> > > [Krimel] > No, it is not. No one values money for its own sake, no one, ever. Money > ONLY has value in virtue of the social understanding of what money is and > what you can do with it. Even the very wealthy, who seem to use it as a way > of keeping score, value you money for what it means not for what it is. >
[John] Perhaps there is some semantic confusion between us. Perhaps you think when I say "money" I mean the literal paper and metal objects that symbolize relative monetary value. What I mean by "money" is that mutually agreed upon means of exchange that represents higher status in a society -whether its printed and you can hold it or it is electronic information you can view on a screen. Obviously nobody wants money because they like the feel of it in their pocket or because they are bequiled by squiggles on a screen. But all the time, people want money for security in case something happens or in case they want to buy something someday, they know not what. Or for power. Money for power is probably the easiest example to make my point - all the billionaires millionaire fillionaires whom posses more than enough wealth to provide every tangible and intangible need you could imagine. Yet they still want more. Money is power, social power, so saying you want more money to get more power IS money for it's own sake. Or power for its own sake, however you want to term it. Or it is in the way I'm terming it anyway. > [Krimel] > There you have it, money is a way of measuring value. The idea that some > kind of mythical market is the only means of apportioning value is a > satanic > view advanced by the Raygun revolution. People were not quite so stupid > prior to 1980. Hopefully the folly of the foolishness has been amply > demonstrated and we can finally put it behind us. > [John] Well I see a problem with your optimism. Because of Capitalism's powerful anti-dynamic, you know, the old saying that you gotta have money to make money, those who have the most money have the most power in determining its value and their motives (Tah-dah!) are selfish. It's designed into the system that way. Thus I don't hold much hope out for your "we". [Krimel] > Think about what you are saying. A free market really means a chance > market. > It means that value is assigned through a series of random acts without any > intellectual interference. This is why basketball players get millions and > teachers get squat. It is why the shady dealings of hedge fund managers and > corporate raiders are richly rewarded and secretaries and police officers > are lucky to make ends meet. [John] Honestly? I'm more attracted to a chance market than a controlled one. Unless I'm doing all the controlling of course. It seems to me that chance is more fair than intellectual control. Really, intellectual control is just a fancy way of saying political control. Shudder. And hey, everybody you named makes more than an old woodcutter, and I ain't complaining any. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
