Hi Jonathan:
You claim that the fatal flaw in the capitalist position is equating money
with quality. Assuming we are still in the context of comparing
economic systems, I turn to Pirsig to see if he agrees with you. Lo and
behold, I find this quote in Lila, Chap. 5:
"What's so vague about the New York stock exchanges? Aren't values
what they're dealing with?."
Here we see Pirsig equating values (quality, morality) with the
quintessence of capitalism, the stock market.
I know of no one, much less a free enterpriser, who would argue
against your assertion that the value of money from the viewpoint of an
individual may depend on his economic status. (Money as money has
little or no value.) What I do argue is that the prices people are willing to
pay in a free market are a fair measure of the quality of the goods and
services bought and sold as opposed to a central government that
interferes in the market by setting prices or imposing price controls for
"the public good."
I agree that a free market is most dynamic when purchasing power is
spread around fairly evenly. The question becomes how one defines
"fairly evenly" and how to effect a redistribution of wealth without
discouraging dynamic innovation. Any suggestions based on a the
MOQ?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
