In reply to leaking pen's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:31:48 -0700: Hi, [snip] >you mean, like all the rich that inherit their wealth, and dont do >anything useful with it? They get plenty of things, it seems.
Yes they are amongst those I meant. The bottom line is that in our current society, those who *do* produce, produce *more* than they consume (actually quite a bit more), and this excess is consumed by those who produce nothing. Actually that's very simplistic, because there is great variety in the amount produced and consumed by individuals. IOW among the producers there are those who produce nearly nothing, and those who produce vast amounts. The same goes for consumers. My statement below was not intended to present my point of view (which it doesn't represent), but rather to point out that's Jed's statement was wrong. What he said implied that the producers and consumers are one and the same, whereas I was trying to point out that that is frequently not the case. > >On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Robin van Spaandonk ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:42:24 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >>>In an >>>industrial society, the people who make things must have enough money >>>to buy those things. >> [snip] >> If that were the case, there would be none left over for those who don't make >> anything. >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
