Basic Economics and the Money Illusion
Andrew Usher
hear. I've already said much of this in my discussions on the basic
income, but it deserves saying again.
People don't understand economics - and I'll tell you why. It's
because people see the world in terms of money. Doesn't money make the
world go round? Sure; but it's only money. Money isn't wealth or
anything else but a book-keeping tool. That doesn't mean I think money
is bad - on the contrary, unless we reach a true 'post-scarcity'
economy (if ever), having money is clearly better than not having it -
no modern society has ever been able to do without some sort of money.
So if money isn't the answer, what is? What's it all about? The
building blocks of the economy are production and consumption. That's
it - and there is always a balance between them; money doesn't enter
into it. Yes, there are durable goods, especially buildings and other
infrastructure, but that's only a detail and could be accounted for
with a slight modification to the definition of 'consumption'. So for
the remainder of this essay, we will assume that no imbalance between
production and consumption can persist.
What happens if we add one more person to the economy, whose
production is much higher than his consumption? Everyone else is made,
on the whole, better off, since they can either reduce their
production or increase their consumption, whichever is preferable (and
a sane economic system gives them that choice). The reverse is equally
easy to see. Of course, we don't need to add a hypothetical person; we
can isolate any one person - or even a group of people - from the
economy and determine thus whether they produce more than they
consume, and are an economic positive to strangers, or consume more
than they produce, and oppositely are and economic negative. I've just
assumed production and consumption can be compared, even though there
are many goods and services - Is that justified? Yes. There is always
in every economy a relative worth of all goods and services in demand,
which is approximated by the money system; unless the market is
significantly distorted, one can assume that X dollars of good A and X
dollars of good B are worth the same and not run into serious error.
Now, if one doesn't produce anything, one can only be a negative (I'll
from now on use 'positive' and 'negative' as short forms for the two
possibilities). How many people don't produce anything? Many, many,
perhaps a majority of all Americans! Almost all children, retired
people, unemployed people, and those with sufficient wealth abstaining
from productive work, to name the obvious. Housewives, that is women
that do not engage in productive work outside the home, may produce
something but almost surely less than their consumption; the same of
domestic servants. Adding up all these categories surely is a majority
of the population. And of these negatives, the most negative are those
that consume the most, that is essentially to say, are wealthiest. So
the 'bums' and 'welfare moms' that are widely disliked actually
contribute far less a negative than the wealthier parasites. Who are
these parasites? - A numerical majority are Fussell's 'upper middle
class' ( http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:class ), and the jobs
associated with this class; I especially refer to law and finance, of
which most of the positions (at least those carrying six-figure and
higher incomes) have negative worth, for we would all be better off if
society were set up so as to have fewer lawyers, paper-pushers, and
Wall Street 'geniuses' that make millions by bankrupting ordinary
people. Despite their utility or lack thereof those people they
consume much more than we do, and they get more and more over time
because they control the government and all the power centers of our
society; they are the 'money power' that controls both the Democrats
and Republicans.
Nonetheless, despite that negative assessment, the existence of
negative people is a certainty. Just as there is always a balance of
production and consumption, there is always a balance of positive and
negative persons. This is simply because people have differing
productive capacities and differing opportunities for both production
and consumption. It is not possible to
enforce equality of the two; nor is it reasonable to, for it would
imply that if you don't work, you starve and die - no retirement
allowed, and so forth. It is not possible, the great libertarian
affectation is a lie! It's a lie that people get ahead solely on their
own work, it is bullshit! People can not complain, therefore, about
having to support negatives, as it is almost sure that they have been,
and will again be, a negative. But they should complain about those
super-parasites mentioned in the last paragraph, the existence of
which benefits no one but themselves, and causes the ordinary man
(that is lucky enough to have a job) to have to produce more and
consume less than he ought to in a just world.
Now we should all know how racial and sexual politics works in the
modern world, shouldn't we? It always works to promote women and
minorities regardless of justice and disadvantage white men; in every
sort of job white men now face ludicrous difficulties compared to
equally qualified women and non-whites (and sometimes other
'protected' groups). It means that for white men, the criticism in the
last paragraph is multiplied; that the transfer of wealth (as that is
what the difference between group production and consumption is) from
employed white men in the working classes is much greater than it
would be with only those conditions, as we further support the women
and non-whites that, due to various forms of affirmative action, get
more pay, and thus consume more, than equivalent white men (producing
the same) would. Do I even need to mention the numerous 'diversity'
positions with negative economic value? - They are merely a more 'in
your face' illustration of the problem. Racial and gender divisions
are a distraction from the real problem; the feminists have always
represented the upper middle class (or perhaps we should say, the
wives thereof) and the race artists those negroes and other minorities
that want to get into it; class is the only division that matter to
white men but we've let them pull the wool over our eyes. And the
ruling classes have only increased their oppression by adding women
and non-whites to their number.
And this is why I am a socialist and you should be too. The guaranteed
income ( http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income ) which I
support recognises all this that I have discussed. It is made to allow
people to be negatives to the extent necessary, but not farther.
Universal single-payer health care has the same justification, except
that the basic income provides for predictable needs while health care
is primarily for unpredictable needs. A third such program, which I
have not discussed yet and don't think anyone else has, would be the
nationalisation of life insurance. While this is only a minor issue
compared to the other two, there appears to be no argument against it;
and, it has the benefit of allowing us to practically eliminate the
chance that still exists of insurance being an incentive to murder, by
disallowing
anyone to carry more insurance than needed and by keeping the amount
and the beneficiary secret (which does not affect the legitimate
purpose of such insurance).
The main reason for supporting the basic income and universal health
care is that it makes for a more just world. Indeed, it has been
understood for some time that the wealthy should be compelled to aid
the less wealthy by taxation; only the means are different from today.
Besides the numerous and over-complicated direct transfers of wealth,
public schools (why not subsidised day care? - same justification),
toll-free public roads, and in fact all public services priced below
cost or free, are indeed similar transfers of wealth. The basic income
violates no principle that our society is now based on; only FUD
prevents us from attaining it in the near future.
Economics isn't only an academic subject or something for super-
geniuses running the world behind the scenes - it IS the world. And
it's not hard to understand. And we can be free of the ruling classes'
oppression, we can be free of wage-slavery, we can be free of the
increasing precarity of the capitalist world. It can be done and it
starts here!
Andrew Usher
Benj
<snip enormous load of socialist rubbish>
Here's the most important thing you'll ever understand about
economics: Money is NOT wealth. Money is the OPPOSITE of wealth!
Think about it. Money has no value except for the trust of those who
are promising to pay. Silver has value. Gold has value. A house has
value. Ingots of steel have value. Money is paper. You can build a
fire with it. Useful material objects are wealth. Money is just
someone using the age-old scam of "let me hold your valuables for
you!" Do you trust the private "federal reserve" corporation to give
you wealth for their notes? So if you had a bunch of money back in
1960 when gasoline was .25 a gallon and you took it out now to buy
some gas, how much of your wealth disappeared while they were
"holding" it for you? Gosh now gas is 2.50 a gallon. Your hundred
dollars suddenly became ten. So what about those "silver
certificates" the government used to issue? You can trust your
government, right? Go try to get silver for one! They'll give you
some worthless tokens for it that they call coins. The original
promise to pay? Turns out it was all lies.
Of course Andrew Usher is so bright he knows that the answer is to put
these guys who were smart enough to steal the wealth backing your
money, in charge of EVERYTHING you own. Obviously they are smarter
than you and therefore should be the rulers of us all. You on the
other hand if you were allowed to keep your wealth, you'd soon just
spend it on drink or drugs or cigarettes or other destructive
behavior. This is why socialism is necessary, because all of you are
such stupid oafs that if you were given freedom you'd abuse it so
badly that you'd soon destroy the country.
Luckily Andrew is there to save us all!
eric gisse
> Listen up, since this is one of the most important things you can
> hear. I've already said much of this in my discussions on the basic
> income, but it deserves saying again.
>
> People don't understand economics
Thank you for crossposting this to:
soc.men,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Followups set to the appropriate group.
[snip rest of stupidity, unread]
Andrew Usher
> On Jul 22, 10:52 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip enormous load of socialist rubbish>
>
<snip enormous load of paranoid rubbish>
Othe than agreeing with me about money, you show no real argument,
just a bunch of crackpot theory about the big bad government.
Andrew Usher
Han de Bruijn
[ .. snipped everything I might agree with, though off-topic alas .. ]
http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2009/economie.htm
Han de Bruijn
Andrew Usher
So I get one post agreeing with me, but no content? By the way
I looked at your link. Do you actually believe there should be
a 'maximum wage'?
Andrew Usher
Benj
> On Jul 22, 10:30 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:52 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip enormous load of socialist rubbish>
> Othe than agreeing with me about money, you show no real argument,
> just a bunch of crackpot theory about the big bad government.
Lessee. My "system", the American form of government, has been shown
to develop a wild wilderness into a vast and powerful nation that has
come to dominate the planet. "Your" system has been tried on an
equally large scale and shown to end up a total failure which crashed
and burned under the weight of it's own big bad government [USSR plus
satellites].
But nevertheless you seem to think that everyone reading here is
stooopid enough to believe that *I* have the "crackpot" theory and you
have the ultimate wisdom? You greatly overestimate your own powers of
persuasion and intelligence.
You are just one more lefty winger moron.
And you are WAY off topic too.
Plonk!
Andrew Usher
> Lessee. My "system", the American form of government, has been shown
> to develop a wild wilderness into a vast and powerful nation that has
> come to dominate the planet.
The USA's economy is falling apart thanks to the failures of the 'free
market'. We're soon going to have to socialise health-care; I imagine
that's the end of the world (not) for you right wing types.
> "Your" system has been tried on an
> equally large scale and shown to end up a total failure which crashed
> and burned under the weight of it's own big bad government [USSR plus
> satellites].
I've explained that my 'system' is not the same as Soviet Communism
(which nonethless wasn't as bad as you imagine, except for Stalin).
> But nevertheless you seem to think that everyone reading here is
> stooopid enough to believe that *I* have the "crackpot" theory and you
> have the ultimate wisdom? You greatly overestimate your own powers of
> persuasion and intelligence.
And you appear to have none. While I don't have the 'ultimate' wisdom,
I do think I have some. Particularly since no one seems able to
actually
find holes in my theory (unlike, say, creationism which is easy to
shoot
up from any angle).
Andrew Usher
Han de Bruijn
Please _read_ instead of skim: a maximum of (highest wage)/(lowest
wage).
Han de Bruijn
Andrew Usher
> > So I get one post agreeing with me, but no content? By the way
> > I looked at your link. Do you actually believe there should be
> > a 'maximum wage'?
>
> Please _read_ instead of skim: a maximum of (highest wage)/(lowest
> wage).
I did. Your post didn't make it clear that you actually supported such
a law. Anyway, even if you limit it to within a given firm it's still
not much different in practice (since the lowest income at any company
can't vary much within the same economy).
Andrew Usher
Han de Bruijn
Denied. My post makes it _very_ clear. (Your remark between
parentheses
is not quite relevant BTW)
Han de Bruijn
Andrew Usher
> > I did. Your post didn't make it clear that you actually supported such
> > a law. Anyway, even if you limit it to within a given firm it's still
> > not much different in practice (since the lowest income at any company
> > can't vary much within the same economy).
>
> Denied. My post makes it _very_ clear.
This post http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2009/batra.txt does
not make it clear.
> (Your remark between parentheses is not quite relevant BTW)
Why don't you clarify, then, just what your proposal is?
Andrew Usher
eric gisse
[...]
As soon as you realize you are wrong, you'll flee this discussion just like
you fled the thread in which you asserted your ignorance and claimed that
the integral and differential form of Maxwell's equations are not
equivalent.
Andrew Usher
> Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> As soon as you realize you are wrong,
About what?
> you'll flee this discussion just like
> you fled the thread in which you asserted your ignorance and claimed that
> the integral and differential form of Maxwell's equations are not
> equivalent.
I acknowledge that they are equivalent, if continuity is assumed (as
Maxwell did).
Andrew Usher
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Jul 22, 10:52 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip enormous load of socialist rubbish>
>
> Here's the most important thing you'll ever understand about
> economics: Money is NOT wealth. Money is the OPPOSITE of wealth!
>
> Think about it. Money has no value except for the trust of those who
> are promising to pay. Silver has value. Gold has value. A house has
> value. Ingots of steel have value. Money is paper. You can build a
> fire with it. Useful material objects are wealth. Money is just
> someone using the age-old scam of "let me hold your valuables for
> you!" Do you trust the private "federal reserve" corporation to give
> you wealth for their notes? So if you had a bunch of money back in
> 1960 when gasoline was .25 a gallon and you took it out now to buy
> some gas, how much of your wealth disappeared while they were
> "holding" it for you?
All of it. since 1960 is also when the loons started conjuguring up
the EPA, NAFTA, AI-ON-THE-FLY, and PBS World Government.
So after that the only people who even watched the price of
gasoline
that much, was the Reaganauts anyway.