wealth
David Christopher Swanson
The usual complaint with egalitarianism, with redistributing wealth so
that everybody has got the same amount, is that this will drastically
decrease the total amount available to be distributed. (There are
other complaints clustering around the notion of desert, which I cannot
bring myself to take seriously.) John Rawls proposed a sensible
solution: deviate from egalitarianism whenever doing so benefits the
least well-off. An objection might be made that conceivably someone
would be capable of growing richer only in a way which did not help
the least well-off but which did not harm him either. To stick with
Rawls' rule in the face of this objection, one must value
egalitarianism as a means to the equal distribution of power. Imagine
a society in which billionaires do not harm the least well-off, or
anyone at all, by possessing billions, but in which the poor have no
say over the government of their towns, roads, schools, entertainment,
crime-prevention. Or don't imagine it; look at the United States and
see it. Rawls is not simply trying to make the poorest person as
wealthy as possible. He is compromising between that goal and the goal
of making power as equally distributed as possible.
Imagine we accept this bipartite goal. How do we go about it? Let's
say we have a case of a fairly wealthy person earning a bit more. Two
questions arise. First, did something in the action he performed in
order to earn a bit more benefit (increase the wealth of) the least
well-off? Second, would he have done the same action even if he had
expected the profits to be taken from him and given to the poor?
The first question is very difficult to answer. And, what's more,
another question seems to follow from an affirmative answer, viz. Is
the combined effect of the two people's gains desirable? Say the
wealthy person's wealth triples by an action which increases the wealth
of the least well-off by 1%. Is this still acceptable? It is perhaps
appropriate here to recognize how much this talk of the least well-off
person is an impractical notion of use only in the realm of general
ethical theory. What if an action increases a moderately wealthy
person's property by 2% and that of others beneath him, but not the
least well-off, by 50%? Is the 2% change a move toward or away from
egalitarianism? And if away, is it acceptable? Imagine someone's
working out a detailed theory to answer all of these sorts of puzzles.
We would still lack any good means of predicting what results would
follow from what actions, and thus any good means of legislating our
desired ends.
Well, what if we jump to the broadest possible scale and generalize as
much as we can? What if we limit ourselves to the question of ideal
taxation rates, and limit our numbers of tax brackets and exemptions
and taxable activities to a very few? With very little knowledge of
what gains by the rich benefit the poor, we are obliged to focus on
what extant wealth could be made to benefit the poor directly, and to
hope that we do not guess wrong about what benefits them indirectly. A
tricky business. My guesses would without a doubt lead to a far more
progressive tax system than the one we have. But they would be
guesses.
But let's look at the second question mentioned above: "Would he have
done the same action even if he expected the profits to be taken from
him and given to the poor?" Take, for example, an athlete who loves
his game and would play for minimum wage, but who is paid in the
hundreds of millions per annum. Or another whose vanity would be
satisfied by earning some gigantic amount even if it almost all went to
charity. In such cases we need not ask whether by some bizarre cosmic
alignment every last million is benefiting the poor indirectly. We can
take it and use it to benefit them directly. It would seem desirable,
then, to decrease people's desire for extravagant wealth. This would
appear to be the surest road toward a Rawlsian state. And let's not
jump to assuming that we can design a state which expects no greed and
that greed will immediately vanish. Let's hang onto a state which
pretty-much counts on greed. But let's work within that state to fight
it.
Not too many years ago it was quite uncommon for someone to be ashamed
of having been caught failing to recycle packaging or dumping motor oil
in the woods. Today it is often possible to make people ashamed of
environmentally destructive behavior. What if an effort similar to
that exerted by environmentalists were devoted to making people ashamed
of owning anything over (let's take a grotesquely high figure) a
million dollars? If this could be done, could it be done without
negative effects? If people stopped valuing riches, would they start
retiring when they'd earned enough to live on comfortably until death?
And what about the ill-effects of giving all those heaps of cash to the
needy? Wouldn't that just kill all initiative in THEM as well?
Yes, some people might retire, but not many. And even if they all did,
we are still talking about a tiny minority, nothing like the number of
involuntary unemployed we have at present. It is important to keep in
mind that at present the vast majority of the wealth is possessed by a
tiny minority of the population. Moreover there is no reason to be
sure such retirements are undesirable.
No, we would not destroy initiative through an expanded welfare state.
We would provide people with the best in health care, education, job
training, child care, social security, law enforcement, and
environment. Other handouts would be kept to a minimum. (As a side
note, it is worth recognizing that our current government could go
quite far in this direction without altering the tax system or
witnessing a burst of charity, by reducing outrageous direct government
funding . . . of the military.)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that we are going to mount a
campaign, not against racism or sexism or an unjust war or
environmental destruction or abortion or human rights abuses, but
against greed, against the possession of more than a million. Imagine
that we have recruited leaders of the caliber of a Martin Luther King,
that speeches are rattling television sets day and night denouncing the
sin of being a millionaire or a billionaire. What replies would be
made to this campaign? One would be "I did a lot of good for others,
through the workings of the market, in my hard and honest effort to
acquire this outrageous pile of loot." Ah, but we are not opposing the
hard and honest work. We are not even opposing the acquiring of all
the dough. We are opposing the KEEPING of it. Work hard. Earn all
the cash you care. But give it to whomever can do the most good with
it. (And although I am speaking of the design of a society, in
practice the most good might often be done on a distant continent.) To
this the reply is predictable: "I'm only human. Without the goal of
wealth I COULDN'T have done the hard and beneficial work." We will not
reject this assertion. But we will try to alter it in as many cases as
possible. One need not be "only human." One can do better.
DCS
Ron Hardin
David Christopher Swanson wrote:
> The first question is very difficult to answer. And, what's more,
> another question seems to follow from an affirmative answer, viz. Is
> the combined effect of the two people's gains desirable? Say the
> wealthy person's wealth triples by an action which increases the wealth
> of the least well-off by 1%. Is this still acceptable? It is perhaps
> appropriate here to recognize how much this talk of the least well-off
> person is an impractical notion of use only in the realm of general
> ethical theory. What if an action increases a moderately wealthy
> person's property by 2% and that of others beneath him, but not the
> least well-off, by 50%? Is the 2% change a move toward or away from
> egalitarianism? And if away, is it acceptable? Imagine someone's
> working out a detailed theory to answer all of these sorts of puzzles.
> We would still lack any good means of predicting what results would
> follow from what actions, and thus any good means of legislating our
> desired ends.
I don't see why I can't have all the money, and everybody else none.
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Larisa Migachyov
David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: The usual complaint with egalitarianism, with redistributing wealth so
The problem is that people are greedy, anyway. If they can't earn wealth
by doing good things(as they can with the current US system), they will
steal, cheat, and hide. This will make honest people miserable, and
dishonest people happy and rich. The poor people, when given money that
they didn't earn, will not want to work, but will only want handouts.
This will considerably decrease the productivity of the society.
In Socialist Russia, a system very much like the above in goals existed.
The result was that everyone stole. It was impossible to get money
through educating yourself, being productive, and doing good for
society. My father was a Ph.D., and involved in interesting and useful
work. Yet he earned less than the average grocery store salesperson who
could steal food from his/her job. This is not an egalitarian system.
Trying to enforce the equality will lead to the enrichment of those who
steal the best, rather than those who are most educated and work to
improve our lives.
While in the system we've got now, it is still easier to get rich through
stealing, at least it is possible to get rich through hard work and
productivity. Very few people are so noble that they will go through the
hard work of starting a business, financing it, keeping it afloat, all to
benefit the poor, some of whom have never worked a day in their lives. I
know I'm not. I'm not a thief, but I'm not a saint either. If I am
going to work 80-hour weeks to run a medical-device business, I want to
get something out of it. Inventing a new device, engineering it,
changing it, marketing it, and selling it, is very hard work. Few people
will want to go through it for nothing.
Larisa
Maynard Handley
In article <E6F5v...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
> Not too many years ago it was quite uncommon for someone to be ashamed
> of having been caught failing to recycle packaging or dumping motor oil
> in the woods. Today it is often possible to make people ashamed of
> environmentally destructive behavior. What if an effort similar to
> that exerted by environmentalists were devoted to making people ashamed
> of owning anything over (let's take a grotesquely high figure) a
> million dollars? If this could be done, could it be done without
> negative effects? If people stopped valuing riches, would they start
> retiring when they'd earned enough to live on comfortably until death?
> And what about the ill-effects of giving all those heaps of cash to the
> needy? Wouldn't that just kill all initiative in THEM as well?
>
Wow! And people doubt Nietzche's theory of how the weak guilted the
powerful into giving up their power.
Your time is probably coming David. This seems the logical succession to
society making polygamy illegal so as to benefit low status males who
can't otherwise get wives. Now prevent the high status males from even
getting mistresses by wiping out their high status.
As a minor strategic point, you might want to start your campaign by
destroying the ability to inherit wealth, either overtly or covertly
through dodges like foundations and job offers. IMHO this is a
substantially more worrisome issue than your buggaboo. Good luck---you'll
discover people are surprisingly reluctant to give up the advantages they
have bought their children.
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Ted Samsel
Ron Hardin (r...@research.att.com) wrote:
: David Christopher Swanson wrote:
: > The first question is very difficult to answer. And, what's more,
: > another question seems to follow from an affirmative answer, viz. Is
: > the combined effect of the two people's gains desirable? Say the
: > wealthy person's wealth triples by an action which increases the wealth
: > of the least well-off by 1%. Is this still acceptable? It is perhaps
: > appropriate here to recognize how much this talk of the least well-off
: > person is an impractical notion of use only in the realm of general
: > ethical theory. What if an action increases a moderately wealthy
: > person's property by 2% and that of others beneath him, but not the
: > least well-off, by 50%? Is the 2% change a move toward or away from
: > egalitarianism? And if away, is it acceptable? Imagine someone's
: > working out a detailed theory to answer all of these sorts of puzzles.
: > We would still lack any good means of predicting what results would
: > follow from what actions, and thus any good means of legislating our
: > desired ends.
: I don't see why I can't have all the money, and everybody else none.
Been playing MONOPOLY, I gather, while reading UNCLE SCROOGE comic
books, eh?
OBMovie/Book: B Traven's TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE..
"Nobody messes with Fred C Dobbs!"
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Jim Hartley
You know, David is becoming one of the best arguments for requiring a
liberal arts education I have ever seen. If only David had been required
to take a small dose of economics, just a tiny little introductory
course, he might perhaps be able to see the problems in his own argument.
I won't bother refuting any of it though, because the last time I tried
to talk to David about Economics, he just wandered off into the netherlands.
The Mandatory Book Reference: Clancy, _Without Remorse_
--
Jim Hartley
jhar...@mtholyoke.edu
Wolfgang Behr
What you are speaking about, is the democratic state as a modern
institution and how to improve it - why not - with a moral campaign. I
agree, that a situtation, where some people are very rich and a lot of
people don´t even have the minimal suppositions for a good life, is
unacceptable. I think, to see this problem, we don´t need
egalitarianism, which I can only understand as valid in an immaterial
meaning (where its origin is to find: in front of God we are all equal).
In today´s globalized culture the state is a particularistic appearance,
even if its name is USA. On the other hand, the civilisation of mankind
has reached a height, which has been unimaginable in former ages and is
even hardly to imagine today. When persons can live for some months in a
station in outer space, why this civilisation can´t establish conditions
by its innovative potentials, which gives every person on our
home-"space station" earth the possibility to form his own life.
Such a living - basing on individual political independence - could not
replace modern institutions like schools, health care, police and so on.
In my conception it is a completion of modern society and shall spread
the positive form of modernity over mankind. After a period of
change-over it could bring the questions of rich and poor, of powerful
and powerless to a smaller level, as they still have today (and had much
more in former periods).
The idea of modern institutions (perhaps starting with Hobbes) is to
improve the coexistence of men without changing their moral "equipment"
(which seems to be impossible). As we know by Kant, the immoralist can´t
make his maximes to a common law without a contradiction in itself. I
think both is necessary: to give people a moral education and to create
new, innovative institutions, which give the existing world-society an
appropriate political order! Doing this, we can base on the acquisitions
of modern times, but we have to exceed them.
In my country (Germany) happened only 50 - 60 years ago a cruel rebound
of political modernity (which was executed with most modern means of
mass-influence). So I feel a vivid necessity to change the order of
societies in a way to definitively prevent such occurrences. To set up a
kind of conditions that all over the world the individual men form their
life out of their own thinking and their own power is the most important
step to this object.
===>>> STRING - World-politics for Individuals
Ron Hardin
Ted Samsel wrote:
> : I don't see why I can't have all the money, and everybody else none.
>
> Been playing MONOPOLY, I gather, while reading UNCLE SCROOGE comic
> books, eh?
The trouble is, you can't spend any, or somebody else will get some.
David Christopher Swanson
Gee, Jim is helpful. I won't bother explaining how he's
helpful, because ... well, just because.
Last time I was told I needed an introductory course it was in
Creationism.
DCS
David Christopher Swanson
For a revised version of this post, which, among other things,
tries to guess at what some of the more likely objections might
be, see my webpage at http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu.
DCS
David Christopher Swanson
David Christopher Swanson
David Christopher Swanson
In article <5fg5vo$j...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
> Maynard Handley (hand...@apple.com) wrote in article <handleym-030...@handma.apple.com> <pre><blink>
> Your time is probably coming David. This seems the logical succession to
> ]society making polygamy illegal so as to benefit low status males who
> ]can't otherwise get wives. Now prevent the high status males from even
> ]getting mistresses by wiping out their high status.
>
>
> Uh-oh, another libertarian nut at large.
>
Where else would a libertarian nut be? And, more to the point, did we
just now criminalize polygamy? Where was I? And what is "even" about
mistresses? Is the idea that pretty much any schmuck can get a bunch
of mistresses but it takes extra cash to land a wife?
DCS
Mark B. Kraft
>But let's look at the second question mentioned above: "Would he have
>done the same action even if he expected the profits to be taken from
>him and given to the poor?" Take, for example, an athlete who loves
>his game and would play for minimum wage, but who is paid in the
>hundreds of millions per annum. Or another whose vanity would be
>satisfied by earning some gigantic amount even if it almost all went to
>charity.
No, of course not. The athlete is a poor example, because the athlete
is just the beneficiary of circumstances in the system rather than the
creator of wealth. No doubt the athletes would continue to play (just
the right term for it) notwithstanding the diminution of rewards, just
as they did before television and mass marketing made it profitable.
However, there would be some element in the society that would find a
way to gain the advantage, even under the unlikely condition that
wealth in the sense you mean it were not possible. Perhaps it would be
in gaining power, which is usually at least as attractive as wealth.
Whatever it was, you would find it just as irritating as you seem to
find wealth.
[...]
>Yes, some people might retire, but not many. And even if they all did,
>we are still talking about a tiny minority, nothing like the number of
>involuntary unemployed we have at present. It is important to keep in
>mind that at present the vast majority of the wealth is possessed by a
>tiny minority of the population. Moreover there is no reason to be
>sure such retirements are undesirable.
You seem to be implicitly viewing the society as though it were a
penniless child in a candy store. If only someone were to give the poor
waif a penny, he could buy some of the candy and stop crying. Well,
there is no candy store. We are collectively self-contained and can
only consume what we produce, and if we were to take all this "wealth"
away from the "tiny minority" that possesses it and give it to the rest
of the people, there wouldn't suddenly appear a candy store full of
mansions and fine cars for them to buy. It would turn out that we had
only spread around the ownership of the factories and farms but done
nothing to increase their output. What form do you think "wealth" is
generally in? Stacks of bullion hidden in the basement? Do you suppose
that there is a mountains of goods and services waiting just out of
reach for everyone to share in as soon as we distribute the wealth? Of
course not. The wealthy person may consume more than the average
person does, but that additional consumption is so small in relation to
the whole that if all the wealth were spread evenly and everyone were
allowed to consume everything *actually available* that their newfound
wealth would allow, the difference between their old life and their new
one would be infinitesimal.
Of course, the communist experiments of this century have pretty well
tested what actually happens to the aggregate wealth of a society when
you try to dissociate the creation of wealth from its rewards. At least
if the society is composed of homo sapiens as currently evolved. So the
actual net result, based on empirical evidence, would be that almost
everyone would be worse off.
>No, we would not destroy initiative through an expanded welfare state.
>We would provide people with the best in health care, education, job
>training, child care, social security, law enforcement, and
>environment. Other handouts would be kept to a minimum. (As a side
>note, it is worth recognizing that our current government could go
>quite far in this direction without altering the tax system or
>witnessing a burst of charity, by reducing outrageous direct government
>funding . . . of the military.)
You can't have a "best" in anything in your scheme; it all has to be at
the same level. Otherwise you've merely defined wealth in another way.
If there's a "best" education then there must be a lesser education.
Who gets which? Do we choose by lots or on merit? Do we give the more
pleasant jobs to people more capable of doing them or just pick at
random? If we don't choose our physicians and teachers on the basis of
merit and prepare them accordingly, how do we provide the "best" of
health care and education? If we do reward the diligent and talented by
giving them the better educations and better positions, haven't we just
defined wealth in another way? Inheritance aside, isn't that roughly
what the current system does anyhow, albeit imperfectly?
You can't get away from it. It sounds like you've just found yourself a
bit light in the wallet and envious of those that aren't. Perhaps
you've discovered that your chosen occupation doesn't point you toward
the fat paycheck. Stratification is inevitable in society, so while you
might theorize other value systems and other forms of wealth, there
will always be scales by which people measure themselves against
others, and some that are capable and so inclined will maximize
themselves on those scales. Pretty much like the rest of the animal
kingdom.
============================================
M.B.Kraft, PhD
Any opinions I express are, at most, my own.
============================================
Sam Woodgeard
Every thing that is considered to be material wealth is
things created by the hands of workers.
Paper pushers, wall street... big business, none of these
are creators of wealth, they are leeches who step on
the backs of the working Americans.
Wolfgang Behr
Didn´t you never heard of huge amounts of money, which - while the
states would really need it for different tasks, nobody else is doing -
are deposited in so-called off-shore banking places - huge amounts of
money, which big transnational companies deprive of the tax by shifting
costs and profits between the different parts of the company in a way,
that costs are booked in high-developped countries with high tax-rates
and profits are booked in tax-dumping countries. In the second kind of
countries the companies often just maintain a "letter-box".
I have read in a study concerning Germany that the governement lose
between 60 and 70 billion Dmark ($/Dmark=1/1.69). This amount is the
same, the german state every year needs as new encumbering (mortgaging,
I don´t know the right expression.).
Just your indication to the animal kingdom shows, that you are far away
of social reality, what does not mean, that all your arguments are
wrong. They are just unnecessary, because selfevident!
WB
David Christopher Swanson
In article <01bc29c7$3fe2f340$479fe6ce@buds>
"Sam Woodgeard" <us...@fairfieldi.com> writes:
> leeches who step
Is that what you call a mixed metaphor?
DCS
Uche Ogbuji
In <5fkv07$b...@news.bu.edu>, m...@bu.edu (Mark B. Kraft) writes:
>No, of course not. The athlete is a poor example, because the athlete
>is just the beneficiary of circumstances in the system rather than the
>creator of wealth.
Nonsense. The athlete is no more a mere "beneficiary of circumstances"
than Bill Gates. Some talent, lucky opportunity.
vale
--Uche
David Christopher Swanson
m...@bu.edu writes:
> David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
> [...]
> >But let's look at the second question mentioned above: "Would he have
> >done the same action even if he expected the profits to be taken from
> >him and given to the poor?" Take, for example, an athlete who loves
> >his game and would play for minimum wage, but who is paid in the
> >hundreds of millions per annum. Or another whose vanity would be
> >satisfied by earning some gigantic amount even if it almost all went to
> >charity.
>
> No, of course not. The athlete is a poor example, because the athlete
> is just the beneficiary of circumstances in the system rather than the
> creator of wealth. No doubt the athletes would continue to play (just
> the right term for it) notwithstanding the diminution of rewards, just
> as they did before television and mass marketing made it profitable.
> However, there would be some element in the society that would find a
> way to gain the advantage, even under the unlikely condition that
> wealth in the sense you mean it were not possible. Perhaps it would be
> in gaining power, which is usually at least as attractive as wealth.
> Whatever it was, you would find it just as irritating as you seem to
> find wealth.
Namely not at all?
>
> [...]
> >Yes, some people might retire, but not many. And even if they all did,
> >we are still talking about a tiny minority, nothing like the number of
> >involuntary unemployed we have at present. It is important to keep in
> >mind that at present the vast majority of the wealth is possessed by a
> >tiny minority of the population. Moreover there is no reason to be
> >sure such retirements are undesirable.
>
> You seem to be implicitly viewing the society as though it were a
> penniless child in a candy store. If only someone were to give the poor
> waif a penny, he could buy some of the candy and stop crying. Well,
> there is no candy store. We are collectively self-contained and can
> only consume what we produce, and if we were to take all this "wealth"
> away from the "tiny minority" that possesses it and give it to the rest
> of the people, there wouldn't suddenly appear a candy store full of
> mansions and fine cars for them to buy. It would turn out that we had
> only spread around the ownership of the factories and farms but done
> nothing to increase their output.
I never claimed to have any ideas on how to increase outputs or
even any particular desire to do so. Just not diminishing them
should be enough, at least for this discussion.
What form do you think "wealth" is
> generally in? Stacks of bullion hidden in the basement? Do you suppose
> that there is a mountains of goods and services waiting just out of
> reach for everyone to share in as soon as we distribute the wealth?
Yes.
Of
> course not. The wealthy person may consume more than the average
> person does, but that additional consumption is so small in relation to
> the whole that if all the wealth were spread evenly and everyone were
> allowed to consume everything *actually available* that their newfound
> wealth would allow, the difference between their old life and their new
> one would be infinitesimal.
Gimme numbers. Look at what percentage of the population
possesses *80%* of the wealth. Then we'll talk.
>
> Of course, the communist experiments of this century have pretty well
> tested what actually happens to the aggregate wealth of a society when
> you try to dissociate the creation of wealth from its rewards. At least
> if the society is composed of homo sapiens as currently evolved. So the
> actual net result, based on empirical evidence, would be that almost
> everyone would be worse off.
Two mistakes. First, you pretend not to have read the part
about not following that sort of a model, of not taking wealth
from those who need it as motivation for beneficial actions.
Second, humans are not limited by what dead humans have done.
>
> >No, we would not destroy initiative through an expanded welfare state.
> >We would provide people with the best in health care, education, job
> >training, child care, social security, law enforcement, and
> >environment. Other handouts would be kept to a minimum. (As a side
> >note, it is worth recognizing that our current government could go
> >quite far in this direction without altering the tax system or
> >witnessing a burst of charity, by reducing outrageous direct government
> >funding . . . of the military.)
>
> You can't have a "best" in anything in your scheme; it all has to be at
> the same level. Otherwise you've merely defined wealth in another way.
> If there's a "best" education then there must be a lesser education.
> Who gets which?
The past gets the lesser.
Do we choose by lots or on merit? Do we give the more
> pleasant jobs to people more capable of doing them or just pick at
> random? If we don't choose our physicians and teachers on the basis of
> merit and prepare them accordingly, how do we provide the "best" of
> health care and education? If we do reward the diligent and talented by
> giving them the better educations and better positions, haven't we just
> defined wealth in another way? Inheritance aside, isn't that roughly
> what the current system does anyhow, albeit imperfectly?
>
Mountains aside, Colorado is flat, albeit imperfectly.
> You can't get away from it. It sounds like you've just found yourself a
> bit light in the wallet and envious of those that aren't. Perhaps
> you've discovered that your chosen occupation doesn't point you toward
> the fat paycheck. Stratification is inevitable in society, so while you
> might theorize other value systems and other forms of wealth, there
> will always be scales by which people measure themselves against
> others, and some that are capable and so inclined will maximize
> themselves on those scales. Pretty much like the rest of the animal
> kingdom.
I do not want over $30,000 a year, will not take it, will get
rid of it if I'm given it.
Is that enough for you? If not, you are obliged to have a test
by which I could possibly prove not to be envious. Otherwise
you're just fantasizing.
>
> ============================================
> M.B.Kraft, PhD
> Any opinions I express are, at most, my own.
> ============================================
DCS
Mike Wooding
Mark B. Kraft wrote:
> No, of course not. The athlete is a poor example, because the athlete
> is just the beneficiary of circumstances in the system rather than the
> creator of wealth.
I don't buy this claim. Wealth is more than just the sorts
of tangible items produced in a factory. Those things which
entertain us constitute part of the wealth, too. The comic
or the singer, the actors/producers/etc. who bring us plays,
movies, TV, etc. and yes, even the athletes who even become
the heros to so many ... all of this is wealth, and those who
are part of providing it are producing wealth, too.
So too is almost every producer and every consumer a beneficiary
of the circumstances in the system. There is nothing peculiar to
athlete in this. My ability to produce say a toaster might well
depend on the availability of parts ... say, nuts and bolts and
heating elements and whatever. I am a beneficiary of the
circumstance that all these parts are available. But then my
customers benefit from my making the toaster available, and
so on ...
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
G*rd*n
What is wealth?
These articles seem to assume an understanding of the
concept. However, because I have puzzled about the Labor
Theory of Value for some time, I have concluded that the
concept of wealth (the accumulation of that Value) is not
well understood. Mostly, it seems to me that Value has
subjective, objective, and functionalist constructions which
are quite at variance with one another. I wonder if anyone
would care to attempt to define or locate it.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
Ted Samsel
Sam Woodgeard (us...@fairfieldi.com) wrote:
: Every thing that is considered to be material wealth is
Only Americans? I can't wait for Latin America to take over so we
can reclaim the siesta. A very civilized practice.
Why hurry if the world is going to end anyway?
David Christopher Swanson
In article <handleym-030...@handma.apple.com>
hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley) writes:
> you'll
> discover people are surprisingly reluctant to give up the advantages they
> have bought their children.
What surprises you?
DCS
David Christopher Swanson
In article <5fnuu6$g...@panix2.panix.com>
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
For purposes of this discussion anyway, you'll have to make a case for
why wealth cannot be those green things with the dead presidents on
'em.
As I have no use for subjectivity or objectivity, I CAN express
moderate interest only in what you may mean by functionalist.
DCS
Richard Harter
dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
As the noted philospher said: Greed is good. Greed works.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
I'm a primatologist specializing in homo sapiens.
Their lack of true intelligence simplifies my studies.
^OnE MaN^
Larisa Migachyov wrote:
>
> David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
> : The usual complaint with egalitarianism, with redistributing wealth so
> : that everybody has got the same amount, is that this will drastically
> : decrease the total
And imagine now the clonned masses? Who is going to fight for their
rights in a world where mass-production is not for consumers but to
produce consumers?
Ethical books have tobe burned by their thousands,and new ones written.
Or should one say-cloned?
Fred J. Drinkwater
Mark B. Kraft (m...@bu.edu) wrote:
: David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: [...]
: >But let's look at the second question mentioned above: "Would he have
: >done the same action even if he expected the profits to be taken from
: >him and given to the poor?" Take, for example, an athlete who loves
: >his game and would play for minimum wage, but who is paid in the
: >hundreds of millions per annum. Or another whose vanity would be
: >satisfied by earning some gigantic amount even if it almost all went to
: >charity.
: No, of course not. The athlete is a poor example, because the athlete
: is just the beneficiary of circumstances in the system rather than the
: creator of wealth. No doubt the athletes would continue to play (just
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: the right term for it) notwithstanding the diminution of rewards, just
: as they did before television and mass marketing made it profitable.
I see this example given fairly often, and I think it reflects some
major ignorance about professional athletics. Look at the injury
rates, including, for instance, spinal cord injuries, among athletes.
Look at the professional life-spans of (American) football and
baseball players. Look at the amount of on-the-road time required,
and its effects on the families of athletes. You want to see high-risk
top-quality sports? You have to pay for it.
I think it's silly to suggest that the games would continue in anything
like their present form, without that big-ticket carrot. Personally,
I think it would be a Good Thing for sports in general if the big-tickets went
away, but I'm not Emperor (whew!) so it's not up to me to force other
people not to pay the tab. I just don't contribute *my* money to it.
Fred Drinkwater
David Christopher Swanson
In article <33206E...@hotmail.com>
^OnE MaN^ <z...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Larisa Migachyov wrote:
> >
> > David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
> > : The usual complaint with egalitarianism, with redistributing wealth so
> > : that everybody has got the same amount, is that this will drastically
> > : decrease the total
>
> And imagine now the clonned masses? Who is going to fight for their
> rights in a world where mass-production is not for consumers but to
> produce consumers?
> Ethical books have tobe burned by their thousands,and new ones written.
> Or should one say-cloned?
If you cloned a president could t(he)y serve four terms, and - in Mr.
Clinton's case - would they feel sufficiently loved at last?
DCS
Maynard Handley
In article <E6nuE...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
> In article <handleym-030...@handma.apple.com>
> hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley) writes:
>
> > you'll
> > discover people are surprisingly reluctant to give up the advantages they
> > have bought their children.
>
> What surprises you?
>
David, are you actually as stupid as your postings or is this just an act?
Is the problem maybe that you were raised with English as a second language?
Read my posting again. Maybe try to include all of it in your quote, not
some tiny fraction which makes little sense standing alone.
Let me try to explain in simplified terms omitting subtleties like sarcasm.
I am not surprised by the fact that "people are reluctant to give up the
advantages they have bought their children". That was my whole point. But
you seem to be oblivious to this fact in your grandiose hope that people
will simply give up wealth because you ask them to.
Larisa Migachyov
: g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
: DCS
Because those green pieces of paper can change their value, and have no
value in and of themselves. A green piece of paper cannot be eaten, you
can't use it for shelter or anything else. It is only valuable in that
it represents some goods and services that can be exchanged for it. If
we were to have the catastrophic inflation that happened in Russia, all
those green papers would become valueless.
Larisa
moggin
Mark B. Kraft:
[...]
> Of course, the communist experiments of this century have pretty well
> tested what actually happens to the aggregate wealth of a society when
> you try to dissociate the creation of wealth from its rewards. At least
> if the society is composed of homo sapiens as currently evolved. So the
> actual net result, based on empirical evidence, would be that almost
> everyone would be worse off.
I love the smell of science in the morning.
-- moggin
paschal
On 9 Mar 1997, Larisa Migachyov wrote:
> Because those green pieces of paper can change their value, and have no
> value in and of themselves. A green piece of paper cannot be eaten, you
> can't use it for shelter or anything else. It is only valuable in that
> it represents some goods and services that can be exchanged for it. If
> we were to have the catastrophic inflation that happened in Russia, all
> those green papers would become valueless.
Sorry to go off topic; but this reminded me of something:
Someone whose thinking I generally respect (though not in every aspect)
once suggested that the standard for money ought not to be gold, as it
was, or anything else but FOOD. Knowing very little about money,
economics, etc., I'd be interested to know what others thought of this
idea. The one time I mentioned it to someone in conversation, the
intelligent and thoughtful woman I was talking with was horrified, and
said this would make people even more vicious than they already are.(???)
I didn't agree with her, but the subject intrigued me.....
-Paschal
G*rd*n
Larisa Migachyov wrote:
| > Because those green pieces of paper can change their value, and have no
| > value in and of themselves. A green piece of paper cannot be eaten, you
| > can't use it for shelter or anything else. It is only valuable in that
| > it represents some goods and services that can be exchanged for it. If
| > we were to have the catastrophic inflation that happened in Russia, all
| > those green papers would become valueless.
paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu>:
| Sorry to go off topic; but this reminded me of something:
|
| Someone whose thinking I generally respect (though not in every aspect)
| once suggested that the standard for money ought not to be gold, as it
| was, or anything else but FOOD. Knowing very little about money,
| economics, etc., I'd be interested to know what others thought of this
| idea. The one time I mentioned it to someone in conversation, the
| intelligent and thoughtful woman I was talking with was horrified, and
| said this would make people even more vicious than they already are.(???)
| I didn't agree with her, but the subject intrigued me.....
It seems hard to imagine how people could be made more
vicious than they already are, but anyway -- I don't think
you're off topic. It has proven difficult to create the
abstraction of wealth we call money -- indeed, mystical,
for the word _money_ is religious in origin, coming from
Juno Moneta, in whose temple the Roman mint was found.
The difficulty of understanding wealth is reflected in that
of finding a material commodity which will reliably reflect
value -- not only food, but calories have been suggested,
as well as hydrogen and watt-hours. But all of these can be
manipulated and are subject to the vagaries of fashion, just
like gold and silver.
Value _can_ be established by force; in fact, the
contemporary manipulation of the interest rates by the
government are just this, as were the price-fixings of
antiquity. But what is being established is a simulacrum
which we are assured by liberals will eventually break. It
is not _true_ wealth. Or is it?
Donald J Smith
Larisa Migachyov wrote:
>
> David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
> : In article <5fnuu6$g...@panix2.panix.com>
> : g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
>
> : > What is wealth?
> : >
> : > These articles seem to assume an understanding of the
> : > concept. However, because I have puzzled about the Labor
> : > Theory of Value for some time, I have concluded that the
> : > concept of wealth (the accumulation of that Value) is not
> : > well understood. Mostly, it seems to me that Value has
> : > subjective, objective, and functionalist constructions which
> : > are quite at variance with one another. I wonder if anyone
> : > would care to attempt to define or locate it.
> : >
> : > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> : > -----------------------------------------------
> : > NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
> : > probably not be able to reach me by email.
>
> : For purposes of this discussion anyway, you'll have to make a case for
> : why wealth cannot be those green things with the dead presidents on
> : 'em.
>
> : As I have no use for subjectivity or objectivity, I CAN express
> : moderate interest only in what you may mean by functionalist.
>
> : DCS
>
> Because those green pieces of paper can change their value, and have no
> value in and of themselves. A green piece of paper cannot be eaten, you
> can't use it for shelter or anything else. It is only valuable in that
> it represents some goods and services that can be exchanged for it. If
> we were to have the catastrophic inflation that happened in Russia, all
> those green papers would become valueless.
>
> Larisa
To: Larisa.............All value depends only on the time and
circumstances. Green things are as permanent as anything else. If food
is rotting in the fields because there's so much of it, but every
shelter has been destroyed in a disaster, shelter has value. Gold has
very little inherent value; it's just that people have a quaint idea
that they should own it. But Gold won't feed clothe or shelter you, or
protect you from criminals.
Maybe guns are the most valuable things in the world; they enable you
have anything you want or need.
Don J Smith
blima
< Value _can_ be established by force; in fact, the
< contemporary manipulation of the interest rates by the
< government are just this, as were the price-fixings of
< antiquity. But what is being established is a simulacrum
< which we are assured by liberals will eventually break.
By liberals? Who's assuring us of the simulacrum's security?
< It is not _true_ wealth. Or is it?
-Mammel,L.H.
In article <E6Mv1...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
David Christopher Swanson <dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>
>I do not want over $30,000 a year, will not take it, will get
>rid of it if I'm given it.
The Emperor of the North Pole.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Richard Harter
paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>On 9 Mar 1997, Larisa Migachyov wrote:
>> Because those green pieces of paper can change their value, and have no
>> value in and of themselves. A green piece of paper cannot be eaten, you
>> can't use it for shelter or anything else. It is only valuable in that
>> it represents some goods and services that can be exchanged for it. If
>> we were to have the catastrophic inflation that happened in Russia, all
>> those green papers would become valueless.
>Sorry to go off topic; but this reminded me of something:
>Someone whose thinking I generally respect (though not in every aspect)
>once suggested that the standard for money ought not to be gold, as it
>was, or anything else but FOOD. Knowing very little about money,
>economics, etc., I'd be interested to know what others thought of this
>idea. The one time I mentioned it to someone in conversation, the
>intelligent and thoughtful woman I was talking with was horrified, and
>said this would make people even more vicious than they already are.(???)
>I didn't agree with her, but the subject intrigued me.....
It actually makes a great deal of sense. If anything else is used as
a standard of value for backing money it can go up or down relative to
everything else. Gold has been used to back money; silver has been
used; wampum has been used; tobacco has been used; beaver pelts have
been used; stone wheels have been used on the yap islands.
Robert Heinlein had one of his characters say something to the effect
"Don't pay any attention to what they tell you money is worth; look at
the price of a loaf of bread; that tell's you what money is worth."
But I suspect it wouldn't work. A variant on the idea is to back
money with land; the idea is the same - they aren't making any more
land so the value stays fixed. This has been done. The catch is that
you don't actually use land (or food) for money - you end up using
pieces of paper that are claims on land (or food). And it turns out
that once you have pieces of paper some sharp fellow figures out how
to jigger them and that's what happened.
Money is only worth something because everybody agrees that it is
worth something. And if everybody else agrees that it is worth
something you'd better go along with the gag.
Patrick Juola
In article <5g09nm$h...@news-central.tiac.net> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>>Someone whose thinking I generally respect (though not in every aspect)
>>once suggested that the standard for money ought not to be gold, as it
>>was, or anything else but FOOD. Knowing very little about money,
>>economics, etc., I'd be interested to know what others thought of this
>>idea. The one time I mentioned it to someone in conversation, the
>>intelligent and thoughtful woman I was talking with was horrified, and
>>said this would make people even more vicious than they already are.(???)
>>I didn't agree with her, but the subject intrigued me.....
>
>
>It actually makes a great deal of sense. If anything else is used as
>a standard of value for backing money it can go up or down relative to
>everything else. Gold has been used to back money; silver has been
>used; wampum has been used; tobacco has been used; beaver pelts have
>been used; stone wheels have been used on the yap islands.
>
>Robert Heinlein had one of his characters say something to the effect
>"Don't pay any attention to what they tell you money is worth; look at
>the price of a loaf of bread; that tell's you what money is worth."
>
>But I suspect it wouldn't work.
Of course it wouldn't work; it's kindergarden economics to figure
out why. "A standard of value for backing money" is unnecessary,
and hasn't been used for a number of decades.
>A variant on the idea is to back
>money with land; the idea is the same - they aren't making any more
>land so the value stays fixed.
But they're making more of everything else, so the value doesn't
stay fixed.
"Money" is simply a measurement of how much you value other people's
goods versus how much they value yours.
-kitten
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| < Value _can_ be established by force; in fact, the
| < contemporary manipulation of the interest rates by the
| < government are just this, as were the price-fixings of
| < antiquity. But what is being established is a simulacrum
| < which we are assured by liberals will eventually break.
bl...@fas.harvard.edu (blima):
| By liberals? Who's assuring us of the simulacrum's security?
I left out the word "classical", as I sometimes do. The
answer is: the Federal Reserve Bank, and other such
institutions.
--
Ted Samsel
-Mammel,L.H. (l...@ihgp167e.ih.lucent.com) wrote:
: In article <E6Mv1...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
I've got a job for him. Diggin' postholes in rock with a tuna fish can
and a digging bar. Twenty dollars a week.
Ted Samsel
moggin
Mark B. Kraft:
> : [...]
> :
> : > Of course, the communist experiments of this century have pretty well
> : > tested what actually happens to the aggregate wealth of a society when
> : > you try to dissociate the creation of wealth from its rewards. At least
> : > if the society is composed of homo sapiens as currently evolved. So the
> : > actual net result, based on empirical evidence, would be that almost
> : > everyone would be worse off.
moggin:
> : I love the smell of science in the morning.
Ted:
> Duke has an Ag School?
Not that I know of -- but they do have the Fuckyou
School of Business.
-- moggin
G*rd*n
Mark B. Kraft:
|>:[...]
|>:
|>:> Of course, the communist experiments of this century have pretty well
|>:> tested what actually happens to the aggregate wealth of a society when
|>:> you try to dissociate the creation of wealth from its rewards. At least
|>:> if the society is composed of homo sapiens as currently evolved. So the
|>:> actual net result, based on empirical evidence, would be that almost
|>:> everyone would be worse off.
The whole point of capitalism is to separate the creation
of wealth from its rewards to the largest extent possible.
Ideally, one pays the creator (even if oneself) as little
as possible, in order to create the largest possible
surplus; this surplus is then invested in order to
reiterate the process and create a yet larger surplus.
The needs of the surplus rule. Communism failed when its
adherents began to take the ideology seriously instead of
ruthlessly pursuing the accumulation of surpluses. To
preserve the Soviet Union, a better strategy would have
been to provoke a constant dangerous hostility with the
West and use it as a political stick to lash the people
into increasing hard work and sacrifice. That they failed
or refused to do this -- that, in a sense, they put
themselves out of business -- is greatly to their credit.
Would that other leading ideologies and ideologues would
go and do likewise!
Michael Zeleny
>>[...]
>>
>>Of course, the communist experiments of this century have pretty well
>>tested what actually happens to the aggregate wealth of a society when
>>you try to dissociate the creation of wealth from its rewards. At least
>>if the society is composed of homo sapiens as currently evolved. So the
>>actual net result, based on empirical evidence, would be that almost
>>everyone would be worse off.
>The whole point of capitalism is to separate the creation
>of wealth from its rewards to the largest extent possible.
>Ideally, one pays the creator (even if oneself) as little
>as possible, in order to create the largest possible
>surplus; this surplus is then invested in order to
>reiterate the process and create a yet larger surplus.
The whole point of capitalism notwithstanding, the IRS is suing Frank
Gehry for paying himself too much in salary, because they would rather
have the funds in question taxed at the corporate profit rates. Thus
the US Federal government contributes to the enterprising capitalist
artist's sense of alienation.
>The needs of the surplus rule. Communism failed when its
>adherents began to take the ideology seriously instead of
>ruthlessly pursuing the accumulation of surpluses. To
>preserve the Soviet Union, a better strategy would have
>been to provoke a constant dangerous hostility with the
>West and use it as a political stick to lash the people
>into increasing hard work and sacrifice. That they failed
>or refused to do this -- that, in a sense, they put
>themselves out of business -- is greatly to their credit.
>Would that other leading ideologies and ideologues would
>go and do likewise!
Physician, heal thyself.
Cordially -- Mikhail * God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zel...@math.ucla.edu *** Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher *** will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** M...@ptyx.com
ptyx, 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068, 213-876-8234/213-874-4745 (fax)
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> What is wealth?
>
> These articles seem to assume an understanding of the
> concept. However, because I have puzzled about the Labor
> Theory of Value for some time, I have concluded that the
> concept of wealth (the accumulation of that Value) is not
> well understood. Mostly, it seems to me that Value has
> subjective, objective, and functionalist constructions which
> are quite at variance with one another. I wonder if anyone
> would care to attempt to define or locate it.
OK ... I'll make a 1st pass at defining wealth:
The wealth of a society might be understood as the range of
services/resources available to meet the needs or wants of
its members.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Richard Harter
pat...@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>In article <5g09nm$h...@news-central.tiac.net> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>>Robert Heinlein had one of his characters say something to the effect
>>"Don't pay any attention to what they tell you money is worth; look at
>>the price of a loaf of bread; that tell's you what money is worth."
>>
>>But I suspect it wouldn't work.
>Of course it wouldn't work; it's kindergarden economics to figure
>out why. "A standard of value for backing money" is unnecessary,
>and hasn't been used for a number of decades.
My, my, a number of decades, what a long track record and such a good
one too.
blima
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
< | < Value _can_ be established by force; in fact, the
< | < contemporary manipulation of the interest rates by the
< | < government are just this, as were the price-fixings of
< | < antiquity. But what is being established is a simulacrum
< | < which we are assured by liberals will eventually break.
bl...@fas.harvard.edu (blima):
< | By liberals? Who's assuring us of the simulacrum's security?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
< I left out the word "classical", as I sometimes do. The
< answer is: the Federal Reserve Bank, and other such
< institutions.
Aren't they the classical liberals? If so, who are the radicals
(liberals?) warning us that the simulacrum will break?
Sorry; confused.
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| < | < Value _can_ be established by force; in fact, the
| < | < contemporary manipulation of the interest rates by the
| < | < government are just this, as were the price-fixings of
| < | < antiquity. But what is being established is a simulacrum
| < | < which we are assured by liberals will eventually break.
bl...@fas.harvard.edu (blima):
| < | By liberals? Who's assuring us of the simulacrum's security?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| < I left out the word "classical", as I sometimes do. The
| < answer is: the Federal Reserve Bank, and other such
| < institutions.
bl...@fas.harvard.edu (blima):
| Aren't they the classical liberals? If so, who are the radicals
| (liberals?) warning us that the simulacrum will break?
| Sorry; confused.
The classical liberals are always with us. If I succeed in
starting a discussion as to the meaning of wealth, you'll
see them.
Mark B. Kraft
Fred J. Drinkwater (drin...@adobe.com) wrote:
>Mark B. Kraft (m...@bu.edu) wrote:
>: No, of course not. The athlete is a poor example, because the athlete
>: is just the beneficiary of circumstances in the system rather than the
>: creator of wealth. No doubt the athletes would continue to play (just
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: the right term for it) notwithstanding the diminution of rewards, just
>: as they did before television and mass marketing made it profitable.
>I see this example given fairly often, and I think it reflects some
>major ignorance about professional athletics. Look at the injury
>rates, including, for instance, spinal cord injuries, among athletes.
>Look at the professional life-spans of (American) football and
>baseball players. Look at the amount of on-the-road time required,
>and its effects on the families of athletes. You want to see high-risk
>top-quality sports? You have to pay for it.
I don't see how you can look at history and maintain your position.
Major league sports existed for many decades before there was any real
money in them, and minor league sports still do. Look at all the
second-rate boxers that get their brains beaten out without a ghost of
a chance of ever getting a nickle out of it. If you're going to try and
predict what athletes will do by assuming they're taking a
well-informed long-range view, your predictions aren't gonna be too
accurate.
============================================
M.B.Kraft, PhD
Any opinions I express are, at most, my own.
============================================
Larisa Migachyov
Donald J Smith (djsm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Larisa Migachyov wrote:
: >
: > David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: > : In article <5fnuu6$g...@panix2.panix.com>
: > : g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
: >
: > : >
: > : > These articles seem to assume an understanding of the
: > : > concept. However, because I have puzzled about the Labor
: > : > Theory of Value for some time, I have concluded that the
: > : > concept of wealth (the accumulation of that Value) is not
: > : > well understood. Mostly, it seems to me that Value has
: > : > subjective, objective, and functionalist constructions which
: > : > are quite at variance with one another. I wonder if anyone
: > : > would care to attempt to define or locate it.
: To: Anyone..........HUH?
: > : > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
: > : > -----------------------------------------------
: > : > NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
: > : > probably not be able to reach me by email.
: >
: > : For purposes of this discussion anyway, you'll have to make a case for
: > : why wealth cannot be those green things with the dead presidents on
: > : 'em.
: >
: > : As I have no use for subjectivity or objectivity, I CAN express
: > : moderate interest only in what you may mean by functionalist.
: >
: > : DCS
: >
: > Because those green pieces of paper can change their value, and have no
: > value in and of themselves. A green piece of paper cannot be eaten, you
: > can't use it for shelter or anything else. It is only valuable in that
: > it represents some goods and services that can be exchanged for it. If
: > we were to have the catastrophic inflation that happened in Russia, all
: > those green papers would become valueless.
: >
: > Larisa
: To: Larisa.............All value depends only on the time and
: circumstances. Green things are as permanent as anything else. If food
: is rotting in the fields because there's so much of it, but every
: shelter has been destroyed in a disaster, shelter has value. Gold has
: very little inherent value; it's just that people have a quaint idea
: that they should own it. But Gold won't feed clothe or shelter you, or
: protect you from criminals.
: Maybe guns are the most valuable things in the world; they enable you
: have anything you want or need.
True. This is exactly what I was saying. The green things have no
inherent value. Neither does gold or diamonds. The only things that has
value to you is the thing you need at the moment. If I'm in a bookstore
and see a rare book (Oh, no! I'm spending money on books instead of
giving it to starving children!), and this book is interesting to me, it
has a lot of value. If it is not interesting, it has no value. I have
books in my collection (Oh no! I collect books instead of spending money
on feeding welfare mothers so they can have even more children!) that I
would not sell even for quite a lot of money. I have other books that I
will gladly give away. Value is subjective.
Larisa
Larisa Migachyov
paschal (pas...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: > Because those green pieces of paper can change their value, and have no
: > value in and of themselves. A green piece of paper cannot be eaten, you
: > can't use it for shelter or anything else. It is only valuable in that
: > it represents some goods and services that can be exchanged for it. If
: > we were to have the catastrophic inflation that happened in Russia, all
: > those green papers would become valueless.
: Sorry to go off topic; but this reminded me of something:
: Someone whose thinking I generally respect (though not in every aspect)
: once suggested that the standard for money ought not to be gold, as it
: was, or anything else but FOOD. Knowing very little about money,
: economics, etc., I'd be interested to know what others thought of this
: idea. The one time I mentioned it to someone in conversation, the
: intelligent and thoughtful woman I was talking with was horrified, and
: said this would make people even more vicious than they already are.(???)
: I didn't agree with her, but the subject intrigued me.....
Interesting idea, but not practical. First, most food is perishable. A
year-old moldy orange has no value as food (at least, I won't want to eat
it!). :) Second, food is bulky. Carrying $20 worth of food is quite
cumbersome, while carrying a piece of paper or a bag full of gold is much
easier.
Larisa
Ken MacIver
Ted Samsel <te...@infi.net> wrote in article
<5g0t2p$vd7$2...@mh002.infi.net>...
> -Mammel,L.H. (l...@ihgp167e.ih.lucent.com) wrote:
> : In article <E6Mv1...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
> : David Christopher Swanson <dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> : >
> : >I do not want over $30,000 a year, will not take it, will get
> : >rid of it if I'm given it.
> :
> : The Emperor of the North Pole.
>
> I've got a job for him. Diggin' postholes in rock with a tuna fish can
> and a digging bar. Twenty dollars a week.
Then he'd be a PHD!
G*rd*n
miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov):
| ... Value is subjective. ...
Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
-- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
--
Eric Lorenzo
In article <5g3j18$b...@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov):
>| ... Value is subjective. ...
>
>Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
>kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
>-- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
>will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
There is a clear distinction between "subjective" and "arbitrary" that
you seem to be failing to make. Just because the value we place on an
object is determined within ourselves does not mean that we have
conscious, willful control over the process of assigning that value.
Eric
Larisa Migachyov
: : In article <E6Mv1...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
: : David Christopher Swanson <dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
: : >
: : >I do not want over $30,000 a year, will not take it, will get
: : >rid of it if I'm given it.
Why over $30000? A person can survive quite well on $15000. Why are you
being so greedy?
Larisa
Larisa Migachyov
G*rd*n (g...@panix.com) wrote:
: miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov):
: | ... Value is subjective. ...
: Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
: kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
: -- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
: will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
Go ahead. I still prefer books.
Larisa
G*rd*n
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
| >Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
| >kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
| >-- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
| >will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
lor...@cc.gatech.edu (Eric Lorenzo):
| There is a clear distinction between "subjective" and "arbitrary" that
| you seem to be failing to make. Just because the value we place on an
| object is determined within ourselves does not mean that we have
| conscious, willful control over the process of assigning that value.
I tend to think of subjectivity as involving consciousness,
will, and agency. If (for example) food is wealth because a
biological process in our bodies causes us to value it, we
can objectify that as if it were happening in a machine.
That kind of wealth would be objective (relatively
speaking). Not intrinsic -- we still need the evaluator --
but now the evaluator has no subjectivity.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n (g...@panix.com) wrote:
| : Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
| : kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
| : -- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
| : will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov):
| Go ahead. I still prefer books.
Decide that a particular rock is a book. After all, if
there's infinity in a grain of sand, there must be even more
infinity in a rock. You should be able to find a book
in there somewhere.
Robert Teeter
Eric Lorenzo (lor...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
: In article <5g3j18$b...@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
: >miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov):
: >| ... Value is subjective. ...
: >Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
: >kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
: >-- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
: >will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
: There is a clear distinction between "subjective" and "arbitrary" that
: you seem to be failing to make. Just because the value we place on an
: object is determined within ourselves does not mean that we have
: conscious, willful control over the process of assigning that value.
I think you missed the point. You could have all the gold
in the world, but if there's nothing to spend it on, you aren't
wealthy. There has to be people producing goods and services for
anything to have any value.
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | "Write me a few of your lines"
http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/ | -- Mississippi Fred McDowell
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment." -- Francis Urquhart
"Only connect" -- E. M. Forster
Jim Hartley
paschal (pas...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
> Someone whose thinking I generally respect (though not in every aspect)
> once suggested that the standard for money ought not to be gold, as it
> was, or anything else but FOOD. Knowing very little about money,
> economics, etc., I'd be interested to know what others thought of this
> idea.
Knowing a fair amount about both economics and monetary economics, I can
say that as a simple matter of definition, I can't make any sense out of
the proposal. What does it mean for the standard of money to be food? Or
more simply, what is the "standard for money"? You will find that trying
to provide an answer to that question will demonstrate either the
impracticality, triteness or uselessness of the proposal.
The Mandatory Book Reference: Mayer, Duesenberry and Aliber: _Money,
Banking and the Economy_
--
Jim Hartley
jhar...@mtholyoke.edu
Maynard Handley
> Mark B. Kraft:
> |>:[...]
> |>:
> |>:> Of course, the communist experiments of this century have pretty well
> |>:> tested what actually happens to the aggregate wealth of a society when
> |>:> you try to dissociate the creation of wealth from its rewards. At least
> |>:> if the society is composed of homo sapiens as currently evolved. So the
> |>:> actual net result, based on empirical evidence, would be that almost
> |>:> everyone would be worse off.
>
> The whole point of capitalism is to separate the creation
> of wealth from its rewards to the largest extent possible.
> Ideally, one pays the creator (even if oneself) as little
> as possible, in order to create the largest possible
> surplus; this surplus is then invested in order to
> reiterate the process and create a yet larger surplus.
> The needs of the surplus rule. Communism failed when its
> adherents began to take the ideology seriously instead of
> ruthlessly pursuing the accumulation of surpluses. To
> preserve the Soviet Union, a better strategy would have
> been to provoke a constant dangerous hostility with the
> West and use it as a political stick to lash the people
> into increasing hard work and sacrifice. That they failed
> or refused to do this -- that, in a sense, they put
> themselves out of business -- is greatly to their credit.
> Would that other leading ideologies and ideologues would
> go and do likewise!
> --
You're assuming that the people would have responded to this artificial
hostility thorugh working hard indefinitely. Do we have any evidence this
is true? Isn't it more likely that after 10, 20, 30 yrs or whatever people
would wake up to the fact that
(a) the West has not invaded after all these threats,
and even more importantly
(b) so what if they do invade? how will that make life worse?
It seems to me the behavior of Arabic countries, in particular Iran, bears
some resemblance to what you suggest, and it also seems that what I've
suggested is happening there, that a growing number of people are thinking
the West doesn't look so bad after all.
Maynard
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
My opinion only
G*rd*n
| > The needs of the surplus rule. Communism failed when its
| > adherents began to take the ideology seriously instead of
| > ruthlessly pursuing the accumulation of surpluses. To
| > preserve the Soviet Union, a better strategy would have
| > been to provoke a constant dangerous hostility with the
| > West and use it as a political stick to lash the people
| > into increasing hard work and sacrifice. That they failed
| > or refused to do this -- that, in a sense, they put
| > themselves out of business -- is greatly to their credit.
| > Would that other leading ideologies and ideologues would
| > go and do likewise!
hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley):
| You're assuming that the people would have responded to this artificial
| hostility thorugh working hard indefinitely. Do we have any evidence this
| is true?
Rome versus Carthage. Vietnam versus France, the United
States, and China.
| Isn't it more likely that after 10, 20, 30 yrs or whatever people
| would wake up to the fact that
| (a) the West has not invaded after all these threats,
The West attacked the Russian Empire / Soviet Union three
times in the 20th century; why not again?
| and even more importantly
| (b) so what if they do invade? how will that make life worse?
| ...
The last ones did not noticeably improve the standard of
living.
But we digress.
Eric Lorenzo
In article <rteeterE...@netcom.com>,
Robert Teeter <rte...@netcom.com> wrote:
> I think you missed the point. You could have all the gold
>in the world, but if there's nothing to spend it on, you aren't
>wealthy. There has to be people producing goods and services for
>anything to have any value.
I'm not sure I can see what this has to do with subjectivity vs.
objectivity of value. I've spent a good 10 minutes turning it over
in my mind, and I just can't figure it out. Could you elaborate?
Eric
Ron Hardin
Jim Hartley wrote:
> Knowing a fair amount about both economics and monetary economics, I can
> say that as a simple matter of definition, I can't make any sense out of
> the proposal. What does it mean for the standard of money to be food? Or
> more simply, what is the "standard for money"? You will find that trying
> to provide an answer to that question will demonstrate either the
> impracticality, triteness or uselessness of the proposal.
It surely means that the value of food is constant; Fort Knox would stock
frozen cheese, and offer it at $2.99 a pound in exchange for currency.
Conversely, it would buy cheese at $2.99 and print currency. Thus just
the right amount of currency would be in circulation to keep cheese at
$2.99.
This would be pound adipose.
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Eric Lorenzo
In article <5g40ab$1...@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>I tend to think of subjectivity as involving consciousness,
>will, and agency. If (for example) food is wealth because a
>biological process in our bodies causes us to value it, we
>can objectify that as if it were happening in a machine.
>That kind of wealth would be objective (relatively
>speaking). Not intrinsic -- we still need the evaluator --
>but now the evaluator has no subjectivity.
I suppose this is just where you and I differ. I don't think that
subjectivity involves consciousness *exclusively*. Or rather, I
don't think you can completely seperate consciousness from the
biological processes that it depends on, and that seems to
be required for the objectification you speak of.
Eric
Robert Teeter
Larisa Migachyov wrote:
: >| ... Value is subjective. ...
Grd*n wrote:
: >Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
: >kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
: >-- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
: >will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
Eric Lorenzo (lor...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
: There is a clear distinction between "subjective" and "arbitrary" that
: you seem to be failing to make. Just because the value we place on an
: object is determined within ourselves does not mean that we have
: conscious, willful control over the process of assigning that value.
I, Robert Teeter, wrote:
: > I think you missed the point. You could have all the gold
: >in the world, but if there's nothing to spend it on, you aren't
: >wealthy. There has to be people producing goods and services for
: >anything to have any value.
Eric Lorenzo responded:
: I'm not sure I can see what this has to do with subjectivity vs.
: objectivity of value. I've spent a good 10 minutes turning it over
: in my mind, and I just can't figure it out. Could you elaborate?
Perhaps Larisa could explain what she meant by "subjective,"
and G*rd*n could explain whether what he (?) was talking about was
subjective or arbitrary.
G*rd*n was saying that "rocks" of a certain type (e.g.,
gold, I'm assuming) could be declared a thing of value. Is that
arbitrary or subjective? I would call it arbitrary. It won't
work if only one person thinks gold has value. There must be
a societal consensus that we think those shiny yellow rocks are
valuable. But even when there is consensus that shiny yellow
rocks are valuable, the person who owns the most shiny yellow
rocks will not be wealthy unless someone else is willing to
give some other product or service in exchange for shiny yellow
rocks.
So, when Eric was talking about determining "within
ourselves" that something has value and "conscious, willful
control over the process of assigning that value," it sounds
to me as if he's talking about an individual assigning value.
But, in order for something to be valuable in a society, there
must be consensus that something is valuable. In other words,
there has to be a market for that thing.
(I'm not saying that *everybody* has to agree that something is
valuable. A small group of people might decide that certain cereal box
tops are worth collecting, and they might pay each other money -- or some
other medium of exchange -- for the rarest or most attractive box tops.
Then, there would be a market for that commodity.)
Ron Hardin
Jim Hartley wrote:
> Such a policy would keep the price of frozen cheese at $2.99/lb, not the
> price of "food" at some rate.
>
> However, setting aside that problem by assuming that frozen cheese is the
> only food in the world, think about what such a policy is accomplishing.
> After prices in the economy adjusted to the point where it cost exactly
> $2.99 to produce a pound of frozen cheese, the result would be a stable
> price level. While there are benefits to having a stable price level,
> there are no extra benefits to having it stabilized by using frozen cheese
> as the stabilizing force rather than any other method. The foodness of
> the standard is thus irrelevant. However, since food has a relatively
> high storage cost, the costs of such a policy are high. Thus, as far as I
> can see, with that as the meaning for having food as the standard of
> value, the policy is useless--one might as well use a commodity with a
> lower storage cost.
I'd expect an economist to complain that the prices of everything else would
swing inversely with grain prices, which give the cost of feeding the cheese
makers, who will inherit the earth. The effect would be alternating inflation
and deflation for everything but cheese.
On the other hand, it keeps inflating the currency from being a policy, structurally
speaking.
Greenspan is more or less using a basket of stuff to fix a less variable point,
but he isn't fixing it of course, but letting it inflate slowly, and who knows
what the next guy will do.
That drives up interest rates, in a way a fixing something does not do.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
| >I tend to think of subjectivity as involving consciousness,
| >will, and agency. If (for example) food is wealth because a
| >biological process in our bodies causes us to value it, we
| >can objectify that as if it were happening in a machine.
| >That kind of wealth would be objective (relatively
| >speaking). Not intrinsic -- we still need the evaluator --
| >but now the evaluator has no subjectivity.
lor...@cc.gatech.edu (Eric Lorenzo):
| I suppose this is just where you and I differ. I don't think that
| subjectivity involves consciousness *exclusively*. Or rather, I
| don't think you can completely seperate consciousness from the
| biological processes that it depends on, and that seems to
| be required for the objectification you speak of.
I can easily separate subjectivity from the the biological
processes it depends or seems to depend on. In fact, that
sort of thing is a frequent and widespread cultural
practice. And on the other side, I figure if you can model
something as a machine, it's no longer in subjectivity
country.
It's interesting that What Is Value / Wealth problem seems
to have about the same structure as the What Is Consciousness
problem. So it will probably have the same unsatisfactory
"solutions."
Michael L. Siemon
In article <5g56rn$q...@panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
+And on the other side, I figure if you can model
+something as a machine, it's no longer in subjectivity
+country.
What is a "machine"? [hint: this should be a much easier
question to answer than "what is wealth?" -- but I do not
expect to see a good answer to it, in the sense of being
able to address your stated prejudice.]
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"Green is the night, green kindled and apparelled.
It is she that walks among astronomers."
-- Wallace Stevens
Jim Hartley
Ron Hardin (r...@research.att.com) wrote:
> Jim Hartley wrote:
> > Knowing a fair amount about both economics and monetary economics, I can
> > say that as a simple matter of definition, I can't make any sense out of
> > the proposal. What does it mean for the standard of money to be food? Or
> > more simply, what is the "standard for money"? You will find that trying
> > to provide an answer to that question will demonstrate either the
> > impracticality, triteness or uselessness of the proposal.
> It surely means that the value of food is constant; Fort Knox would stock
> frozen cheese, and offer it at $2.99 a pound in exchange for currency.
> Conversely, it would buy cheese at $2.99 and print currency. Thus just
> the right amount of currency would be in circulation to keep cheese at
> $2.99.
Such a policy would keep the price of frozen cheese at $2.99/lb, not the
price of "food" at some rate.
However, setting aside that problem by assuming that frozen cheese is the
only food in the world, think about what such a policy is accomplishing.
After prices in the economy adjusted to the point where it cost exactly
$2.99 to produce a pound of frozen cheese, the result would be a stable
price level. While there are benefits to having a stable price level,
there are no extra benefits to having it stabilized by using frozen cheese
as the stabilizing force rather than any other method. The foodness of
the standard is thus irrelevant. However, since food has a relatively
high storage cost, the costs of such a policy are high. Thus, as far as I
can see, with that as the meaning for having food as the standard of
value, the policy is useless--one might as well use a commodity with a
lower storage cost.
The Mandatory Book Reference: Child, _The Way To Cook_
--
Jim Hartley
jhar...@mtholyoke.edu
Richard Harter
jhar...@mtholyoke.edu (Jim Hartley) wrote:
>Such a policy would keep the price of frozen cheese at $2.99/lb, not the
>price of "food" at some rate.
>However, setting aside that problem by assuming that frozen cheese is the
>only food in the world, think about what such a policy is accomplishing.
>After prices in the economy adjusted to the point where it cost exactly
>$2.99 to produce a pound of frozen cheese, the result would be a stable
>price level. While there are benefits to having a stable price level,
>there are no extra benefits to having it stabilized by using frozen cheese
>as the stabilizing force rather than any other method. The foodness of
>the standard is thus irrelevant. However, since food has a relatively
>high storage cost, the costs of such a policy are high. Thus, as far as I
>can see, with that as the meaning for having food as the standard of
>value, the policy is useless--one might as well use a commodity with a
>lower storage cost.
Now you raise an interesting question - what food should be used as
the standard of value. It should not, as you make clear, be one such
that the cost of storage be significant or one such that it will
degrade over time. Thus one is lead to think of alternatives such as
spam or of fruit-cakes. Alas, given their position as a standard of
value, their production would be encouraged - a possibility destined
to bring a shudder to the hearts of the sturdiest of souls.
Upon reflection it seems to me that the best choices are either haggis
or lutefisk. Not both though - we do not want the curse of
bifoodalism visited on our monetary system. In the end you would have
some modern day populist rising the cry "Unlimited Haggis at 16 to 1".
Let it be lutefisk, genuine nordic lutefisk. It's use as a monetary
standard would, no doubt, encourage its production in Sweden. So be
it. The Swedes would continue to make and consume their peculiar dish
diverting some of their production to the needs of international
commerce. In so doing they would inevitably take over the role of the
great national bankers. When tight money is wanted the Swedes must
willy-nilly as a patriotic duty consume a greater share of lutefisk.
When looser money is wanted they must in turn restrain their
indecorous appetite. Since the fashions of consumption are driven by
the television cooking shows the doyens of these show will take over
the role played by Mr. Greenspan and his ilk - particularly his ilk.
A truly admirable scheme.
>--
>Jim Hartley
>jhar...@mtholyoke.edu
Dima Bicleanu
In article <5fnuu6$g...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>What is wealth?
>
>These articles seem to assume an understanding of the
>concept. However, because I have puzzled about the Labor
>Theory of Value for some time, I have concluded that the
>concept of wealth (the accumulation of that Value) is not
>well understood. Mostly, it seems to me that Value has
>subjective, objective, and functionalist constructions which
>are quite at variance with one another. I wonder if anyone
>would care to attempt to define or locate it.
If you are genuinely interested, try the classic Adam Smith's "The Wealth of
Nations" and then Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose", for an adaptation of
Adam Smith's theories in modern USA - also a very pleasant reading (Adam Smith
is quite boring!).
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| +And on the other side, I figure if you can model
| +something as a machine, it's no longer in subjectivity
| +country.
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
| What is a "machine"? [hint: this should be a much easier
| question to answer than "what is wealth?" -- but I do not
| expect to see a good answer to it, in the sense of being
| able to address your stated prejudice.]
How about: a being whose behavior can be completely
predicted by a (finite) program. If we can always state
what the being is going to do, we can state what it will
value (trade time and energy to obtain) on any occasion.
Then we can begin to treat Value as an objectivity instead
of something arising from the being's consciousness and
will. This is regardless of whether the being experiences
consciousness and will; if the consciousness-and-will don't
do anything, they don't matter (in this case).
G*rd*n
di...@syd.dmt.csiro.au (Dima Bicleanu):
| If you are genuinely interested, try the classic Adam Smith's "The Wealth of
|Nations" and then Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose", for an adaptation of
|Adam Smith's theories in modern USA - also a very pleasant reading (Adam Smith
|is quite boring!).
Adam Smith, as far as I know, believed in a labor theory
of value. I find the idea very attractive, but it has
difficulties which are hard to overcome.
Dima Bicleanu
In article <01bc29c7$3fe2f340$479fe6ce@buds>,
"Sam Woodgeard" <us...@fairfieldi.com> wrote:
>Every thing that is considered to be material wealth is
>things created by the hands of workers.
>Paper pushers, wall street... big business, none of these
>are creators of wealth, they are leeches who step on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the backs of the working Americans.
>
I would go further and say THEY are VAMPIRES WHO SPIT their poisonous blood at
the neck of brave working class heros!!!
Not to mention that THEY invented wicked machines and robots that replaced the
brave, unique, toiling creators of wealth in most industries...They should be
all destroyed and thrown away in the garbage bin of History, together with the
above mentioned leeches, vampires and all those cars, TV's, computers,
refrigerators and Chinese toys they manufacture, in defiance of the working
class!!!
Michael L. Siemon
In article <5g68tl$r...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
+g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
+| +And on the other side, I figure if you can model
+| +something as a machine, it's no longer in subjectivity
+| +country.
+
+m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
+| What is a "machine"? [hint: this should be a much easier
+| question to answer than "what is wealth?" -- but I do not
+| expect to see a good answer to it, in the sense of being
+| able to address your stated prejudice.]
+
+How about: a being whose behavior can be completely
+predicted by a (finite) program. If we can always state
+what the being is going to do, we can state what it will
+value (trade time and energy to obtain) on any occasion.
+Then we can begin to treat Value as an objectivity instead
+of something arising from the being's consciousness and
+will. This is regardless of whether the being experiences
+consciousness and will; if the consciousness-and-will don't
+do anything, they don't matter (in this case).
You are trying to slip philosphical determinism in through a
back door. I suppose that I might agree, that in a classically
deterministic comsos, subjectivity could be dismissed as a
category of explanatory interest. Since the cosmos is *not*
deterministic in any classical sense, such a definition of
machine strikes me as pointless in your context. There *are*
no such machines (except in theory, of course.)
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| +| +And on the other side, I figure if you can model
| +| +something as a machine, it's no longer in subjectivity
| +| +country.
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
| +| What is a "machine"? [hint: this should be a much easier
| +| question to answer than "what is wealth?" -- but I do not
| +| expect to see a good answer to it, in the sense of being
| +| able to address your stated prejudice.]
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| +How about: a being whose behavior can be completely
| +predicted by a (finite) program. If we can always state
| +what the being is going to do, we can state what it will
| +value (trade time and energy to obtain) on any occasion.
| +Then we can begin to treat Value as an objectivity instead
| +of something arising from the being's consciousness and
| +will. This is regardless of whether the being experiences
| +consciousness and will; if the consciousness-and-will don't
| +do anything, they don't matter (in this case).
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon):
| You are trying to slip philosphical determinism in through a
| back door. I suppose that I might agree, that in a classically
| deterministic comsos, subjectivity could be dismissed as a
| category of explanatory interest. Since the cosmos is *not*
| deterministic in any classical sense, such a definition of
| machine strikes me as pointless in your context. There *are*
| no such machines (except in theory, of course.)
Surely there are some objects in the world which can be
described mechanistically (especially if we are allowed
to use statistics) with a fair degree of success,
whether or not the world is classically deterministic.
What I want to do is differentiate concepts of Value. We
have the idea that Value arises only out of a mental act:
G*rd*n (g...@panix.com) wrote:
| : Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
| : kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
| : -- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
| : will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov):
| Go ahead. I still prefer books.
but this concept leads to some peculiar results. Then there
are other, more non-subjective concepts, like labor theories
of value. In general, I think this second set of concepts
might be described as mechanical, that is, Value can be
expected to arise where certain situations exist, and we can
write a program which will describe the process.
It's also possible that arbitrary and determined Value
coexist and are mixed together or are arranged in a
structure, so that when we talk about Value (or Wealth) we
are speaking ambiguously.
David Christopher Swanson
Two points.
Pace Claudia, I have no theory, and thus my theory cannot be put into
effect. I just want to make rich people ashamed of themselves, and ask
them to consider doing as much good as they can with their money.
After all, they already claim to be doing as much good as they can with
their money. It's worth pointing out to them that they are miserable
failures and ought to try harder.
All discoveries of political arrangements worse than our own do not in
any apparent way bear on the above concern.
DCS
Fred J. Drinkwater
Richard Harter (c...@tiac.net) wrote:
: It actually makes a great deal of sense. If anything else is used as
: a standard of value for backing money it can go up or down relative to
: everything else. Gold has been used to back money; silver has been
: used; wampum has been used; tobacco has been used; beaver pelts have
: been used; stone wheels have been used on the yap islands.
: Robert Heinlein had one of his characters say something to the effect
: "Don't pay any attention to what they tell you money is worth; look at
: the price of a loaf of bread; that tell's you what money is worth."
: But I suspect it wouldn't work. A variant on the idea is to back
: money with land; the idea is the same - they aren't making any more
: land so the value stays fixed. This has been done. The catch is that
: you don't actually use land (or food) for money - you end up using
: pieces of paper that are claims on land (or food). And it turns out
: that once you have pieces of paper some sharp fellow figures out how
: to jigger them and that's what happened.
It is certainly not the case that the value of land is fixed. Its value
will vary depending on the demand for it, just like almost anything else
you can think of outside of the world of abstract "moneys" (cash, gold).
All the potatoes in Ireland are rotting? My potato-growing land is now
more valuable than it was yesterday. People decide living near the
ocean is nice? My beachfront property (which yesterday was just a
hunk of dune) is now more valuable. People decide they don't like
tornados? The land my trailer-park sits on is now less valuable.
Besides, why would anyone want to base an economy on a thing of
fixed value which is available only in a fixed quantity? Modern
economies are generally not zero-sum.
Fred Drinkwater
David Christopher Swanson
In article <handleym-080...@handma.apple.com>
hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley) writes:
> in your grandiose hope that people
> will simply give up wealth because you ask them to.
I don't intend JUST to ask them, I also intend to tell them stories
about lives geographically near them about which they know very little.
I intend to suggest how they could live BETTER in some ways by
spending less. I intend to SHAME them into decency. Get it?
DCS
Ron Hardin
David Christopher Swanson wrote:
> I don't intend JUST to ask them, I also intend to tell them stories
> about lives geographically near them about which they know very little.
> I intend to suggest how they could live BETTER in some ways by
> spending less. I intend to SHAME them into decency. Get it?
Why don't you shame them for not following their interests? Then you
can talk to impoverished persons too.
Michael L. Siemon
In article <5g5a9i$q...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) wrote:
+Let it be lutefisk, genuine nordic lutefisk. It's use as a monetary
+standard would, no doubt, encourage its production in Sweden. So be
+it. The Swedes would continue to make and consume their peculiar dish
+diverting some of their production to the needs of international
+commerce. In so doing they would inevitably take over the role of the
+great national bankers. When tight money is wanted the Swedes must
+willy-nilly as a patriotic duty consume a greater share of lutefisk.
+When looser money is wanted they must in turn restrain their
+indecorous appetite. Since the fashions of consumption are driven by
+the television cooking shows the doyens of these show will take over
+the role played by Mr. Greenspan and his ilk - particularly his ilk.
You haven't, by any chance, been reading a lot of Jack Vance recently,
have you? or perhaps the occasional net presence of my favorite Nordic
Vance translator, Torkel Franzen? This sounds like something he might
have slipped you in email...
Ted Samsel
Ron Hardin (r...@research.att.com) wrote:
: Jim Hartley wrote:
: > Knowing a fair amount about both economics and monetary economics, I can
: > say that as a simple matter of definition, I can't make any sense out of
: > the proposal. What does it mean for the standard of money to be food? Or
: > more simply, what is the "standard for money"? You will find that trying
: > to provide an answer to that question will demonstrate either the
: > impracticality, triteness or uselessness of the proposal.
:
: It surely means that the value of food is constant; Fort Knox would stock
: frozen cheese, and offer it at $2.99 a pound in exchange for currency.
: Conversely, it would buy cheese at $2.99 and print currency. Thus just
: the right amount of currency would be in circulation to keep cheese at
: $2.99.
Are we talking Velveeta(tm), Vermont Cheddar, Liederkranz or Mennonite
Chihuahua cheese?
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Robert Teeter
Fred J. Drinkwater (drin...@adobe.com) wrote:
: It is certainly not the case that the value of land is fixed. Its value
: will vary depending on the demand for it, just like almost anything else
: you can think of outside of the world of abstract "moneys" (cash, gold).
Even money has varying value in relation to other money. Hence
currency exchange rates, the price of gold, and interest rates.
Richard Harter
m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon) wrote:
>In article <5g5a9i$q...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
>Harter) wrote:
[something so inspired that my native modesty demands I not repeat it]
>You haven't, by any chance, been reading a lot of Jack Vance recently,
>have you? or perhaps the occasional net presence of my favorite Nordic
>Vance translator, Torkel Franzen? This sounds like something he might
>have slipped you in email...
More likely Jack Daniels than Jack Vance. However Vance did write an
apropos novel, Big Planet, in which there was a town in which people
took turns being rich and being poor.
Richard Harter
dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
[A great moral tract quite up to his usual standard...]
I have been thinking about this business of having people being
ashamed of having wealth and I think there is much to it, particularly
if one takes into account the maxim of maximizing collective
happiness. However my conclusions are slightly different.
If the posession of wealth is a shameful business and yet there needs
must be wealth to be possessed then I think it is right and proper
that a few should take on the onus of shame for the money. The moral
problem is that the multitude has too much and rich too little.
Consider a poor man and a rich man and the meaning of a dollar to
each. To the poor man the dollar is significant; ergo the shame in
desiring it is great. To the rich man the dollar is insignificant;
ergo the shame in acquiring another dollar is minimal. From this we
can only conclude that moral rectitude is maximized when the poor give
their money to the rich.
I, being of a noble and sacrificing sort, volunteer to take this onus
upon myself. I am willing to accept the widow's mite, the orphan's
candy, and pennies from the poor, all so that they might benefit more
fully by the moral advantages of poverty. It is true that I will
thereby bring shame and degradation upon myself but I do this in the
knowledge that by so doing I maximize the moral rectitude of the
community.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Michael L. Siemon wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>In article <5g5a9i$q...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
>Harter) wrote:
>+Let it be lutefisk, genuine nordic lutefisk. It's use as a monetary
>+standard would, no doubt, encourage its production in Sweden. So be
>+it. The Swedes would continue to make and consume their peculiar dish
>+diverting some of their production to the needs of international
>+commerce. In so doing they would inevitably take over the role of the
>+great national bankers. When tight money is wanted the Swedes must
>+willy-nilly as a patriotic duty consume a greater share of lutefisk.
>+When looser money is wanted they must in turn restrain their
>+indecorous appetite. Since the fashions of consumption are driven by
>+the television cooking shows the doyens of these show will take over
>+the role played by Mr. Greenspan and his ilk - particularly his ilk.
>
>You haven't, by any chance, been reading a lot of Jack Vance recently,
>have you? or perhaps the occasional net presence of my favorite Nordic
>Vance translator, Torkel Franzen? This sounds like something he might
>have slipped you in email...
This idea does have some merit.
Lutefisk is as easy to store as gold -- it doesn't spoil. (Or if it
does, how could you tell?)
But lutefisk is much more difficult to successfully steal than gold.
It tends to be rather easy to trace the culprits, as well as the
lutefisk itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Ron Hardin
Ted Samsel wrote:
> Are we talking Velveeta(tm), Vermont Cheddar, Liederkranz or Mennonite
> Chihuahua cheese?
I was thinking of uniform bricks of Kroger Cheddar, at the $2.99 price.
There would be Fort Knox mild, sharp, and New York style, differing only
in label.
Maynard Handley
In article <5g3ugm$1...@epx.cis.umn.edu>, miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
(Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
> : : In article <E6Mv1...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
> : : David Christopher Swanson <dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> : : >
> : : >I do not want over $30,000 a year, will not take it, will get
> : : >rid of it if I'm given it.
>
> Why over $30000? A person can survive quite well on $15000. Why are you
> being so greedy?
>
Good point, Larisa. I went through grad school on $10 000 a year and I
thought I was living well. As an undergrad I had WAY less than that.
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Maynard Handley
In article <332618...@research.att.com>, Ron Hardin
<r...@research.att.com> wrote:
> Jim Hartley wrote:
> > Such a policy would keep the price of frozen cheese at $2.99/lb, not the
> > price of "food" at some rate.
> >
> > However, setting aside that problem by assuming that frozen cheese is the
> > only food in the world, think about what such a policy is accomplishing.
> > After prices in the economy adjusted to the point where it cost exactly
> > $2.99 to produce a pound of frozen cheese, the result would be a stable
> > price level. While there are benefits to having a stable price level,
> > there are no extra benefits to having it stabilized by using frozen cheese
> > as the stabilizing force rather than any other method. The foodness of
> > the standard is thus irrelevant. However, since food has a relatively
> > high storage cost, the costs of such a policy are high. Thus, as far as I
> > can see, with that as the meaning for having food as the standard of
> > value, the policy is useless--one might as well use a commodity with a
> > lower storage cost.
>
> I'd expect an economist to complain that the prices of everything else would
> swing inversely with grain prices, which give the cost of feeding the cheese
> makers, who will inherit the earth. The effect would be alternating inflation
> and deflation for everything but cheese.
>
> On the other hand, it keeps inflating the currency from being a policy,
structurally
> speaking.
>
> Greenspan is more or less using a basket of stuff to fix a less variable
point,
> but he isn't fixing it of course, but letting it inflate slowly, and who knows
> what the next guy will do.
>
> That drives up interest rates, in a way a fixing something does not do.
Which is no bad thing given the psycological willingness of people to
accept wage cuts. A small amount of inflation allows for some flexibility
in allowing the system to adjust in a psychologically acceptable manner
that benefits everyone. When you tie things to the inflation rate and thus
effectively give yourself no wiggle room whatever, you screw things up
right royally. The obvious example is US inflation-linked benefits.
Maynard
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
My opinion only
Omar Haneef
: dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
[Let owning a great deal of money be shameful.]
Here is what I think: David, you have the order reversed. Its much
harder for culture to influence material then it is for material to
influence culture. (How should I put it? I know base and superstructure are
supposed to feedback on each other, but I think the loop is skewed to
favour base.)
The birth control pill in a certain cultural context will reliably
lead to a sexual revolution, but it is much more difficult to imagine that
sexual mores will spontaneously arise that would compell researchers to
come up with a solution.
I think that in order to understand the current system of linking
wealth to status, one would have to look for what keeps the system in place,
and then determine how that situation might be changed.
I would look towards Darwinian/Socio-biological reasons for the
pride and joy of wealth. You might have other reasons, but you need a
working explanation before you can propose anything.
-Omar
G*rd*n
David Christopher Swanson <dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
| > : : >
| > : : >I do not want over $30,000 a year, will not take it, will get
| > : : >rid of it if I'm given it.
miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
| > Why over $30000? A person can survive quite well on $15000. Why are you
| > being so greedy?
hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley):
| Good point, Larisa. I went through grad school on $10 000 a year and I
| thought I was living well. As an undergrad I had WAY less than that.
Hah. I'll see you both and raise you -- I mean lower you.
When I lived in Vancouver in the '70s, I knew a fellow who
took a religious vow not to touch money, and lived on zero a
year, doing odd jobs for food and shelter. He had been
doing it for three years when I met him. Of course, a lot
of inflation has taken place since then, so you'd have to
multiply his budget some to take care of it.
And don't forget it was Canadian money.
Ron Hardin
G*rd*n wrote:
> Hah. I'll see you both and raise you -- I mean lower you.
> When I lived in Vancouver in the '70s, I knew a fellow who
> took a religious vow not to touch money, and lived on zero a
> year, doing odd jobs for food and shelter. He had been
> doing it for three years when I met him. Of course, a lot
> of inflation has taken place since then, so you'd have to
> multiply his budget some to take care of it.
>
> And don't forget it was Canadian money.
Nothing went a lot farther in those days. Everything is so
expensive now.
Larisa Migachyov
Robert Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Larisa Migachyov wrote:
: : >| ... Value is subjective. ...
: Grd*n wrote:
: : >Then we don't need our industrial system, or in fact any
: : >kind of work. All we need to do is evaluate certain objects
: : >-- rocks of a certain shape, let us say -- very highly. We
: : >will be surrounded by a paradise of wealth.
: Eric Lorenzo (lor...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
: : There is a clear distinction between "subjective" and "arbitrary" that
: : you seem to be failing to make. Just because the value we place on an
: : object is determined within ourselves does not mean that we have
: : conscious, willful control over the process of assigning that value.
: I, Robert Teeter, wrote:
: : > I think you missed the point. You could have all the gold
: : >in the world, but if there's nothing to spend it on, you aren't
: : >wealthy. There has to be people producing goods and services for
: : >anything to have any value.
: Eric Lorenzo responded:
: : I'm not sure I can see what this has to do with subjectivity vs.
: : objectivity of value. I've spent a good 10 minutes turning it over
: : in my mind, and I just can't figure it out. Could you elaborate?
: Perhaps Larisa could explain what she meant by "subjective,"
I definitely could. What I meant is that a thing that has value for one
person might not have any value for another. If I found an antique
baseball card, it would be worth almost nothing to me. (Well, I could
use it as a bookmark, I guess). A collector of antique baseball cards,
however, would value it highly enough to pay $50,000 for it (I'm not sure
of the actual price, but you get my point). An object's value varies as
the need for it varies. This is all I meant.
Larisa
Larisa Migachyov
David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: Two points.
: Pace Claudia, I have no theory, and thus my theory cannot be put into
: effect. I just want to make rich people ashamed of themselves, and ask
: them to consider doing as much good as they can with their money.
: After all, they already claim to be doing as much good as they can with
: their money. It's worth pointing out to them that they are miserable
: failures and ought to try harder.
Why should someone be ashamed of working hard to accumulate money?
Surely, the hard work benefits society quite a lot. And taking away rich
folks' money reminds me of what happened right after the Russian
revolution. Before the redistribution of wealth, there were rich farmers
who worked hard and had well-kept fields and healthy cattle, and poor
farmers, who had poorly-kept fields and drank away all their money.
After the redistribution of wealth, the rich farmers had their fields and
cattle taken away, and the poor farmers got it. The rich farmers were
now poor, and afraid to get too rich because their profits would be taken
away again, and the poor farmers were still poor, because they drank away
all the profits and all the redistributed wealth.
I'd recommend you to read some works on Russian history. I think it
might lead you to rethink your theories.
Larisa
Larisa Migachyov
: hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley) writes:
: > in your grandiose hope that people
: > will simply give up wealth because you ask them to.
: I don't intend JUST to ask them, I also intend to tell them stories
: about lives geographically near them about which they know very little.
: I intend to suggest how they could live BETTER in some ways by
: spending less. I intend to SHAME them into decency. Get it?
What stories? Tell me. My family now earns a fair amount of money, and
would come pretty close to qualifying for "wealth" under your criterion.
What stories? Stories of people on welfare? My family has been on
welfare and got off it through hard work. Stories of immigrants coming
to a country without knowing the language? I've been there. Stories of
discrimination and racism? I've endured plenty of discrimination in my
country of birth - you don't need to tell me anything.
Why should I be ashamed of earning money? I work hard to earn it. I pay
taxes to support those on welfare and in poverty. Definitely, 30% of my
income is enough to qualify as a philanthropic contribution. The fact
that the government spends it improperly is not my fault, and I will not
send more money their way.
I take it that you have never been poor. If you had been, you wouldn't
be talking about "living better by spending less". Poverty does not
ennoble. It makes people petty, mean, and totally unconcerned with
anything beyond how to get the next meal. Read some Russian history,
particularly during Stalin's rule, to get the flavor of what it is like
to live in a society forced into poverty.
You have no business telling me how to run my life. If I want to spend
$100 on books, it's my business and not yours. What is "an excessive
amount to spend on books"? Who determines it? If I want to eat caviar,
I will buy it. If I want to go to Paris for a week, I will. It is my
money, earned by my hard work, and I will spend it how I want to.
I do give money to charities and organizations that I agree with. But
the amount of money and the specific charities are my business and not
yours. If I don't want to give money to a cause, you can't shame me into
doing it.
Larisa
G*rd*n
hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley) writes:
| : > in your grandiose hope that people
| : > will simply give up wealth because you ask them to.
David Christopher Swanson (dc...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
| : I don't intend JUST to ask them, I also intend to tell them stories
| : about lives geographically near them about which they know very little.
| : I intend to suggest how they could live BETTER in some ways by
| : spending less. I intend to SHAME them into decency. Get it?
miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov):
| What stories? Tell me. ...
He could show them _Slacker_.
Fred J. Drinkwater
G*rd*n (g...@panix.com) wrote:
: David Christopher Swanson <dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
: | > : : >
: | > : : >I do not want over $30,000 a year, will not take it, will get
: | > : : >rid of it if I'm given it.
: miga...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
: | > Why over $30000? A person can survive quite well on $15000. Why are you
: | > being so greedy?
: hand...@apple.com (Maynard Handley):
: | Good point, Larisa. I went through grad school on $10 000 a year and I
: | thought I was living well. As an undergrad I had WAY less than that.
: Hah. I'll see you both and raise you -- I mean lower you.
: When I lived in Vancouver in the '70s, I knew a fellow who
: took a religious vow not to touch money, and lived on zero a
: year, doing odd jobs for food and shelter. He had been
: doing it for three years when I met him. Of course, a lot
: of inflation has taken place since then, so you'd have to
: multiply his budget some to take care of it.
Well, I can't beat $0, but I managed two years at UC Berkeley on a grand
total of around $6000 c. 1980. Didn't even have to sell my books back
to make it.
: And don't forget it was Canadian money.
So is there big money to be made in the Canada - US forex market?
How 'bout smuggling beer across the border?
Fred Drinkwater
Michael L. Siemon
In article <5g83da$2...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) wrote:
+I, being of a noble and sacrificing sort, volunteer to take this onus
+upon myself. I am willing to accept the widow's mite, the orphan's
+candy, and pennies from the poor, all so that they might benefit more
+fully by the moral advantages of poverty. It is true that I will
+thereby bring shame and degradation upon myself but I do this in the
+knowledge that by so doing I maximize the moral rectitude of the
+community.
Hmmmph. A closet Calvinist. I recall a story (utterly true, I must
believe, despite having no particulars to report...) of a young man,
a student facing an examining body of Presbyterian elders (and *no*
elders are elder than Presby-elders) on his qualifications for being
called to the Ministry (of what, I have often wondered: defense? ...
never mind. I should return to the cure of souls, preferably over a
nice mesquite fire.) After failing in many points on questions out of
the _Institutes_, he was finally asked (by a merciful, I must believe)
by one examiner:
Are you prepared to see yourself damned, for the greater
glory of God?
he replied:
Yes. I am even prepared to see you damned, for the same end.
Mario Taboada
In Buddhism, it is not wealth itself that is condemned but *attachment to it*
(as is attachment in general). Thus, while chosen poverty is a highly
virtuous stance, it is by no means mandatory or even recommended in
general - it is usually required of monks and nuns, for obvious reasons.
Incidentally, $30,000 a year may or may not be enough for a family to
live on - however, I like this figure and I would propose it as the
sum to be guaranteed to everyone (adjusted for inflation) when universal
salary to citizens is instituted. I suspect we will see this within the
next couple of decades.
Regards,
--
Mario Taboada
* Department of Mathematics * Old Dominion University * Norfolk, Virginia
e-mail: tab...@math.odu.edu