to be a payer? What if someone else wants to be the payer instead and they disagree? How does it work? Isn't adding an extra >person to make some decision for every economic transaction a huge amount of additional labor?

Anyone who wishes to become a payer may do so and no one can be forced to be a payer.

>>>How are conflicts handled when two people want the same free non-luxury? How is scarcity handled for non-luxuries?
>
>> The owner of the non-luxury is completely free to do with it as he likes. Just because someone wants that item does not put the owner >>under any obligation. So each of the persons who would like to consume (necessity) or use (production good) the non-luxury can make his >>case to the owner of that kind of good.

>So instead of going to the store to buy bread, now I may to argue with people about why I need bread? How is that not hell?

People who give you bread get paid for doing so. That's strikingly similar from their point of view to you paying them for bread except with my system they don't have to care whether you have any money or not. Therefore everyone who produces bread has a motive to give you bread to eat. Or would you rather starve for lack of money in our current system.

>Today, I can trade money for bread. If the person wants bread again, they can use that money to buy bread. But in your system, money >doesn't get you bread. If you give up bread you get money, but you cannot give up money to get bread again (or to get any other non-luxury).

You can buy luxury breads if you'd like. :-) You cannot give up money to get anything designated as a "necessity."

>So for exchange of non-luxuries, like your bread for my sugar, we'll have to barter...?

You receive necessities without having to pay. Producers of luxuries get paid for their production and distribution to people who need them. Therefore the production end provides the benefits of necessities and gets paid. I suggest that this system is much more dependable and one is much more independent with this system than having to acquire money to get necessities.

>> Scarcity of necessities results in the owners "rationing" their property. The behavior is a result of the market, of course. Doing so maximizes >>their income. There is no imposed rationing by any organization. Naturally, the monetary rewards for reducing the scarcity would be greater >>(free markets work that way) than for other production while the scarcity lasted depending on how important the effects of the scarcity ??>>were.

>But because the monetary rewards cannot buy most things, many people may not be interested.

The vast majority of people like luxuries in my experience. Perhaps I am in error about that. It does seem, however, that in the recent recession that the luxury consumer goods continued to sell well.

>>>You claim your money is a medium of exchange (for all types of goods).
>>>But how is it a medium of exchange for factories? I can give/sell my factory to someone. It benefits him and I get money. However more >>>money doesn't help me get a different factory, it only helps me get luxuries. I cannot exchange my capital goods for other capital goods via >>>your money. So aren't you mistaken? Is it possible that you don't know what a medium of exchange is?
>
>> The way to get someone to give you a factory is to have a good business plan showing how you would generate large amounts of net benefits. It's strikingly similar to going to a bank or other lender / investor today to borrow money to buy a factory. It's just that you cut out the "middle man" in going directly to the owner. If you have a good reputation and have been very successful at earning money (for yourself and those who gave you capital goods and services) then you will likely get a factory.

>But then he gives me the factory and he gets "money", which he cannot use to buy a different factory. He also cannot use it to buy bread, >timber or most other things.

That is correct.

>(By the way, anything can be a production good. There is no objective definition of which things are luxuries or not.)

I understood the phrase "production good" to refer to capital goods. I see that you use it to refer to anything produced. When I used the term I used it to refer only to capital goods.

>>>When a luxury is bought, the buyer's money is reduced and the seller gains money. The total amount of money stays equal. When a non-luxury >is bought, the buyer's money isn't reduced (because those are free) but the seller's money is increased. Therefore your system is inflationary -- >the money supply keeps going up and up. How do you address this large problem?
>
>> In my system when a luxury is bought, the money ceases to exist. The
>> producers of the luxury will receive some money soon (within a month?)
>> for that benefit and may receive more later if other benefits become
>> apparent later. The amount the producers receive will be less than
>> the money paid by the purchaser. (For argument's sake we could say
>> one third as much but the actual proportion would depend on the
>> relative amount of luxury production and market forces (like the need
>> for some kind of capital production being unusually high, for
>> example).)

>So you're telling me if I sell 100 luxuries I will receive enough money for them in order to buy 33 equally good luxuries? (And I couldn't buy >anything else with that money.) Who would want to get into the luxury selling business then!?

But you will have no overhead or cost of materials or taxes or need to spend money on necessities. So you will end up with a higher standard of living.

>>>My guess is you haven't adequately considered the answers to all these questions. I would suggest that you temporarily stop discussing this >>>topic and come back to it later. However if you really think you have full complete correct answers to all these issues, and wish to continue >>>discussing money immediately, then it's important that you answer these questions (and many more, these are just to get started).
>
>> You are not familiar with my system which is only natural. I would suggest that we come back to this topic later, especially if you first read >>or listen to my novel. Then you will be quite able to write knowledgably about the flaws in my system. The novel will answer not just all the >>questions you have raised above but a host of others on issues you have not touched.

>You have not persuaded me that your novel is worth my time.

If you are not interested enough in understanding the idea to read the novel that's your choice. I only offer. I don't demand.

>>>I realize some of these questions have been asked before. But I don't understand how discussing your money is supposed to be productive if >>>you don't explain how your money works.
>
>> It is quite difficult to explain how my money works in that we have so
>> very many "unconscious" assumptions about money

>Maybe some people do, but I have many conscious theories about money.
>I've studied it some. Perhaps I have some assumptions too, but the conscious theories are clashing with what you say and are the motivaton
>for my objections.

Do any of your conscious theories deal with non-transferrable media of exchange?

>If you wanted to impress me, what you would do is say, "I know what theories you are talking about. I have studied them." And then continue >either "And here is where they are wrong. [Then you refute Mises and others in major ways.]" or else "And here is why they do not contradict >what I'm saying. [Then you explain what Mises and others were getting at, and what you're getting at, and how it might seem incompatible -- >and you understand that -- but actually it is compatible.]"

I would have to be a mind reader to know which economic theories you have studied. I know almost nothing about you.
If you want me to criticize some other economic theory I am willing but I suggest that it's a topic for a different thread.
I note that my system uses the free market which I believe is described and endorsed by a number of economic theories. So I am a strong supporter of the free market. My system requires private property which I believe is also a feature of many economic theories. I am also a strong supporter of private property.

Now so far as I know, what I am trying to explain is *not* something other economic theories try to explain. So I don't believe that there is anything to gain in supporting my explanation by criticizing any other theory. Perhaps you are aware of some economic theory which does address the existence of theft, poverty, political oppression, and so forth. I would be interested to read about them. (These theories define or otherwise acknowledge the existence of those conditions but do not give economic explanations.) I am ready to be educated in this matter.

>But you haven't done anything like this. Instead you've shown every sign of having no clue what you're talking about.

Which economic theory (or theories) do I have to follow to show that I have a clue?

[Elliot Temple]

On May 15, 2013, at 4:54 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> In my system when a luxury is bought, the money ceases to exist. The producers of the luxury will receive some money soon (within a month?) for that benefit and may receive more later if other benefits become apparent later.

Adding a month delay to many financial transactions would be an economic catastrophe. (Plus the uncertainty about how much you will be paid.)

And if you sell something which provides benefits over 50 years, you can't get fully paid for 50 years. That is utterly broken too.

And worse, if I sell/give you a couch then the payers have to keep checking on whether you still use the couch and how much? What about privacy? And isn't that kind of monitoring expensive?

But that's not even the important part. Here's what really caught my eye:

> The amount the producers receive will be less than the money paid by the purchaser. (For argument's sake we could say one third as much but the actual proportion would depend on the relative amount of luxury production and market forces (like the need for some kind of capital production being unusually high, for example).)

OK I get it now:

An implicit 66% tax on all goods deemed (by whom?) "luxuries" pays for everything else.

Some set of goods will be declared "luxuries" and the people who want those goods will work for everyone else. And for the other goods, they aren't to be acquired by work -- which means, they will be acquired by political pull, by favors, by an anything-goes system of chaos.

Congratulations, you've reinvented a form of socialism.

Maybe we should have known the moment he designed his system with essentially "to each according to his needs" as a driving principle. (He changed the other half to, "from each according to how much they want luxuries".)


Here is an appropriate obituary for this discussion:

> "What was the name of the factory?" she asked, her voice barely audible.
> "The Twentieth Century Motor Company, ma'am, of Starnesville, Wisconsin."
> "Go on."
> "We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn't too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn't we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn't we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there's some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma'am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be?
> Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn't it? Well, that's what we saw and helped to make—and I think we're damned, every one of us, and maybe we'll never be forgiven. . . .
> "Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people?
> Try pouring water into a tank where there's a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor's supper—for his wife's operation—for his child's measles—for his mother's wheel chair —for his uncle's shirt—for his nephew's schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it's theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end. . . . From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. . . .
> "We're all one big family, they told us, we're all in this together.
> But you don't all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day—together, and you don't all get a bellyache—together. What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings is all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can't? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he's replastered his living room? . . . Oh well . . . Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma'am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family,' and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need'—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest among six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?
> "But that wasn't all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory's production had fallen by forty per cent, in that first half-year, so it was decided that somebody hadn't delivered 'according to his ability’ Who? How would you tell it? 'The family' voted on that, too. They voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren't paid by tune and you weren't paid by work, only by need.
> "Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been human?
> We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for 'the family,' it's not thanks or rewards that we'd get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who'd ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn't have to care, or through plain incompetence—it's we who'd have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.
> "There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to 'the family,' didn't ask anything for it, either, couldn't ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn't gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn't come up with any ideas, the second year.
> "What was it they'd always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who'd do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn't it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who'd do the worst job possible. There's no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness.
> The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not—your 'housing and feeding allowance,' it was called—and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn't count on buying a new suit of clothes next year—they might give you a 'clothing allowance' or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn't enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn't get yours, either.
> "There was one man who'd worked hard all his life, because he'd always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan—but 'the family' wouldn't give the father any 'allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn't go to college, until we had enough to send everybody's sons to college—and that we first had to send everybody's children through high school, and we didn't even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular—such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.
> "Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip meals just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn't give him any 'allowance' for records—'personal luxury,' they called it. But at that same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody's daughter, a mean, ugly little eight-year-old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth—this was 'medical need,' because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren't straightened out. The old guy' who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one tiling he couldn't forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.
> "Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less.
> Don't ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there's always ways to get the rotten ones. You don't break into grocery stores after dark and you don't pick your fellow's pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it's to get stinking drunk and forget—you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns?
> Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn't any 'amusement allowance' for anybody. 'Amusement' was the first thing they dropped. Aren't you always supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it's something that gave you pleasure? Even our 'tobacco allowance' was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month—and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies' milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn't fall, but rose and kept on rising—because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn't have to care, the baby wasn't their burden, it was 'the family's.' In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a 'baby allowance.' Either that, or a major disease.
> "It didn't take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker.
> He wouldn't marry, he wouldn't help his folks back home, he wouldn't put an extra burden on 'the family.' Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing.
> But the shiftless and the irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra 'disability allowance,' they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, 'the family' was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in 'need' than the rest of us could ever imagine —they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.
> "God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man's dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected.
> The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of a law of goodness? We were a pretty decent bunch of fellows when we started. There weren't many chiselers among us.
> We knew our jobs and we were proud of it and we worked for the best factory in the country, where old man Starnes hired nothing but the pick of the country's labor. Within one year under the new plan, there wasn't an honest man left among us. That was the evil, the sort of hell-horror evil that preachers used to scare you with, but you never thought to see alive. Not that the plan encouraged a few bastards, but that it turned decent people into bastards, and there was nothing else that it could do—and it was called a moral ideal!
> "What was it we were supposed to want to work for? For the love of our brothers? What brothers? For the bums, the loafers, the moochers we saw all around us? And whether they were cheating or plain incompetent, whether they were unwilling or unable—what difference did that make to us? If we were tied for life to the level of their unfitness, faked or real, how long could we care to go on? We had no way of knowing their ability, we had no way of controlling their needs—all we knew was that we were beasts of burden struggling blindly in some sort of place that was half-hospital, half-stockyards—a place geared to nothing but disability, disaster, disease—beasts put there for the relief of whatever whoever chose to say was whichever's need.
> "Love of our brothers? That's when we learned to hate our brothers for the first time in our lives. We began to hate them for every meal they swallowed, for every small pleasure they enjoyed, for one man's new shirt, for another's wife's hat, for an outing with their family, for a paint job on their house—it was taken from us, it was paid for by our privations, our denials, our hunger. We began to spy on one another, each hoping to catch the others lying about their needs, so as to cut their 'allowance' at the next meeting. We began to have stool pigeons who informed on people, who reported that somebody had bootlegged a turkey to his family on some Sunday—which he'd paid for by gambling, most likely. We began to meddle into one another's lives. We provoked family quarrels, to get somebody's relatives thrown out. Any time we saw a man starting to go steady with a girl, we made life miserable for him. We broke up many engagements.
> We didn't want anyone to marry, we didn't want any more dependents to feed.
> "In the old days, we used to celebrate if somebody had a baby, we used to chip in and help him out with the hospital bills, if he happened to be hard-pressed for the moment. Now, if a baby was born, we didn't speak to the parents for weeks. Babies, to us, had become what locusts were to farmers. In the old days, we used to help a man if he had a bad illness in the family. Now—well, I’ll tell you about just one case. It was the mother of a man who had been with us for fifteen years. She was a kindly old lady, cheerful and wise, she knew us all by our first names and we all liked her—we used to like her. One day, she slipped on the cellar stairs and fell and broke her hip. We knew what that meant at her age. The staff doctor said that she'd have to be sent to a hospital in town, for expensive treatments that would take a long time. The old lady died the night before she was to leave for town. They never established the cause of death. No, I don't know whether she was murdered. Nobody said that. Nobody would talk about it at all. All I know is that I—and that's what I can't forget!—I, too, had caught myself wishing that she would die. This—may God forgive us!—was the brotherhood, the security, the abundance that the plan was supposed to achieve for us!
> "Was there any reason why this sort of horror would ever be preached by anybody? Was there anybody who got any profit from it? There was. The Starnes heirs. I hope you're not going to remind me that they'd sacrificed a fortune and turned the factory over to us as a gift. We were fooled by that one, too. Yes, they gave up the factory. But profit, ma'am, depends on what it is you're after. And what the Starnes heirs were after, no money on earth could buy.
> Money is too clean and innocent for that.


See also:

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

[Mason, Larry K]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:20 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>On May 15, 2013, at 4:54 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> The amount the producers receive will be less than the money paid by the purchaser. (For argument's sake we could say one third as much but the actual proportion would depend on the relative amount of luxury production and market forces (like the need for some kind of capital production being unusually high, for example).)

>OK I get it now:

>An implicit 66% tax on all goods deemed (by whom?) "luxuries" pays for everything else.

>Some set of goods will be declared "luxuries" and the people who want those goods will work for everyone else. And for the other goods, they aren't to be acquired by work -- which means, they will be acquired by political pull, by favors, by an anything-goes system of chaos.

>Congratulations, you've reinvented a form of socialism.

>Maybe we should have known the moment he designed his system with essentially "to each according to his needs" as a driving principle. (He changed the other half to, "from each according to how much they want luxuries".)

Let's compare a business (retail) owner's situation with physical object money (POM) with that of a business owner's situation with my system of free market money (FMM).

Let us consider "profit" in both cases to be the amount of money the owner has after expenses. We will assume that the items bought cost the POM owner 2/3 of the purchase price and the FMM owner receives less than 1/3 of the purchase price (quite a bit less, actually).

For the POM owner, there are overhead expenses such as rent for store, insurance, interest on business loans, labor costs, taxes (whether store is profitable or not, some taxes will remain), bribes of government officials, extortion payments (protection rackets), advertising, cost of stolen merchandise (by customers and staff), legal fees, licenses and permits, zoning and other regulations, also the need to provide accountants, bookkeepers, and cashiers on staff to keep track of money, government regulations for treatment of staff, negotiations with unions. All these are direct money costs or require hiring staff or doing extra work not directly related to serving the customers.

So for the POM owner, all these expenses must be paid for from that 1/3 markup over the wholesale price of his stock in trade. I will leave it to you what a reasonable percentage of that retail price would remain as profit. (I will assume that figure to be 10% for this comparison).

For the FMM business owner there are no overhead expenses. There is no need for staff to deal with the store's money because the store has no money. There are no government regulations nor taxes nor licenses nor permits. There is no insurance and no business loans. All the money the store owner is paid by the payers can be considered to be profit. So all the work the owner does is directly related to serving the customers.

But hold on there. The 1/3 of the buyer's payment (wherein the money ceases to exist) which would be paid out to the producers of the items bought would be divided among many people who contributed in various ways to the manufacture, distribution, and sale. That's why the owner has no overhead to pay for. All those who provided the building, utilities, goods to sell, police protection are paid by the payers and that money is a consequence of luxury goods production. So let us assume that the store owner gets only **one percent** of the sale price on average.

So we now have a POM owner with 10% profit and a FMM owner with 1% profit. They each go home at the end of the day. Let's compare their expenses at home.

The POM owner is making payments on a home (or paying rent). What percent of the 10% profit does that consume? Let's say 30%. Then there's food for the wife and two children at another 20 percent. He has insurance to pay for on house, car, and life since he doesn't want to have his wife in poverty if he dies. He has health insurance to pay for (either through the business which reduces his profits or individually) and these take another 25% of his profits. He needs to save for retirement (10%) and for his children's education (5%). He has maintenance on the house and "unexpected expenses" which come to everyone. Let's say they constitute five percent. So what does he have left to spend on luxuries? Half of one percent is all that remains of the 10% profit. But wait, I forgot the taxes he has to pay on house, car, and income. So he's actually in the hole. I guess his wife will have to get a job after all. But in that case there will be child care expenses. He's also just one disaster (medical, act of God, or psychological (divorce?)) from a great increase in expenses. His business is vulnerable to the business cycle plus other things. (Most small businesses don't last even five years.) He's got lots of things to worry about.

For the FMM owner, he has none of the above expenses. He can save all of that one percent profit or spend it. So he has twice the effective luxury income of the POM owner. He also doesn't have to worry about his family being in poverty if he dies or a family member gets an expensive medical condition. His wife, being a stay at home mother, is being paid for taking care of the children so she has her own income completely independent of his. He has few things to worry about.

-----

Now I see a lot of socialism (government interference) in the POM owner's life in taxes and regulations but I see no government at all in the life of the FMM owner. I see all sorts of pressures on the POM owner threatening him with loss from other businesses (his vendors), his employees, organized crime, his creditors, and he government. I don't see any of those pressures on the FMM owner. He is free to innovate and run his affairs however he pleases. I see the POM owner working for others, his employees, his banker, his creditors, his family. I see the FMM owner working for himself and able to be completely selfish in how he spends his money. It's nobody's business but his own.

[Jason]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> The POM owner is making payments on a home (or paying rent). What percent of the 10% profit does that consume? Let's say 30%. Then there's food for the wife and two children at another 20 percent. He has insurance to pay for on house, car, and life since he doesn't want to have his wife in poverty if he dies. He has health insurance to pay for (either through the business which reduces his profits or individually) and these take another 25% of his profits. He needs to save for retirement (10%) and for his children's education (5%). He has maintenance on the house and "unexpected expenses" which come to everyone. Let's say they constitute five percent. So what does he have left to spend on luxuries? Half of one percent is all that remains of the 10% profit. But wait, I forgot the taxes he has to pay on house, car, and income. So he's actually in the hole. I guess his wife will have to get a job after all. But in that case there will be child care expenses. He's also just one disaster (medical, act of God, or psychological (divorce?)) from a great increase in expenses. His business is vulnerable to the business cycle plus other things. (Most small businesses don't last even five years.) He's got lots of things to worry about.
>
> For the FMM owner, he has none of the above expenses. He can save all of that one percent profit or spend it. So he has twice the effective luxury income of the POM owner. He also doesn't have to worry about his family being in poverty if he dies or a family member gets an expensive medical condition. His wife, being a stay at home mother, is being paid for taking care of the children so she has her own income completely independent of his. He has few things to worry about.

Who provides food for the FMM owner and his family? Why would they do this?
Who provides a home for the FMM owner and his family? Why would they do this?
Who takes care of his wife and kids if he dies? Why would they do this?
Etc.

Where do the non-luxury goods in your system come from, and why would
anyone provide them?

--Jason

[Mason, Larry K]

If you want to understand the whole system then read the novel "Invisible Hand" (http://www.nopom.info/ for the complete text and MP3 versions of the novel with no ads) or get the Kindle version.

Anyone who wants to earn money can do so by providing (or helping others provide) food to anyone who eats it. They can do it for any reason at all but regardless of their motive they will gain money by doing so. It's a free market between those who produce net benefit (as in by providing food to others) and those who pay for realized net benefits. I am confident you know how a free market works.

Substitute "shelter" for "food" in the previous paragraph.

Again, all necessities may be acquired without money being spent so anyone who "takes care of" anyone else or contributes to that benefit will earn money.

Non-luxury goods (capital goods and services and necessities) are useful in providing net benefits to others. Those who produce such things get rewarded (earn money) when those things are employed to produce net benefits.

It's extremely simple. If you do good things for other people you get luxuries of your choice depending on the relative benefits. It's a reward system.

Compare that with the answers to those questions when applied to the POM owner and his family.

For example, in answer to " Who provides food for the FMM owner and his family? Why would they do this?" the answers are if and only if the POM owner has money he can trade that for food. Therefore, the food owner can gain money by trading food for money. He would do that because he has to have money to live. Naturally, the food owner will demand as much money as possible in exchange for the food thus putting him in conflict with the POM owner who needs to give as little money as possible for the food since he has other needs to meet as well. So the POM owner has access to food only if he has money. Otherwise, he and his family die.

[Jason]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:38 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>> The POM owner is making payments on a home (or paying rent). What percent of the 10% profit does that consume? Let's say 30%. Then there's food for the wife and two children at another 20 percent. He has insurance to pay for on house, car, and life since he doesn't want to have his wife in poverty if he dies. He has health insurance to pay for (either through the business which reduces his profits or individually) and these take another 25% of his profits. He needs to save for retirement (10%) and for his children's education (5%). He has maintenance on the house and "unexpected expenses" which come to everyone. Let's say they constitute five percent. So what does he have left to spend on luxuries? Half of one percent is all that remains of the 10% profit. But wait, I forgot the taxes he has to pay on house, car, and income. So he's actually in the hole. I guess his wife will have to get a job after all. But in that case there will be child care expenses. He's also just one disaster (medical, act of God, or psychological (divorce?)) from a great increase in expenses. His business is vulnerable to the business cycle plus other things. (Most small businesses don't last even five years.) He's got lots of things to worry about.
>>
>>> For the FMM owner, he has none of the above expenses. He can save all of that one percent profit or spend it. So he has twice the effective luxury income of the POM owner. He also doesn't have to worry about his family being in poverty if he dies or a family member gets an expensive medical condition. His wife, being a stay at home mother, is being paid for taking care of the children so she has her own income completely independent of his. He has few things to worry about.
>
>>Who provides food for the FMM owner and his family? Why would they do this?
>>Who provides a home for the FMM owner and his family? Why would they do this?
>>Who takes care of his wife and kids if he dies? Why would they do this?
> Etc.
>
>>Where do the non-luxury goods in your system come from, and why would anyone provide them?
>
> If you want to understand the whole system then read the novel "Invisible Hand" (http://www.nopom.info/ for the complete text and MP3 versions of the novel with no ads) or get the Kindle version.
>
> Anyone who wants to earn money can do so by providing (or helping others provide) food to anyone who eats it. They can do it for any reason at all but regardless of their motive they will gain money by doing so. It's a free market between those who produce net benefit (as in by providing food to others) and those who pay for realized net benefits. I am confident you know how a free market works.
>
> Substitute "shelter" for "food" in the previous paragraph.
>
> Again, all necessities may be acquired without money being spent so anyone who "takes care of" anyone else or contributes to that benefit will earn money.
>
> Non-luxury goods (capital goods and services and necessities) are useful in providing net benefits to others. Those who produce such things get rewarded (earn money) when those things are employed to produce net benefits.
>
> It's extremely simple. If you do good things for other people you get luxuries of your choice depending on the relative benefits. It's a reward system.

What happens if not enough people want luxuries to provide the
necessities for everyone?

--Jason

[Anonymous Email]

This has been covered:

On May 15, 2013, at 1:51 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:03 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:
>

> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Scarcity of necessities results in the owners "rationing" their property. The behavior is a result of the market, of course. Doing so maximizes their income. There is no imposed rationing by any organization. Naturally, the monetary rewards for reducing the scarcity would be greater (free markets work that way) than for other production while the scarcity lasted depending on how important the effects of the scarcity ?? were.
> >
> > But because the monetary rewards cannot buy most things, many people may not be interested.
>
> The vast majority of people like luxuries in my experience. Perhaps I am in error about that. It does seem, however, that in the recent recession that the luxury consumer goods continued to sell well.

I think you know what to make of this crap. (e.g. that it's invalid to
assume the same people who buy luxuries at current tax rates will
still buy them at much higher tax rates. and that the man who hasn't
considered this hasn't worked out his system -- instead he's left hand
waving as the solution to some major parts of it)

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:32 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:


>What happens if not enough people want luxuries to provide the necessities for everyone?

Then my system falls apart. It fails. It won't work.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:54 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:

>On May 15, 2013, at 1:51 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:03 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> >
>> > > Scarcity of necessities results in the owners "rationing" their property. The behavior is a result of the market, of course. Doing so maximizes their income. There is no imposed rationing by any organization. Naturally, the monetary rewards for reducing the scarcity would be greater (free markets work that way) than for other production while the scarcity lasted depending on how important the effects of the scarcity ?? were.
> >
>> > But because the monetary rewards cannot buy most things, many people may not be interested.
>
>> The vast majority of people like luxuries in my experience. Perhaps I am in error about that. It does seem, however, that in the recent recession that the luxury consumer goods continued to sell well.

>I think you know what to make of this crap. (e.g. that it's invalid to assume the same people who buy luxuries at current tax rates will still buy them at much higher tax rates. and that the man who hasn't considered this hasn't worked out his system -- instead he's left hand waving as the solution to some major parts of it)

My system has no taxes at all on anyone for anything by any level of government (which cannot own nor spend money anyway).

[Jason]

Don't you think this is a major flaw? Like...a millions of people
starving and dieing and killing each other for scraps of bread kind of
flaw?

Defining luxuries is another problem with your system. I'm not
convinced that such a category even exists. There are circumstances
under which a high power SUV or a private jet will save one's life,
and circumstances under which consuming food can shorten one's life.
But assuming for sake of argument that such a category exists, and can
be adequately defined:

People who are assured that all of their necessities are met commonly
have a preference for luxury, but a specific luxury which does not
involve providing value to others: "free" or idle time.

The literature on this is admittedly anecdotal but widespread. The
welfare queens and the idle inheritors of large estates are virtual
archetypes. But middle class people also display this preference:
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

Note that I regard the whole idea of "retirement" as deeply flawed.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of the "who needs luxury goods if you can
have free time?" meme out there.

Also I think a lot of "luxury" purchases are the result of productive
overshoot. Someone is really only out to "put food on the table and
keep a roof overhead" but because productivity opportunity is both
somewhat quantized and unstable* it is common to produce more than
what it takes to provide necessities simply in order to assure not
coming up short either today or tomorrow. Once this is achieved, and
people realize that they have indeed produced more than is required
for necessities, then people then spend the excess money on
"luxuries".

* By quantized I mean, for example, most jobs have a set number of
hours per week or a set amount of expected productivity. Fall below
that (even if you don't need/want the excess money) and you won't get
hired or will get fired. Or most businesses cannot simply start
turning away customers once the owner has earned enough to feed
himself for the day. He needs to service all comers, in order to
remain a viable business tomorrow.

* By unstable I mean, for example, wage workers can be layed off and
business owners can suffer a downturn in demand or raw material supply
problems. Even if one could assure a productivity level that just
covers necessities today, something unexpected may change it tomorrow.

* These two factors combine to provide a strong incentive toward
productive overshoot, even when one does not desire money to purchase
"luxuries".

A system like yours which provides everyone's "necessities" provides
no incentive for productive overshoot.

--Jason

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:29 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:32 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>What happens if not enough people want luxuries to provide the necessities for everyone?
>
>> Then my system falls apart. It fails. It won't work.

>Don't you think this is a major flaw? Like...a millions of people starving and dieing and killing each other for scraps of bread kind of flaw?

Like the starvation in Ireland in the 1800s? While Ireland exported food.

>Defining luxuries is another problem with your system. I'm not convinced that such a category even exists. There are circumstances under which a high power SUV or a private jet will save one's life, and circumstances under which consuming food can shorten one's life.
But assuming for sake of argument that such a category exists, and can be adequately defined:

" Designated as luxuries." I don't think there are any definitions of "luxuries" which would always indicate how a product would be designated.

>People who are assured that all of their necessities are met commonly have a preference for luxury, but a specific luxury which does not involve providing value to others: "free" or idle time.

So what's the problem? What proportion of the population would rather be idle than doing interesting work helping other people? You are aware that lots of old, retired folks do volunteer work.

>The literature on this is admittedly anecdotal but widespread. The welfare queens and the idle inheritors of large estates are virtual archetypes. But middle class people also display this preference:
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

In my experience, those in poverty have to work pretty hard to keep going. Have middle class people no pride? Do they not want to show they are better than their neighbors? I seem to remember that most people want respect from others.

>Note that I regard the whole idea of "retirement" as deeply flawed.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of the "who needs luxury goods if you can have free time?" meme out there.

I don't like retirement either. Work, for me, was more fun but then I enjoyed my job.

>Also I think a lot of "luxury" purchases are the result of productive overshoot. Someone is really only out to "put food on the table and keep a roof overhead" but because productivity opportunity is both somewhat quantized and unstable* it is common to produce more than what it takes to provide necessities simply in order to assure not coming up short either today or tomorrow. Once this is achieved, and people realize that they have indeed produced more than is required for necessities, then people then spend the excess money on "luxuries".

So why do people run up big debts on their credit cards and try to buy such expensive houses? It seems to me that they like luxuries.

>* By quantized I mean, for example, most jobs have a set number of hours per week or a set amount of expected productivity. Fall below that (even if you don't need/want the excess money) and you won't get hired or will get fired. Or most businesses cannot simply start turning away customers once the owner has earned enough to feed himself for the day. He needs to service all comers, in order to remain a viable business tomorrow.

>* By unstable I mean, for example, wage workers can be layed off and business owners can suffer a downturn in demand or raw material supply problems. Even if one could assure a productivity level that just covers necessities today, something unexpected may change it tomorrow.

>* These two factors combine to provide a strong incentive toward productive overshoot, even when one does not desire money to purchase "luxuries".

>A system like yours which provides everyone's "necessities" provides no incentive for productive overshoot.

Do people today in the U.S. or Europe believe that if they don't work they will starve or be homeless or have nothing to wear? It seems to me that people feel that they can get welfare if they have to. So don't people already believe in those nations that the necessities will be provided?

You see, I don't think people have to be coerced to work to help others. I think there are very many motives to work which are shared by almost everyone. I think a life on just the necessities would be very boring without work to do. It would feel like prison to me.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:29 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:32 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What happens if not enough people want luxuries to provide the necessities for everyone?
>
> Then my system falls apart. It fails. It won't work.

JASON'S MATERIAL

Don't you think this is a major flaw? Like...a millions of people starving and dieing and killing each other for scraps of bread kind of flaw?

People who are assured that all of their necessities are met commonly have a preference for luxury, but a specific luxury which does not involve providing value to others: "free" or idle time.

Note that I regard the whole idea of "retirement" as deeply flawed.
Nevertheless, there's a lot of the "who needs luxury goods if you can have free time?" meme out there.

Also I think a lot of "luxury" purchases are the result of productive overshoot. Someone is really only out to "put food on the table and keep a roof overhead" but because productivity opportunity is both somewhat quantized and unstable* it is common to produce more than what it takes to provide necessities simply in order to assure not coming up short either today or tomorrow. Once this is achieved, and people realize that they have indeed produced more than is required for necessities, then people then spend the excess money on "luxuries".

* By quantized I mean, for example, most jobs have a set number of hours per week or a set amount of expected productivity. Fall below that (even if you don't need/want the excess money) and you won't get hired or will get fired. Or most businesses cannot simply start turning away customers once the owner has earned enough to feed himself for the day. He needs to service all comers, in order to remain a viable business tomorrow.

* By unstable I mean, for example, wage workers can be layed off and business owners can suffer a downturn in demand or raw material supply problems. Even if one could assure a productivity level that just covers necessities today, something unexpected may change it tomorrow.

* These two factors combine to provide a strong incentive toward productive overshoot, even when one does not desire money to purchase "luxuries".

A system like yours which provides everyone's "necessities" provides no incentive for productive overshoot.

END JASON'S MATERIAL

Food for thought: what proportion of the economic activity (workforce and resources) of the U.S. (or other industrialized nation) is required to produce the necessities for that nation? (Naturally, that includes producing the capital goods required as well as the necessities themselves.) We know that the U.S. spends quite a lot on the military and on tobacco and alcohol and soft drinks not to mention rock and roll and movies. Certainly the production of necessities would not consume more than one third of our gross domestic product. We also use about a quarter of our work force administering money. (Accountants, cashiers, bookkeepers, banks, insurance, stock markets, and guards, for example.) So in my system there could be about a quarter of the healthy workforce age population just lying around not consuming luxuries and we'd still be a lot better off.

[Jason]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:29 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:32 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What happens if not enough people want luxuries to provide the necessities for everyone?
>>
>>> Then my system falls apart. It fails. It won't work.
>
>>Don't you think this is a major flaw? Like...a millions of people starving and dieing and killing each other for scraps of bread kind of flaw?
>
> Like the starvation in Ireland in the 1800s? While Ireland exported food.
>
>>Defining luxuries is another problem with your system. I'm not convinced that such a category even exists. There are circumstances under which a high power SUV or a private jet will save one's life, and circumstances under which consuming food can shorten one's life.
> But assuming for sake of argument that such a category exists, and can be adequately defined:
>
> " Designated as luxuries." I don't think there are any definitions of "luxuries" which would always indicate how a product would be designated.
>
>>People who are assured that all of their necessities are met commonly have a preference for luxury, but a specific luxury which does not involve providing value to others: "free" or idle time.
>
> So what's the problem? What proportion of the population would rather be idle than doing interesting work helping other people? You are aware that lots of old, retired folks do volunteer work.
>
>>The literature on this is admittedly anecdotal but widespread. The welfare queens and the idle inheritors of large estates are virtual archetypes. But middle class people also display this preference:
> http://earlyretirementextreme.com/
> http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
>
> In my experience, those in poverty have to work pretty hard to keep going. Have middle class people no pride? Do they not want to show they are better than their neighbors? I seem to remember that most people want respect from others.

Is respect from others a necessity, or a luxury?

>
>>Note that I regard the whole idea of "retirement" as deeply flawed.
> Nevertheless, there's a lot of the "who needs luxury goods if you can have free time?" meme out there.
>
> I don't like retirement either. Work, for me, was more fun but then I enjoyed my job.
>
>>Also I think a lot of "luxury" purchases are the result of productive overshoot. Someone is really only out to "put food on the table and keep a roof overhead" but because productivity opportunity is both somewhat quantized and unstable* it is common to produce more than what it takes to provide necessities simply in order to assure not coming up short either today or tomorrow. Once this is achieved, and people realize that they have indeed produced more than is required for necessities, then people then spend the excess money on "luxuries".
>
> So why do people run up big debts on their credit cards and try to buy such expensive houses? It seems to me that they like luxuries.

How expensive does your house have to be for it to turn from a
necessity into a luxury? Is this the same in all regions or different?
Who decides?

>
>>* By quantized I mean, for example, most jobs have a set number of hours per week or a set amount of expected productivity. Fall below that (even if you don't need/want the excess money) and you won't get hired or will get fired. Or most businesses cannot simply start turning away customers once the owner has earned enough to feed himself for the day. He needs to service all comers, in order to remain a viable business tomorrow.
>
>>* By unstable I mean, for example, wage workers can be layed off and business owners can suffer a downturn in demand or raw material supply problems. Even if one could assure a productivity level that just covers necessities today, something unexpected may change it tomorrow.
>
>>* These two factors combine to provide a strong incentive toward productive overshoot, even when one does not desire money to purchase "luxuries".
>
>>A system like yours which provides everyone's "necessities" provides no incentive for productive overshoot.
>
> Do people today in the U.S. or Europe believe that if they don't work they will starve or be homeless or have nothing to wear? It seems to me that people feel that they can get welfare if they have to. So don't people already believe in those nations that the necessities will be provided?

It's not binary. Not starving today is not the same as eating a low
quality diet that may shorten one's life, yet both may reflect a lack
of "necessities".

>
> You see, I don't think people have to be coerced to work to help others. I think there are very many motives to work which are shared by almost everyone. I think a life on just the necessities would be very boring without work to do. It would feel like prison to me.

You may not be aware that the term "coerced" has a very specific
meaning on this list. It is a meaning with which I disagree, and which
I believe is highly unusual.

Can you explain precisely what you meant by "coerced" above?

--Jason

[Anonymous Email]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:29 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:32 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What happens if not enough people want luxuries to provide the necessities for everyone?
>>
>>> Then my system falls apart. It fails. It won't work.
>
>>Don't you think this is a major flaw? Like...a millions of people starving and dieing and killing each other for scraps of bread kind of flaw?
>
> Like the starvation in Ireland in the 1800s? While Ireland exported food.

That sucked and the problems had nothing to do with capitalism. So why
are you trying to destroy capitalism?

So your system would be "like" Ireland 1800s, but modern mixed
semi-capitalism does better than that, and actual capitalism would be
even better...

Capitalism solves problems like this, which are caused by
anti-capitalist stuff, yet you seem to be using them as an argument
against capitalism. Why don't you just go ahead and blame starvation
in Russia on capitalism? That would be no better than what you said.
That is the quality of your thinking and posts.

IMO you should be banned now since you persist on talking about this
one thing badly and there's no point.

And you're trolling people into being like "wtf that's such a huge
evil factual falsehood, i've got to contradict that". this shouldn't
be the type of list where we're on patrol duty for crap like that, nor
the kind of list where people say such awful things unchallenged.


PS note that after so many posts Larry still has not said what a
luxury is (despite being asked). no general principle and no examples
either. we still don't know if ice cream is a luxury, if a macbook is
a luxury, if white bread is a luxury, if a *soft* pillow is a luxury,
if a bike is a luxury, if raspberries are a luxury, if a car is a
luxury, if a safe car is a luxury, if enough gas to drive more than
50mph is a luxury, and so on and so forth. and if it changes over
time, how are decisions made about changing it? what if people
disagree? etc etc

i'm kind of past caring but the point is if he won't even answer basic
questions after tons of posts, and would rather make very short
accusations about ireland that he doesn't try to explain in any
detail, isn't that making the list worse? where is the value?

[Anonymous Email]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> You see, I don't think people have to be coerced to work to help others.

They can just be altruistic out of the ignorance of their hearts.

(Jason, he means libertarian-coerced. And he means "fuck Ayn Rand
because [no argument given]")

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:49 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:29 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>The literature on this is admittedly anecdotal but widespread. The welfare queens and the idle inheritors of large estates are virtual archetypes. But middle class people also display this preference:
>>> http://earlyretirementextreme.com/
>>> http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
>
>> In my experience, those in poverty have to work pretty hard to keep going. Have middle class people no pride? Do they not want to show they are better than their neighbors? I seem to remember that most people want respect from others.

>Is respect from others a necessity, or a luxury?

It's a motivating factor. It's not a product that someone else can sell to you. People who have power can punish displays of a lack of respect (as in the courtroom).

>How expensive does your house have to be for it to turn from a necessity into a luxury? Is this the same in all regions or different?
Who decides?

I would think the qualities in a house which would indicate luxury status would include extra rooms, fine furniture, and niceties (garbage disposal, hot tub, and such). I should think the owner could decide. Do you know of any reason why that could not be left up to the owner?

>> Do people today in the U.S. or Europe believe that if they don't work they will starve or be homeless or have nothing to wear? It seems to me that people feel that they can get welfare if they have to. So don't people already believe in those nations that the necessities will be provided?

>It's not binary. Not starving today is not the same as eating a low quality diet that may shorten one's life, yet both may reflect a lack of "necessities".

Nutrition which shortens one's life is not providing the necessities for that individual. Does the food provided contain so few nutrients that those who eat it are malnourished?

>
>> You see, I don't think people have to be coerced to work to help others. I think there are very many motives to work which are shared by almost everyone. I think a life on just the necessities would be very boring without work to do. It would feel like prison to me.

>You may not be aware that the term "coerced" has a very specific meaning on this list. It is a meaning with which I disagree, and which I believe is highly unusual.

>Can you explain precisely what you meant by "coerced" above?

Required to work on pain of suffering physical harm or imprisonment in this particular case. "If you don't work you get no food (or some other necessity)" would be the individual's choices imposed by the (nation, government, economy, society, conditions of employment). Things like embarrassment or a monetary fine would not qualify as coercion. There must be a physical harm or removal of freedom to act component.

I have not run across any definition of the term "coercion" in my BoI readings as yet. Please let me know the local convention.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:51 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:

>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:29 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:32 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>What happens if not enough people want luxuries to provide the necessities for everyone?
>>
>>>> Then my system falls apart. It fails. It won't work.
>
>>>Don't you think this is a major flaw? Like...a millions of people starving and dieing and killing each other for scraps of bread kind of flaw?
>
>> Like the starvation in Ireland in the 1800s? While Ireland exported food.

>That sucked and the problems had nothing to do with capitalism. So why are you trying to destroy capitalism?

The capitalists of Great Britain (which included Ireland in those days I believe) exported grain from Ireland during the famines because they could get a better price for it. It seems to me that is an aspect of capitalism.

I am trying to change the nature of our money. My system would produce results quite similar to the ideal capitalist system. (Private property, no government interference / regulation, no taxes, free market, and freedom of choice are among those results of my system.

>So your system would be "like" Ireland 1800s, but modern mixed semi-capitalism does better than that, and actual capitalism would be even better...

My system would be *nothing like* Ireland in the 1800s. That's my point in mentioning it. Such starvation (when food is available) is a product of hard times in a physical object money economy. It is not how my system would react (without central authority of any sort) to such a situation as a major crop failure.

>Capitalism solves problems like this, which are caused by anti-capitalist stuff, yet you seem to be using them as an argument against capitalism. Why don't you just go ahead and blame starvation in Russia on capitalism? That would be no better than what you said.
That is the quality of your thinking and posts.

Capitalism solves some problems and creates others. I want a free market economy which is not available with a physical object money. Capitalists act to prevent free markets while claiming to protect them. Starvation is Russia was also a product of physical object money on some occasions (and other causes on other occasions). Under Stalin in Russia (USSR) it was state policy in some cases.

>IMO you should be banned now since you persist on talking about this one thing badly and there's no point.

I my opinion you have no idea how my system works since you keep misrepresenting both my system and what I advocate.

>And you're trolling people into being like "wtf that's such a huge evil factual falsehood, i've got to contradict that". this shouldn't be the type of list where we're on patrol duty for crap like that, nor the kind of list where people say such awful things unchallenged.


>PS note that after so many posts Larry still has not said what a luxury is (despite being asked). no general principle and no examples either. we still don't know if ice cream is a luxury, if a macbook is a luxury, if white bread is a luxury, if a *soft* pillow is a luxury, if a bike is a luxury, if raspberries are a luxury, if a car is a luxury, if a safe car is a luxury, if enough gas to drive more than 50mph is a luxury, and so on and so forth. and if it changes over time, how are decisions made about changing it? what if people disagree? etc etc

Consumer goods and services not designated "necessities" or "capital" are luxuries. How a particular good or services is designated may change from time to time and owner (provider) to owner. The intended use of a good is also a factor. So it makes no sense to say that a car is a luxury or a car is a necessity. The circumstances under which the decision is made have a lot to do with it. It is not my place to do the designating.

>I'm kind of past caring but the point is if he won't even answer basic questions after tons of posts, and would rather make very short accusations about ireland that he doesn't try to explain in any detail, isn't that making the list worse? where is the value?

[Jason]

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:49 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:29 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>The literature on this is admittedly anecdotal but widespread. The welfare queens and the idle inheritors of large estates are virtual archetypes. But middle class people also display this preference:
>>>> http://earlyretirementextreme.com/
>>>> http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
>>
>>> In my experience, those in poverty have to work pretty hard to keep going. Have middle class people no pride? Do they not want to show they are better than their neighbors? I seem to remember that most people want respect from others.
>
>>Is respect from others a necessity, or a luxury?
>
> It's a motivating factor. It's not a product that someone else can sell to you. People who have power can punish displays of a lack of respect (as in the courtroom).
>
>>How expensive does your house have to be for it to turn from a necessity into a luxury? Is this the same in all regions or different?
> Who decides?
>
> I would think the qualities in a house which would indicate luxury status would include extra rooms, fine furniture, and niceties (garbage disposal, hot tub, and such).

What is "extra"? Is each person entitled to their own room, or do some
people have to share? What about bathrooms? Kitchens?

> I should think the owner could decide. Do you know of any reason why that could not be left up to the owner?

Yeah, if I'm the owner I can consider every conceivable add-on to be a
necessity. My house lacks an indoor swimming pool, which is a
necessity because I need to exercise but I don't like to sweat and I
have allergies that are aggravated by outdoor exercise.

So...somebody better get over to my house and build me an indoor swimming pool!

>>> Do people today in the U.S. or Europe believe that if they don't work they will starve or be homeless or have nothing to wear? It seems to me that people feel that they can get welfare if they have to. So don't people already believe in those nations that the necessities will be provided?
>
>>It's not binary. Not starving today is not the same as eating a low quality diet that may shorten one's life, yet both may reflect a lack of "necessities".
>
> Nutrition which shortens one's life is not providing the necessities for that individual. Does the food provided contain so few nutrients that those who eat it are malnourished?
>>
>>> You see, I don't think people have to be coerced to work to help others. I think there are very many motives to work which are shared by almost everyone. I think a life on just the necessities would be very boring without work to do. It would feel like prison to me.
>
>>You may not be aware that the term "coerced" has a very specific meaning on this list. It is a meaning with which I disagree, and which I believe is highly unusual.
>
>>Can you explain precisely what you meant by "coerced" above?
>
> Required to work on pain of suffering physical harm or imprisonment in this particular case. "If you don't work you get no food (or some other necessity)" would be the individual's choices imposed by the (nation, government, economy, society, conditions of employment). Things like embarrassment or a monetary fine would not qualify as coercion. There must be a physical harm or removal of freedom to act component.
>
> I have not run across any definition of the term "coercion" in my BoI readings as yet. Please let me know the local convention.

OK so you meant something different from what's commonly meant on this list.

Despite multiple definitions, coercion is not a morally neutral term.
It has morally negative connotations. Some other example words with
morally negative connotations are "abuse", or "destruction".

As a result of their built-in moral judgements, it is important to use
such words precisely. I think the most important thing is to avoid
using a morally negative word to describe a situation wherein morality
is one of the items in dispute.

On this list "coercion" is commonly used per the definition at
Elliot's web site here http://www.curi.us/509
"Coercion is a state of enacting one theory while another active
theory conflicts with it."

This may or may not seem minor or technical to you. But you should be
aware that it's a loaded term on this list.

I disagree with the definition at Elliot's web site. Here's where I
explain my reasons for disagreeing with Elliot and others on this list
about coercion:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beginning-of-infinity/OiPirGvsQio/discussion

I disagree with your definition too. Yours blurs the moral distinction
between aggressor and victim.

For example, suppose person A is hungry to the point of being
physically harmed from lack of food, and nearby there is a pantry that
has bread in it, and no one else nearby is currently in the state of
hunger to the point of physical harm. Under your definition, person A
is "coerced" if he is prevented from eating the bread unless he first
performs some work.

But I say that to make a moral determination we need additional
information, like: Who owns the pantry? Who baked the bread? As a
result, "coerced" with its built-in moral judgement is an
inappropriate word to use for the situation.

If person A owns the pantry and person A baked the bread, then he is
indeed the victim of aggression if he is prevented from eating it. On
the other hand if person A does not own the pantry / did not bake the
bread, then he may well be committing aggression simply by eating it.

So I think the term "coerced" here is useless. It obscures rather than
enlightens our discussion about the morality of the situation.

So returning to your statement, "I don't think people have to be
coerced to work to help others..." I would say that I don't think
people must either aggress or be victims of aggression to work to help
others. However, that people have to work in order not to starve is a
fact of reality and our present state of technology.

--Jason

[Mason, Larry K]

On Ann Cockrell <pennywr...@gmail.com> Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:49 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>How expensive does your house have to be for it to turn from a necessity into a luxury? Is this the same in all regions or different?
> Who decides?
>
>> I would think the qualities in a house which would indicate luxury status would include extra rooms, fine furniture, and niceties (garbage disposal, hot tub, and such).

>What is "extra"? Is each person entitled to their own room, or do some people have to share? What about bathrooms? Kitchens?

That's going to depend on the economy, isn't it. What's luxury for 1900 middle class folks in England would not be luxury for 2000 middle class folks in England. It will depend on the resources available to the economy, of course. I would also expect it to change over time. It would also be more by convention than by fiat since there would be no one and no organization which would have any such authority.

>> I should think the owner could decide. Do you know of any reason why that could not be left up to the owner?

>Yeah, if I'm the owner I can consider every conceivable add-on to be a necessity. My house lacks an indoor swimming pool, which is a necessity because I need to exercise but I don't like to sweat and I have allergies that are aggravated by outdoor exercise.

>So...somebody better get over to my house and build me an indoor swimming pool!

It's your house. If you want to improve it go right ahead. If you want someone else to provide labor or materials you will have to persuade them to provide such assistance since you will not be able to give them money and you cannot command them. If they do choose to make improvements and the payers who review the work think that you needed those improvements then those who helped would be paid according to how you benefitted. (I know your question was sarcasm but this is the actual expected situation.)

>>>Can you explain precisely what you meant by "coerced" above?
>
>> Required to work on pain of suffering physical harm or imprisonment in this particular case. "If you don't work you get no food (or some other necessity)" would be the individual's choices imposed by the (nation, government, economy, society, conditions of employment). Things like embarrassment or a monetary fine would not qualify as coercion. There must be a physical harm or removal of freedom to act component.
>
>> I have not run across any definition of the term "coercion" in my BoI readings as yet. Please let me know the local convention.

>OK so you meant something different from what's commonly meant on this list.

>Despite multiple definitions, coercion is not a morally neutral term.
>It has morally negative connotations. Some other example words with morally negative connotations are "abuse", or "destruction".

>As a result of their built-in moral judgements, it is important to use such words precisely. I think the most important thing is to avoid using a >morally negative word to describe a situation wherein morality is one of the items in dispute.

>On this list "coercion" is commonly used per the definition at Elliot's web site here http://www.curi.us/509 "Coercion is a state of enacting one >theory while another active theory conflicts with it."

I have no idea what that definition means. I have no idea how to "enact a theory" nor how to make a theory "active." I have no idea how an enactment can conflict with an active.

>This may or may not seem minor or technical to you. But you should be aware that it's a loaded term on this list.

I appreciate your kindness in letting me know what to expect.

>I disagree with the definition at Elliot's web site. Here's where I explain my reasons for disagreeing with Elliot and others on this list about >coercion:
>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beginning-of-infinity/OiPirGvsQio/discussion

>I disagree with your definition too. Yours blurs the moral distinction between aggressor and victim.

>For example, suppose person A is hungry to the point of being physically harmed from lack of food, and nearby there is a pantry that has bread in it, and no one else nearby is currently in the state of hunger to the point of physical harm. Under your definition, person A is "coerced" if he is prevented from eating the bread unless he first performs some work.

I agree with "person A is "coerced" if he is prevented from eating the bread unless he first performs some work." My assumption is that the person who owns the bread is giving the choice. If the bread belongs to some third party then the situation gets more complicated.

>But I say that to make a moral determination we need additional information, like: Who owns the pantry? Who baked the bread? As a result, "coerced" with its built-in moral judgement is an inappropriate word to use for the situation.

>If person A owns the pantry and person A baked the bread, then he is indeed the victim of aggression if he is prevented from eating it. On the other hand if person A does not own the pantry / did not bake the bread, then he may well be committing aggression simply by eating it.

But in this paragraph there is no second party controlling whether A may eat.

>So I think the term "coerced" here is useless. It obscures rather than enlightens our discussion about the morality of the situation.

My system does not provide a moral answer to this situation. The money of my system has a moral component in that those who decide how much to pay are human beings who base their payments on their own ethical / moral system. So if the owner of the pantry were to give food to person A the owner would earn money thereby. But my system has no requirement either way. The property rights of the pantry owner would be respected, however.

>So returning to your statement, "I don't think people have to be coerced to work to help others..." I would say that I don't think people must either aggress or be victims of aggression to work to help others. However, that people have to work in order not to starve is a fact of reality and our present state of technology.

I agree that human beings must (as a nation, as a society, as an economy) work to produce the necessities (including food) or die. I don't think people should either aggress or be victims of aggression to work. It seems to me that our economies can so easily solve the problems we face in production due to our technologies (backed by and developed by understanding) that there need be no shortage of any basic necessities in any industrialized nation baring natural disaster of considerable proportions. (My system fails if necessities cannot be produced in adequate amounts.)

[Anonymous Email]

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Ann Cockrell <pennywr...@gmail.com> Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:49 PM Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>How expensive does your house have to be for it to turn from a necessity into a luxury? Is this the same in all regions or different?
>> Who decides?
>>
>>> I would think the qualities in a house which would indicate luxury status would include extra rooms, fine furniture, and niceties (garbage disposal, hot tub, and such).
>
>>What is "extra"? Is each person entitled to their own room, or do some people have to share? What about bathrooms? Kitchens?
>
> That's going to depend on the economy, isn't it. What's luxury for 1900 middle class folks in England would not be luxury for 2000 middle class folks in England. It will depend on the resources available to the economy, of course. I would also expect it to change over time. It would also be more by convention than by fiat since there would be no one and no organization which would have any such authority.
>
>>> I should think the owner could decide. Do you know of any reason why that could not be left up to the owner?
>
>>Yeah, if I'm the owner I can consider every conceivable add-on to be a necessity. My house lacks an indoor swimming pool, which is a necessity because I need to exercise but I don't like to sweat and I have allergies that are aggravated by outdoor exercise.
>
>>So...somebody better get over to my house and build me an indoor swimming pool!
>
> It's your house. If you want to improve it go right ahead. If you want someone else to provide labor or materials you will have to persuade them

So to put it simply, there is no longer an economy. You can no longer
trade for what you want.

This isn't a new economic system, it's a denial that any economic
system is needed.

Larry doesn't know what problems trade solves or why it's needed, or
what he's throwing out. That's the worst kind of destructive, reckless
evil. If he had his way, billions would die, the Irish famine would be
nothing in comparison.

And he's not learning anything or listening. Just trying to work for
my death (literally). Ban please.

[Jason]

Your definition of coercion admits no concept of ownership. That is
one of its problems. It makes a moral judgement with no consideration
of relevant ownerships. That's bad.

>
>>But I say that to make a moral determination we need additional information, like: Who owns the pantry? Who baked the bread? As a result, "coerced" with its built-in moral judgement is an inappropriate word to use for the situation.
>
>>If person A owns the pantry and person A baked the bread, then he is indeed the victim of aggression if he is prevented from eating it. On the other hand if person A does not own the pantry / did not bake the bread, then he may well be committing aggression simply by eating it.
>
> But in this paragraph there is no second party controlling whether A may eat.

There may be or there may not be - unlike ownership, the presence of a
second party does not impact the morality of the situation with regard
to A.

Suppose there is a person B who actively tries to prevent A from
eating the bread.
If A owns the bread, person B is an aggressor. If A is prevented from
eating the bread he is a victim. If he manages to avoid or circumvent
person B, he's just defending his own rights to eat the bread. Either
way A is moral.
If A does not own the bread, person B is a defender of his own or
someone else's rights. If A is prevented from eating the bread A is
not a victim, but merely an unsuccessful criminal. If A manages to
avoid or circumvent person B and eats the bread, then A is just a
criminal. Either way A is immoral.

Now suppose no person B is there to actively try to prevent A from
eating the bread.
If A owns the bread and eats it, A is moral.
If A does not own the bread and eats it, A is immoral.

So, there is no moral difference in A's status in trying to eat the
bread, whether B is there or not.

>
>>So I think the term "coerced" here is useless. It obscures rather than enlightens our discussion about the morality of the situation.
>
> My system does not provide a moral answer to this situation. The money of my system has a moral component in that those who decide how much to pay are human beings who base their payments on their own ethical / moral system. So if the owner of the pantry were to give food to person A the owner would earn money thereby. But my system has no requirement either way. The property rights of the pantry owner would be respected, however.

Your system does provide a moral answer to this situation, and it's
(potentially) the wrong one. How? In your system you have said:
No one should be coerced into working for necessities. Meaning, by
your own words:

>>> Required to work on pain of suffering physical harm or imprisonment in this particular case. "If you don't work you get no food (or some other necessity)" would be the individual's choices imposed by the (nation, government, economy, society, conditions of employment). Things like embarrassment or a monetary fine would not qualify as coercion. There must be a physical harm or removal of freedom to act component.

Meaning by your definition of coerced: no one should suffer physical
harm or imprisonment because they didn't work.

Starvation is a physical harm. Person A is suffering that physical
harm if he does not eat the bread. Therefore, your system says he
should eat the bread, *regardless of ownership*.

>
>>So returning to your statement, "I don't think people have to be coerced to work to help others..." I would say that I don't think people must either aggress or be victims of aggression to work to help others. However, that people have to work in order not to starve is a fact of reality and our present state of technology.
>
> I agree that human beings must (as a nation, as a society, as an economy) work to produce the necessities (including food) or die. I don't think people should either aggress or be victims of aggression to work. It seems to me that our economies can so easily solve the problems we face in production due to our technologies (backed by and developed by understanding) that there need be no shortage of any basic necessities in any industrialized nation

Our technologies include physical object money being used to pay for
necessities. You propose taking that away.

> baring natural disaster of considerable proportions.

Which is precisely when it is needed the most. Disasters happen.

> (My system fails if necessities cannot be produced in adequate amounts.)

Cannot is usually a matter of "will not".

One final question: Is your system compatible in parallel with
physical object money, or must it be a complete replacement within a
nation/society/government?

If it is compatible in parallel, then why aren't you & others already
doing it and demonstrating its benefits?

If it is not compatible in parallel, then how do you propose to get
from physical object money to your system? What do you propose to do
to those who do not agree that the transition is a good thing?

--Jason

[Jason]

Why do you think banning is the right response?

I think Larry's ideas are very wrong, but I don't think banning him is
the right answer.

--Jason

[Anonymous Email]

I don't understand. I gave reasons in this post and a prior post.
Jason doesn't discuss them and asks my reasons, which I already gave.
Is there anything to do but ignore him?

I could post quotes of what I already said, but I think that would be
appeasing his laziness/immorality. I could write "i gave reasons, read
my stuff before asking" but i don't think that'd make the list better,
and i don't think jason is good enough to learn and improve from a
post of that type.

Jason also says there is a better thing to do than ban, but doesn't
say what it is. And I don't really want to ask in this case. The way
he said it, I think if he had any good answer he would have offered it
already. Asking will just get a bad answer. (if you disagree, go ahead
and try it)

BTW, what do you think of larry? ban, right?

[Anonymous Email]

that was supposed to be off list. oops lol. well hf.

[Jason]

You stated your desires for the list (that people not say such bad
things and have to be challenged, or that people not say such bad
things and go unchallenged). Banning might achieve those two ends but
does that make it the right response?

I think it doesn't. I think the right response encompasses more than
just two preferences regarding what is said on list.

>
> Jason also says there is a better thing to do than ban, but doesn't
> say what it is. And I don't really want to ask in this case. The way
> he said it, I think if he had any good answer he would have offered it
> already. Asking will just get a bad answer. (if you disagree, go ahead
> and try it)

I could virtually echo some of your quotes about reading my stuff. I
have already discussed "plonking". Did you not read that stuff?

I suspect you did. I suspect what's going on in both cases (and know
is the case in mine) is that we found the other's arguments
unconvincing. We disagree.

The difference between us is that my first response to disagreement is
not to try to attribute the fact that I failed to convince you to some
moral deficiency on your part. That seems to me rather like a form of
ad hominem.

--Jason

[Anonymous Email]

Plonking (as far as you explained it) does not address the points i
raised. You never explained how plonking would address those points
(which i brought up after your plonking explanation, and you never
tried to do this). So i've raised an issue, you haven't offered an
alternative to address it. Nor have you posted a refutation of it
being a legitimate issue.

i said stuff that plonking doesn't deal with. you haven't made any
points that i didn't address. i never disputed that plonking could
basically live up to your claims. but so what? it won't do these other
things that matter too.

so the status of the discussion -- still, even after you've written
this additional post -- is that your position is refuted, mine isn't,
and you still haven't done anything to change that. like i expected.

instead you've accused me of ad hominem, which is an ad hominem against me...

but it's worse than all this because you specifically asked me what my
position was -- after i said it. you didn't ask for clarifying any
particular point, you didn't point out a way my position was lacking,
you just asked what it was in response to me saying what it was. you
didn't give any indication of which part you didn't understand,
nothing to move the discussion forward. that's crap.

you did not point out any criticism of anything i said and ask about
your criticism. you didn't say something was unclear and ask about
that. you just flat out asked as if i hadn't spoken. i did not do this
to you.

you also claim that i'm responding to disagreement. i'm not. you are
apparently evading that i'm actually responding to your posting
history, and to your specific question post which did not argue some
disagreement, but merely asked a bad question that wouldn't do
anything to explain your disagreement or advance the discussion. so
that claim is totally unfair. then you take your ridiculous claim and
run with it, figuring out further implications and then accusing me of
them, despite them being quite nasty, before having any error
correction for your claim. shouldn't you attempt some error correction
before totally misinterpreting? (again this is not symmetric. we have
not established that i misinterpreted anything, just you.)

basically you're now trolling me. i don't really get it. 80% of your
posts range from fine to pretty good. and 20% are absolutely terrible.
why? (i did, however, predict this kind of irrational non-productive
reaction, which is why i didn't mean to send this on list.)

now presumably you'll get mad about this criticism too and write
another terrible post. and accuse me of everything i accused you of.
the main difference will be that what i said about you was correct (as
you just demonstrated) and that the situation isn't symmetrical (as
you haven't noticed). for example, you don't like certain criticism
whereas i don't care. and your argument was tentatively refuted and
you didn't improve it, whereas mine wasn't and still isn't. and i
didn't ask any troll-quality questions, whereas you did. none of your
excuses change any of that, they just reveal your flawed attitude to
responsibility.

[Jason]

The mistake I made was in starting a thread of discussion that I did
not find of enough value in to treat seriously. Perhaps that is some
of the cause of the 20% of posts you consider terrible.

I should have simply stated my opinion that Larry should not be banned.

I am not now nor was I previously "mad".

--Jason

[Anonymous Email]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The mistake I made was in starting a thread of discussion that I did
> not find of enough value in to treat seriously. Perhaps that is some
> of the cause of the 20% of posts you consider terrible.
>
> I should have simply stated my opinion that Larry should not be banned.

What is the value of stating an opinion you won't seriously discuss?
Why would anyone care?

[Jason]

Because silence can be taken by some as agreement with whatever is
eventually done. Stating my opinion removes the possibility of
ambiguity.

--Jason