The smoking gun of teaching scarcity ideology in NYS
Paul D. Fernhout
for "Core Part 1":
"Social Studies: Learning Standards and Core Curriculum"
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/socst/ssrg.html
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/socst/pub/sscore1.pdf
It turns out, New York State Educators are directly promoting the evil
of scarcity ideology. That is the evil which I am struggling against
before we doom ourselves using the technologies of abundance from that
perspective. :-( Related on that by me:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
From page 23 of those NYS educational standards:
"Challenge of meeting needs and wants:
* Scarcity means that people�s wants exceed their limited resources.
* Communities provide facilities and services to help satisfy the needs
and wants of people who live there.
* People use tools, technologies, and other resources to meet their
needs and wants.
* People in communities must make choices due to unlimited needs and
wants and scarce resources; these choices involve costs.
* Through work, people in communities earn income to help meet their
needs and wants."
Contrast that with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs about how people move
from consumptive material aspirations to social and creative aspirations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
"Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein,
Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than
mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled,
stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple
psychology and a cripple philosophy."[3] Maslow studied the healthiest
1% of the college student population.[4]"
And consider what the NYS natives had to say on this:
http://www.marcinequenzer.com/creation.htm#The%20Field%20of%20Plenty
"The Field of Plenty is always full of abundance. The gratitude we show
as Children of Earth allows the ideas within the Field of Plenty to
manifest on the Good Red Road so we may enjoy these fruits in a physical
manner. When the cornucopia was brought to the Pilgrims, the Iroquois
People sought to assist these Boat People in destroying their fear of
scarcity. The Native understanding is that there is always enough for
everyone when abundance is shared and when gratitude is given back to
the Original Source. The trick was to explain the concept of the Field
of Plenty with few mutually understood words or signs. The
misunderstanding that sprang from this lack of common language robbed
those who came to Turtle Island of a beautiful teaching. Our "land of
the free, home of the brave" has fallen into taking much more than is
given back in gratitude by its citizens. Turtle Island has provided for
the needs of millions who came from lands that were ruled by the greedy.
In our present state of abundance, many of our inhabitants have
forgotten that Thanksgiving is a daily way of living, not a holiday that
comes once a year."
And consider part of the way forward for our society:
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
"A basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an
individual basis, without means test or work requirement. ... Liberty
and equality, efficiency and community, common ownership of the Earth
and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress, the flexibility
of the labour market and the dignity of the poor, the fight against
inhumane working conditions, against the desertification of the
countryside and against interregional inequalities, the viability of
cooperatives and the promotion of adult education, autonomy from bosses,
husbands and bureaucrats, have all been invoked in its favour."
And consider thinking from 1964:
http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
"The continuance of the income-through-jobs link as the only major
mechanism for distributing effective demand � for granting the right to
consume � now acts as the main brake on the almost unlimited capacity of
a cybernated productive system."
No wonder it is so hard to make traction on something like a basic
income when kids have drilled into them in first grade the opposite,
that working for a living is the legitimate way to get money, and we
always will spend our lifetimes fighting over "unlimited" needs and
wants. :-(
They also make no distinction it seems between real needs (basic
shelter) and idle whims (a castle), and also ignore that anyone can have
a Virtual Reality castle these days, anyway,
http://www.killertoaster.de/game007.htm
or someday, perhaps a castle in space using nanotech.
"Orbiting 3-D Printers Could Print Out New Space Stations"
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/3d-printing-orbit-could-streamline-space-station-production
So, there is the evil of scarcity ideology amidst abundance being
enshrined in the New York State educational standards. To my mind, this
is the "smoking gun" of how kids are being effectively brainwashed from
an early age into collective suicide by the NYS department of education
where these kids will later use 21st century technologies of abundance
(nuclear energy, nanotech, robotic, etc.) to kill each other fighting
over (mis)perceived scarcity. Related:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/burdened-by-bags-of-sand.html
And:
"Drones Over America: Tyranny at Home"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31gpH6BgPOs
And:
http://www.panys.org/drones-4-25-10.html
"Unknown to many New Yorkers, drones are being flown out of our home
state. Members of the 174th Fighter Wing at the Hancock Air National
Guard Base in Mattydale, just north of Syracuse, are operating 14 MQ-9
Reapers and training up to 200 military personnel on how to keep them
flying."
You ask yourself why New Yorkers are using the tools of abundance like
robots to kill people to ironically enforce a scarcity-based economic
order based on forcing people to work like robots or suffer and starve,
and there you are, the indoctrination starts in first grade.
I'd actually agree at any particular moment, every community does have
limits. I don't disagree with the notion that decisions need to be made
in the context of current limits as well as future projections of growth
or change. The evil is in saying "unlimited needs and wants" (so,
ignoring Maslow) and then in emphasizing "scarce resources" when so many
things are easier to get and cheaper than ever -- ignoring Julian Simon
and other thinkers on technology and society including Native Americans.
Related:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager
Then presumably the standards ignores that the big issues of our age are
using copyright, patents, "trusted computing"
http://www.lafkon.net/tc/
and other means (including war) to create "artificial scarcity". See also:
"Chapter 7: The Enclosure of Science and Technology: Two Case Studies"
http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/162
And to see another aspect of what is ignored about why wealth and income
is so scarce for so many in the USA:
"The L-Curve: Income Distribution of the U.S. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU
"Wealth, Income, and Power"
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Still, just because the NYS Standards regurgitates a common theme in our
society as pushed by mainstream economists,
"The Mythology of Wealth"
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
that does not mean it is all wrong. Also, I have not read the standard
in detail so I don't know if there is some more weaseling later about this.
I liked this section for first grade just before the one I quoted above:
"Places in my community and local region
* Places can be located on maps and on a globe.
* Maps and diagrams serve as representations of places, physical
features, and objects.
* Cardinal directions can be used to locate places and physical features.
* Symbols represent places and can be used to locate geographic features
and physical characteristics.
* People depend on and modify their physical environments to meet basic
needs."
So, the NYS standards, as with, "People ... modify their physical
environments to meet basic needs" has more optimism. And even in the
scarcity section, I liked: "People use tools, technologies, and other
resources to meet their needs and wants." So overall, no doubt the
standards has a bit of a split personality. So, there is a struggle
there? Perhaps "brainwashing" is too strong a term. I don't know what
the right term is for what New York State education department is doing?
Maybe: http://www.thewaronkids.com/ ? :-(
Anyway, I found that while I was procrastinating from filling out some
homeschool paperwork. :-) I dislike being forced to jump through hoops.
:-) Especially when some of them are, IMHO, promoting discord and
indoctrinating children with obsolete economic theories. :-(
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_maynard_keynes/
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are
right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly
understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who
believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence,
are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
I guess that goes for the NYS standards writers, too, slaves of some
defunct economist? :-) Too bad the message of abundance to all of us
"boat people" got lost in the translation (and subsequent genocide)
hundreds of years ago. :-(
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
t...@juii.net
> And consider thinking from 1964:
> http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
> "The continuance of the income-through-jobs link as the only major
> mechanism for distributing effective demand — for granting the right to
> consume — now acts as the main brake on the almost unlimited capacity of
> a cybernated productive system."
This is a great quote for me, as I currently strive to understand why money is a scarce resource for many people (including, what money is). It sort of aligns with my personal intermediate results, which are like this:
Many people (also in developed regions) would work more if they could; they are not lazy, but unemployed or underemployed because of a lack of job offers. The result is, money is a scarce resource for all of them - they are poor. And the reason why money is a scarce resource for many seems to be that machines can produce things cheaper and cause less problems (no state regulations etc.). If those machines would be equally distributed among people, there would be no problem; but only those who already accumulated money can afford machines.
So we have the absurd situation that there are unused resources on the one hand (peoples' work time etc.), and at the same time poverty. The absurdity is most apparent in the fact that all these people, at all times, both want something and can do something. But they are blocked from producing themselves what they want, because they lack the resources for that, while they have other resources in abundance. So more collaboration would lead to more wealth, but this is currently blocked because our only major "transmission medium" of collaboration (money) is a scarce resource, for the above reasons.
Now we could of course prohibit machines, or create a machine tax - but why should we, as without machines there is just hard, inefficient work. Also, we could try to break this by distributing money based on other principles than contribution to production (basic income). But as this seems really hard to achieve on a society level, I thought about alternatives and came up with this:
A solution would be to introduce other "transmission mediums" of collaboration, for example, by using a system of circular barter of time, rights (like right to lodge) and goods. This, in effect, is money generation by the people, not the bank: because the means of value exchange ("money", here work time etc.) are created by the people. While in a bank money system, money is a scarce resource that has to be acquired by selling something, or persuading the bank to grant a credit, and both is not always possible -- as apparent in the case of "unsold work time" above.
----
Now I am nearly sure that this economic understanding is too limited currently; and I am totally sure that I did not find the most compact, precise verbalization for these insights. If you guys can help out with a thought or two, please do. I really want to understand why there is so much scarcity in spite of unused resources, especially among people who resist to fully take part in economic slavery (employment) but at the same time are educated, intelligent, creative and willing to work.
Matthias
Paul D. Fernhout
> Many people (also in developed regions) would work more if they
> could; they are not lazy, but unemployed or underemployed because of
> a lack of job offers. The result is, money is a scarce resource for
> all of them - they are poor. And the reason why money is a scarce
> resource for many seems to be that machines can produce things
> cheaper and cause less problems (no state regulations etc.). If those
> machines would be equally distributed among people, there would be no
> problem; but only those who already accumulated money can afford
> machines.
Excellent way to put it. As someone commented here:
http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1847700&cid=34083272
"also, the old aristocracy, naturally transitioned into the new ruling
capitalist strata - after all, they had the initial capital."
A book that links to that (with a little video summarizing key points):
http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/
> A solution would be to introduce other "transmission mediums" of
> collaboration, for example, by using a system of circular barter of
> time, rights (like right to lodge) and goods. This, in effect, is
> money generation by the people, not the bank: because the means of
> value exchange ("money", here work time etc.) are created by the
> people. While in a bank money system, money is a scarce resource that
> has to be acquired by selling something, or persuading the bank to
> grant a credit, and both is not always possible -- as apparent in the
> case of "unsold work time" above.
While some people dispute whether this quote is true, the concept seems
true:
http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
"""
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin
Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the
colonies. Franklin replied.
"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called
Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of
trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers
to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we
control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin 1
America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was
all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would
mean being free of the Bank of England.
In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its
influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the
Currency Act of 1764.
This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money,
and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.
Here is what Franklin said after that.
"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of
prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the
streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."
Benjamin Franklin
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other
matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their
money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of
the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of
the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME
reason for the Revolutionary War."
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography
"""
Here is a way to still do something like that:
http://www.lets-linkup.com/
Or, another:
http://www.ithacahours.com/
http://www.berkshares.org/
http://rushkoff.com/life-inc-resources/local-currencies/
A big issue with creating new money is: "Who gets it first?"
One of the advantages of open manufacturing, local subsistence
production, 3D printing, home organic gardens, local renewable energy
(home power), and so on is that it breaks through some of that currency
problem because people are producing directly for their family and
friends. But, for now (and maybe always), we still need some larger
scale community and bioregion scale projects that need to be coordinated
somehow with resources collected to make them happen. And there are
resources in one area or another, or some things that are indeed coveted
(beach front property?) that for a time may need to be rationed until we
can come up with ways to make them abundant (seasteads?).
P.M.Lawrence
> Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>
> > And consider thinking from 1964:
> > http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
> > "The continuance of the income-through-jobs link as the only major
> > mechanism for distributing effective demand — for granting the right to
> > consume — now acts as the main brake on the almost unlimited capacity of
> > a cybernated productive system."
>
> This is a great quote for me, as I currently strive to understand why money is a scarce resource for many people (including, what money is). It sort of aligns with my personal intermediate results, which are like this:
>
> Many people (also in developed regions) would work more if they could; they are not lazy, but unemployed or underemployed because of a lack of job offers. The result is, money is a scarce resource for all of them - they are poor. And the reason why money is a scarce resource for many seems to be that machines can produce things cheaper and cause less problems (no state regulations etc.).
in the economy that artificially prices labour too highly. That's what
the Negative Payroll Tax I covered on the "Post-scarcity issues & a
basic income (was Re: Your time is up, publishers...)" thread would
undo.
If those machines would be equally distributed among people, there
would be no problem; but only those who already accumulated money can
afford machines.
arrangement, but it certainly is a problem as things are. But that
tells us that finding such a transition would be a good idea.
.
.
.
mentioned. That is, even at quite a low technological level it's quite
practical to live comfortably with an average work week of 20 hours or
so (with seasonal variations in some cases). Think in terms of how
much of the year is left after "tax freedom day", and how much less
still after covering what goes to rentiers like the financial sector;
that's how about much work is needed just to keep people themselves in
the style to which they are accustomed (or just look at records of
other times and places, e.g. many countries as they were before
colonialism, when they were discovered in the Age of Exploration).
Work that is hard at today's work levels isn't very hard at that
level.
Also, we could try to break this by distributing money based on other
principles than contribution to production (basic income). But as this
seems really hard to achieve on a society level, I thought about
alternatives and came up with this:
>
> A solution would be to introduce other "transmission mediums" of collaboration, for example, by using a system of circular barter of time, rights (like right to lodge) and goods. This, in effect, is money generation by the people, not the bank: because the means of value exchange ("money", here work time etc.) are created by the people. While in a bank money system, money is a scarce resource that has to be acquired by selling something, or persuading the bank to grant a credit, and both is not always possible -- as apparent in the case of "unsold work time" above.
>
> ----
> Now I am nearly sure that this economic understanding is too limited currently; and I am totally sure that I did not find the most compact, precise verbalization for these insights. If you guys can help out with a thought or two, please do. I really want to understand why there is so much scarcity in spite of unused resources, especially among people who resist to fully take part in economic slavery (employment) but at the same time are educated, intelligent, creative and willing to work.
thread. Here they are again: my work (at http://users.beagle.com.au/peterl/publicns.html#LIBRESLN
and
following, or my Henry Tax Review submission
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/05/05/pml-on-tax-reform), that of
Professor Kim Swales of the
University of Strathclyde and his colleagues (in the UK; see
http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/03_jobs/jobs_tax.htm#23feb98a), and that
of
Nobel winner Professor Edmund S. Phelps, McVickar Professor of
Political Economy at Columbia University (in the USA; see
http://www.columbia.edu/~esp2/taxcomm.pdf). Professor Phelps also
wrote a book on the area, "Rewarding Work", which you may be able to
find. P.M.Lawrence.
P.M.Lawrence
.
.
.
> "The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other
> matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their
> money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of
> the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of
> the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME
> reason for the Revolutionary War."
> Benjamin Franklin's autobiography
was out and out lying, at least about "which created unemployment and
dissatisfaction". As soon as those problems surfaced, the British
government recognised them and remedied them by committing that any
and all of those revenues should only be spent in the colonies. That
was over and above cash inflows from soldiers' pay and from trade with
the West Indies and other places that paid for food with hard money.
No, the colonists were angry that they could no longer rip others off
with funny money, not that they were being economically drained
(though that would have built up without the reforms). P.M.Lawrence.
Nate Bragg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
Paul D. Fernhout
Something I read just the other day is that Britain had spend a lot of
money on "The French and Indian War" from 1754 to 1763 as it is called
in the USA (otherwise Seven Years' War):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
"The war changed economic, political, and social relations between three
European powers (Britain, France, and Spain), their colonies and
colonists, and the natives that inhabited the territories they claimed.
France and Britain both suffered financially because of the war, with
significant long-term consequences. ... The Seven Years' War nearly
doubled Britain's national debt. The Crown, seeking sources of revenue
to pay off the debt, attempted to impose new taxes on its colonies.
These attempts were met with increasingly stiff resistance, until troops
were called in so that representatives of the Crown could safely perform
their duties. These acts ultimately led to the start of the American
Revolutionary War.[58]"
Britain wanted to recoup that money used to claim more territory from
the existing American colonies. By declaring independence, the British
colonies in essence got the "benefits" of that war (the murder or
displacement of the French and the natives, and so access to their land)
without having to pay for the war that accomplished that.
However, I think there are lots of arguments that can be made that too
little money impedes commerce. Too much may cause inflation, but too
little keeps transactions from happening, especially in an economy that
is expanding rapidly. Thus the value in creating local currencies or
having Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS).
http://www.ithacahours.com/
http://www.lets-linkup.com/
Jane Jacobs also makes good arguments for local currencies based around
cities, which suggests why the Euro was going in the wrong direction.
Rather than create one European currency, Europe might have been better
off creating local currencies for each individual major city or
bioregion. In the news at the moment:
"The euro's inevitable failure will be horrendous for all of us "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7839188/The-euros-inevitable-failure-will-be-horrendous-for-all-of-us.html
With modern computers, exchanging currency or seeing adjusted prices in
a currency you are familiar with should be fairly easy.
Anyway, the bottom line is that *all* money is "funny money". :-)
Even *gold* for the most part is funny money. People mine gold out of
the ground at great environmental damage to ironically then stick the
gold back in the ground in bank vaults. What's the point? :-) From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank_of_New_York
"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York maintains a vault that lies 80
feet below street level and 50 feet below sea level[5], resting on
Manhattan bedrock. By 1927, the vault contained ten percent of the
world's official gold reserves.[4] Currently, it is reputedly the
largest gold repository in the world (though this cannot be confirmed as
Swiss Banks do not report their gold stocks) and holds approximately
7,000 metric tons of gold bullion ($270 billion as of July 2010), more
than Fort Knox. The gold is owned by many foreign nations, central banks
and international organizations. The Federal Reserve Bank does not own
the gold but serves as guardian of the precious metal, which it protects
at no charge as a gesture of goodwill to other nations."
Paul D. Fernhout
> anything), nor on any copy that has been scanned online. It didn't really
> seem like something he would have written, either; it's completely out of
> his style.
When I quoted it, I did put: "While some people dispute whether this
quote is true, the concept seems true:"
Benjamin Franklin did advocate for paper money of various sorts. That is
discussed here:
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/biography/chap04.htm
Also here, in his words (presumably, it certain has a different style,
as you point out):
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/franklin_money.html
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1726-1750/franklin/paper.htm
"A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of Paper Currency (1729)"
"There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable
than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one's Country; and perhaps
there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult
to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and there fore none
more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in
Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho'
it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more
than they do each other.
Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature
and Necessity o/ a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be
a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my
Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of
thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry
on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be
of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly
detrimental to it.
This leads us to the following general Considerations. ..."
Nate Bragg
On 11/19/10 5:43 PM, Nate Bragg wrote:
It didn't really seem like something he would have written, either; it's completely out of his style.
Benjamin Franklin did advocate for paper money of various sorts. That is discussed here:
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/biography/chap04.htm
About this time there was a cry among the people for more paper money, only fifteen thousand pounds being extant in the province, and that soon to be sunk. The wealthy inhabitants oppos'd any addition, being against all paper currency, from an apprehension that it would depreciate, as it had done in New England, to the prejudice of all creditors. We had discuss'd this point in our Junto, where I was on the side of an addition, being persuaded that the first small sum struck in 1723 had done much good by increasing the trade, employment, and number of inhabitants in the province, since I now saw all the old houses inhabited, and many new ones building; whereas I remembered well, that when I first walk'd about the streets of Philadelphia, eating my roll, I saw most of the houses in Walnut-street, between Second and Front streets, with bills on their doors, "To be let"; and many likewise in Chestnut-street and other streets, which made me then think the inhabitants of the city were deserting it one after another.
Our debates possess'd me so fully of the subject, that I wrote and printed an anonymous pamphlet on it, entitled "The Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency." It was well receiv'd by the common people in general; but the rich men dislik'd it, for it increas'd and strengthen'd the clamor for more money, and they happening to have no writers among them that were able to answer it, their opposition slacken'd, and the point was carried by a majority in the House. My friends there, who conceiv'd I had been of some service, thought fit to reward me by employing me in printing the money; a very profitable jobb and a great help to me. This was another advantage gain'd by my being able to write.
The utility of this currency became by time and experience so evident as never afterwards to be much disputed; so that it grew soon to fifty-five thousand pounds, and in 1739 to eighty thousand pounds, since which it arose during war to upwards of three hundred and fifty thousand pounds, trade, building, and inhabitants all the while increasing, till I now think there are limits beyond which the quantity may be hurtful.
P.M.Lawrence
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <
> pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/19/10 5:43 PM, Nate Bragg wrote:
> >
> >> It didn't really seem like something he would have written, either; it's
> >> completely out of his style.
> >>
> >
> > Benjamin Franklin did advocate for paper money of various sorts. That is
> > discussed here:
> > http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/biography/chap04.htm
> >
>
> I apologize - you've been a victim of my poor phrasing. I had only meant
> that I believed the quotation to be apocryphal, as he would never have
> written those words in that style. I did not intend to imply that he wasn't
> in favor of paper money. Indeed, in a selection from his autobiography, he
> discusses how he was an advocate of the same (although indicating at the end
> that he understood some of the dangers inherent in a fiat currency, which
> Wealth of Nations*):
Actually, the French experience under John Law was still widely known
then. P.M.Lawrence.