Subject:
|
Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:56:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
330 times
|
| |
|
|
richard marchetti wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > I think it would cause economic collapse.
>
> Gee, Frank -- don't you think its weird that I, a pagan, have generally come
> out in support of a custom enumerated in the bible; whereas you, a Xtian,
> have come out against it? Curiouser, and curiouser...
Please show me where I have EVER stated that I pay much heed at all to
the Bible. I really would hardly consider myself a Christian either,
true, I do consider Jesus to be a "great man" (possibly even
supernaturally great, but definitely NOT God in any way shape or form)
and true, I consider that the Bible does contain some useful knowledge
(but it also contains a lot of confusing or contradictory and generally
not useful material). I don't deny the existence of God, but in no way
do I accept the Christian God.
So, I see nothing curious or contradictory in my rejecting the Bible's
stance on usury.
> > Debt in and of itself is not a bad thing. What is bad is when the
> > interest any particular entity accumulates exceeds (or is even some
> > percentage) that entities income (over the long term, a short term
> > period where interest is higher than income is not necessarily bad).
> > Without debt and investment in it, it would be hard to pool capital in
> > order to do big things.
>
> Didn't you mean:
>
> Wealth in and of itself is not a bad thing. What is bad is when the
> wealth of any natural person exceeds that persons ability to make actual use
> of it.
Define ability to make actual use of wealth. At least in modern times, I
think there is very little true wealth which is just plain hoarded for
the sake of hoarding. Sure, there are things like diamonds which are
just sitting in drawers not doing a whole lot, but I think the value of
a diamond is elevated above it's natural value and mostly just reflects
a sentimental value (which is quite valid also, I certainly have things
I keep for sentimental reasons which in no way would I ever sell for
their actual value). Of course the consistency of the sentimental value
of diamonds actually makes them a reasonable way to store some amount of
wealth which is not tied to the artificial wealth represented by
investment (money, banks, stocks, etc.).
And personally, in my opinion, no one who has "toys" or any other
"luxury" wealth above the wealth that the majority of the people in the
world have has any justification in taking such a position as you seem
to be taking. Your LEGO collection is just a difference in magnitude,
not a difference in kind from Bill Gate's wealth.
> > Without debt and investment in it, it would be hard to pool capital in
> > order to do big things.
>
> Like what? Build pyramids, or big corporations? I am often hearing how
> three guys built Apple computers in a garage with stolen parts...
First, a comment on Apple. I would point out that after creating the
Apple, they asked HP if HP wanted to market it. HP had plenty of
opportunity at that time to chastise them for use of company equipment
(I haven't ever heard that they took parts home from work, but I'll
accept that they may have, they did use borrowed equipment).
In a later post you mention public works. Public works need to be able
to use loans also. In order to build infrastructure, you need to be able
to distribute the acquisition of the capital over the future life of the
thing being built.
Another way to look at it:
Take a young family, who has been in the workforce for just a few years.
They would like to acquire a house. How will they get the capital to
acquire that house? If they have to borrow that money, shouldn't they
pay something to the lender to compensate the lender for the use of the
money? If no one is allowed to have more wealth than they can personally
use to sustain their own living (and how do we measure what is
reasonable to accumulate for toys?), then who would have the excess
money to allow the young couple to borrow money to buy the house?
Of course in the pioneering days, you could just go find an empty piece
of land (or not so empty), get a few others to find pieces of land near
yours, and all join together to build each others houses. A good
question here is how much this activity depended on taking land away
from the Native Americans without compensating them.
Prior to the modern banking, I think you will find that the average
person's life was quite miserable. Why? Without "usury" (loans), they
had no way to accumulate wealth to improve their lot. As a result, all
the wealth was concentrated in a select few (the church and the ruling
class) who had the means to force or encourage people to donate some
portion of their production. Most of the public works built in these
times were for the benefit of the few. Tell me how the peasant gains any
real benefit at all from a castle? Supposedly he gains protection, but
in reality, what's most likely to happen is that his crops will be
trampled and stolen by an enemy [or his own lord] and/or he will be
conscripted into an army to protect his lord's interests. Who really
benefits from a cathedral?
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) You are, of course, advocating communism: "Anyone who possesses even a single item beyond basic living requirements is equally culpable as one who possesses countless frivolous luxury items." And in fact I think there is a manifest difference (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) I thought you were always off to church and such...my mistake. (...) Why not? I am trying to suggest we give those under the thumb of the world be given a clean slate. Anything they do from this moment forward can bring them whatever wealth (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) Gee, Frank -- don't you think its weird that I, a pagan, have generally come out in support of a custom enumerated in the bible; whereas you, a Xtian, have come out against it? Curiouser, and curiouser... (...) Didn't you mean: Wealth in and (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
