On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 6:37 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote:
> Re the article below: That's capitalism. As everyone knows, or should > know, the > thesis of capitalism and its dominion over all other modes of valuing, has > the > advantage of being completely amoral and unencumbered by a-priori > conditions. > If you've got the money, you've got what it takes to acquire (at least in > principle). Money is the great leveler. It respects nothing but itself. > There > are a few conditions -- none of them inherent -- where money is not good > enough > to acquire what it measures. I mentioned that some big-time dealers rank > collectors by means in addition to money; money is not sufficient to > obtain, > say, the latest Jeff Koons. I'm sure there are similar situations across > the > board: Real estate, sports tickets, etc. If money was not the great > equalizer > of values, what would take its place? Religion? An aristocracy? A > divine-rights king? I'm by no means a winner in the capitalist game but I > don't > know of anything that works better. After all, the world is a mess and it > ain't > heaven. All we can do is try to alleviate the pain and make it easier for > any > one of us to survive a little better. The evil of capitalism in my view > (my > socialist tendency) is that it pools in tight circles -- money begets > money -- > and needs to be spread out as a countermeasure to invigorate the widest > possible > field... - The white man knows how to make everything, but he does not know how to distribute it. Sitting Bull
