Hi, sorry about the delay in responding.


On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Paul King wrote:

> > Money-systems should be scrutinized for their ability to manufacture
> > consent...
> >
> > "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not
> >    who makes the laws!"
> >    - Baron Rothchild
> >
> > Harry Veeder
> >
>
> I fully agree, they should be. If you mean by "money systems"
> economic systems, like a comparison between soclialism and
> capitalism, that argument seems to be raging in other posts. However,
> if you simply mean to suggest the creation of a money system where
> the rich never get *too* rich (and hence too powerful), one would
> have to ask what the cutoff point is for "too much wealth".
>
When the hoarding of wealth begins to threaten the well being of others.
But as I see it this is largely not the problem, except in cases of land
disputes. The real problem is that with the given money-system, wealth
that could be distributed via the marketplace is not being properly
distributed because those who need money to make purchases don't have
enough it, thereby allowing the "rich" to determine the nature of markets.



> Sounds good, but discussions such as these run the risk of hitting a
> wall whenever one suggests that "all wealth should be distributed
> equally". If so, then are we not killing ambition and discouraging
> the incentive to excel in a chosen field? How is it that we can
> encourage excellence while equally distributing wealth and changing
> (or possibly eliminating) the notion of ownership?
>
It seems to me there are many reasons to excel besides material gain.
Doesn't one try to excel in a chosen field to become the best in THAT
field and not because one wants to sit on a load of booty, unless
"becoming rich" is a field in itself.

I am not trying to suggest we give up the idea of ownership. If anything
I am trying to bring the the legal notion of property to bear on the
reality of money.

There are (at least?) four important political/legal problems associated
with the creation and distribution of money:

1)How does a society decide what to use for money?

2)How does a society decide the value which money is suppose to be "storing"?

3)How does a society decide where the use of such money is acceptable?

4)How does a society decide how to produce and distribute such money?

5)How does a society decide how different kinds of money can be exchanged?

I know alot of people will say "let the market decide", but if this is
the ONLY method, then it will make the application of property law to
money impossible and effectively allows speculators to freely play with the
"price" of any and all currencies. This would be a lot like owning land,
but with no ability to determine how it should be used.







> Maybe once we can answer that we can then address the problem of who
> gets to manufacture consent.
>
> Would it not be enough simply to disallow private ownership of the
> media and news outlets?
>

I see money as also being a major form of communication. Every
money-system is designed to communicate a cherished value or set of
values held by a particular community. Right now, only the value of one
sort of community --the competing nation-state-- is represented by money.
Is this a fair monopoly on currency?

Harry Veeder