>From Charles Hope
OrionWorks sez: >> ... They don't want to hear about the fact that when government >> employees "spend" their money it boosts the economy in exactly >> the same manner as what would be "spent" from individuals who >> work and earn income out in the free market. Money is money. >> It makes no difference where the currency comes from nor >> how the currency is eventually spent. > No. Creating products according to market demand is different than > creating them without any market demand. Otherwise the unemployed > could all get rich hiring each other to create and sell snotty > tissues and books filled with with random words. > > Has it been that long since the USSR crumbled that we have forgotten > this? Leftists in power all over the world have to come face the > superiority of markets to determine what should be produced, except > for the west, where they are mercifully protected from the > consequences of their ideas. If you look carefully at your reply you may notice that it did not actually address what you had specifically highlighted from my previous response. You did reply about the need for a free market system in order to produce competitive products and services that potential customers can choose from to either buy or not as the case may be. I certainly agree with your concerns on such matters. None of my perceptions concerning the reevaluation of what currency represents was meant to do away with the superiority of a free market system. I'd like to in fact give free markets an additional shot in the arm, such as by making sure basic services like health insurance, transportation services, maintaining standards that keep raw materials and produce safe a basic right that everyone is entitled to receive. Those rights should not have to be paid for in the sense of being taxed. As we all know, many of our citizens literally can't afford many of these basic services, and there's the rub that needs to be addressed - and CAN be addressed. Governments should be able to employ individuals that have been appropriately educated to maintain such services, and they should be paid accordingly. Governments have the monetary resources to employ such individuals whereas private enterprises don't. A "virtual currency" system which is what I'm really talking about implies that it's the value of goods and services themselves that ultimately generates the value of "money", not the other way around. Unfortunately, this is a subtle point that many do not comprehend very well. Too many of us simply believe we can't afford this or that service while simultaneously oblivious to the fact that there exist plenty of raw materials, resources, and idle human labor that is more than capable of generating these very necessities. The only thing stopping their production is the perceived belief that we don't have enough money in the piggy bank to pay for them. Not true. So, how do we pay for them? A big difference that separates governments from business, is the fact that no business is allowed to generate money, out of thin air. Governments, however, can generate money, and do so all the time. It's the careful management of how much currency government allows to be distributed throughout the free market system that helps sustain a healthy stable economy. Granted, many governments have seriously abused such monetary powers causing massive hyperinflation to ensure. OTOH, Free markets, if left completely on their own resources, unchecked and unregulated, are completely incapable of keeping the economy healthy. Sooner or later many of such "enterprises" tend to run the economy into the ground. They will end up eating their own young. You mentioned the failure of the USSR. What about the failure of Enron? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
