As we say in the theater: "I love you Arthur but that is a terrible idea." Can you imagine the first Disney bear that eats a highly paid camper? Then you get the park as run by the Parliament. "Shoot the bears they are not good for business." Is this the reason Canada needed a Queen?
Ray Evans Harrell. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:03 AM Subject: RE: Reality of money (was RE: Computers: our downfall (wasRe: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost?) > Also, suddenly in money terms we can all become more "wealthy." Say the > government decided to privatize all national parks. Ownership shares were > sent to all Canadians. Suddenly a public good becomes commoditized as a > private good and people are and feel more wealthy. By defining something > differently it is montetized and goes into GDP as wealth. > > So instead of Parks Canada running the parks, it can be run by Parks Inc. > Admission fees are doubled, concessions granted, well you get the idea. > Sort of a wilderness Disneyland. > > arthur cordell > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:37 AM > To: Michael Gurstein; Keith Hudson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Reality of money (was RE: Computers: our downfall (wasRe: > Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost?) > > > > > What seems to be at issue here is the human inclination to search for, and > set, standards. We've done it with distance, weight, size, temperature and > various other things. If something weighs ten kilos, it weighs ten kilos, > whether its and ostrich, a motorcycle or a huge bag of wind. We've done the > same thing in the case of exchange value or valuing wealth (or poverty) or > making international comparisons. We've applied a common standard which > permit things to be valued so that exchanges can be made, wealth can be > measured or taxed, and comparisons among living standards can be made. > Money, while an abstraction, is so important to all of our affairs (just as > length or weight is) that it has taken on a reality of its own. What is > unique about money as a standard, however, is that it does not, and cannot, > remain fixed in value. Or, perhaps to turn things around, the things that > it measures do not remain fixed for long. Perhaps this is because money is > a strictly human standard. It does not exist in nature like, for example, > temperature does. > > Ed Weick > > > At 08:18 21/04/02 -0400, you wrote: > > >Hmmm.... > > > > > >Rocks are "real", we can stub our toes on them; coins are "real", we can > > >choke on them, or throw them at dogs urinating on our lawns (forgive me > > >Bishop Berkeley). "Money", like other forms of totem worship is a social > > >convention. > > > > > >MG > > > > Please yourself, then. But you're on a slippery slope if you can claim the > > privilege of denoting anything or everything as real or unreal as you > wish. > > > > Money has been real for at least 5,000 years, and very probably longer, > > ever since man traded beyond the confines of his local community. Except > > for natural disasters like droughts or famines, different forms of money > > have held their value for very long periods of time (except when > government > > intervenes). If, as it now turns out, you want to reinterpret all known > > history and all known cultures as having been prey to a social convention > > and not an economic necessity, then so be it. > > > > KH > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > "Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write > in > > order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow > > _________________________________________________ > > Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________ > >
