I proposed it as a terrible idea. But as a way to show just how easy it is to "create" wealth where there was none. Turning public space into private space is one way. Just shows how malleable and silly putty-like is this money which sends the world scrambling every day.
btw, there is a book out by an economist (featured in the PBS program on globalization #3, I think) who suggests that one of the problems of the less developed countries is the blurred ownerhip of so much of the land. by clearing up who owns what and by awarding deeds, etc., the money pump can be primed. who knows? maybe he is right. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:58 PM To: Ray Evans Harrell; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: mcore; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reality of money (was RE: Computers: our downfall (wasRe: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost?) > 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. You can extend this scenario a bit. The Canadian thing to do would be to send a parliamentary committee out to investigate. The bears would eat the politicians and we would all be better off. Ed Weick > > ----- 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] > > > _________________________________________________ > > > >
