Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

topic posted Mon, May 14, 2007 - 10:06 AM by  lori
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
I wonder if it is possible in the current economic structure of the world to be ethical and wealthy. I've heard many people say "money is neutral" but I doubt that's true and I suspect there are many here who would agree with me.

This is a fascinating blog (many of his blogs are very thought-provoking) that actually makes me think it MIGHT be possible to be wealthy without being evil. What do you think?

I've only posted the beginning of the blog (it's fairly long). The last paragraph I've posted is particularly interesting to me. You can find the rest of the blog here:

www.stevepavlina.com/blog/20...ly-evil/

Is it morally wrong to attempt to become wealthy?

It’s no surprise to me that the Million Dollar Experiment, while mostly getting a highly positive reception, has also uncovered some opposition from people who believe the pursuit of financial wealth is inherently greedy, selfish, immoral, or just plain evil.

How do you feel about the whole idea of having more money than you need? A lot more. Excess cash. Does that concept excite you or make you feel uncomfortable? Is is attractive or repulsive? A mixture of both perhaps? Do you feel you’d have to compromise your integrity in order to achieve this goal?

What about earning money very quickly? A fast turnover. Making a quick buck. Does that raise some level of indignation within you?

If a friend were to say to you, “You know what. I’m going to go ahead and become rich,” how would you react? Would you assume this person has become a “sell out” or is about to compromise their integrity? Would you ridicule them for even setting this goal? How would you feel after they achieved the goal? How would you feel if they failed and gave up?

Isn’t it interesting to witness the complex feelings that arise when we examine our beliefs about money? Notice that I haven’t even addressed the actual process of acquiring money in any of these situations, merely the notion of wealth itself.

What role does intention play in the pursuit of wealth? Is the very idea of intending to be wealthy inherently evil, corrupt, or somehow wrong? Or can one become wealthy and still have integrity?

The level of “good” or “evil” you associate to money comes from your own beliefs and intentions, not from any innate quality that money possesses. By itself money is neutral and powerless. Your own thoughts will serve to define the role of money in your life.

If money or wealth are somehow connected with evil, greed, or selfishness in your mind, imagine what effect that will have on your financial decisions. Sounds like a good way of preventing yourself from ever becoming wealthy, doesn’t it? Is that a choice you’ve made consciously? Do you feel it’s the right one?

It isn’t money or the pursuit of money that has any moral connection — you might as well be collecting rocks, beads, or sea shells. It’s the energy you bring to money that matters. Money will play the role in your life that you intend it to play, and that intention will largely arise from your pre-conditioned beliefs. If you’ve been conditioned to associate negative qualities to money (especially through your upbringing), then money will play a largely negative role in your life. If you associate positive beliefs to money, then it will play a positive role.

But most likely you have mixed associations to money because socially conditioned beliefs are inherently incongruent — it’s a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Your concept of money develops mixed associations to both good and evil. You want more money for yourself, but not too much more. You step towards greater wealth and then back away from it. You dance around money for fear it might be dangerous to acquire too much of it, but then when scarcity overwhelms you, you think of little else. Eventually you figure you’re better off thinking about money as little as possible.

Been there, done that. It’s all so much nonsense.

Your money will derive its energy from you, from who you are as a person. Greater and greater wealth will simply squeeze out more of who you already are. If what’s inside you is good and noble and of high integrity, that’s what will come out. But if what’s inside you is fearful and uncertain, then fear and uncertainty will come out.

If you feel good about yourself, your thoughts, and your behavior, then having more money will only enhance those positive feelings and help you spread them to others.

What are you doing to earn money right now? Is your work devoted to the highest good of all? Or have you put yourself in a situation where you’re earning money in such a way that’s neutral or negative? Do you make money by creating or by competing? Are you giving your best value to the world or trying to get a free ride on the value creation of others?

We all grow up with a mixed bag of socially conditioned beliefs about money, especially from the media. By the time we’re working adults, we become bogged down with the heavy baggage of these limiting beliefs, causing us to behave very strangely and incongruently. Think about it for a moment… how rational is your financial behavior right now? Would an outside observer describe your financial decisions as truly intelligent and congruent when taking a deep look into your income, expenses, assets, and liabilities? Do you earn and spend money intelligently?

The only way out of the quagmire of limiting beliefs is to step back, uncover such beliefs one by one, and then consciously decide whether or not they’ll continue to be true for you.

Is money the root of all evil? Is the love of money the root of all evil? Or will money simply take root in the soil of your own thoughts?

Does making money quickly imply greed and selfishness? Or is it just being efficient and intelligent?

Does making extra money mean that someone else loses (scarcity mentality)? Or can you make money while simultaneously increasing the wealth of others without hurting anyone (abundance mentality)?

Is it intelligent to make only enough money to survive and cover your basic needs? Or is that really just being lazy and uninspired?

Have wealthy people compromised their integrity? Or is it possible to genuinely pursue greater wealth in a manner that serves the highest good of all?

Is the best way to fight poverty to give more cash to people who possess a deep-seated scarcity mentality? Or is it better to challenge this mindset and plant the seeds of abundance in their thoughts?

In order to acquire greater wealth, is it necessary for you to take more than you give? Or can you become wealthy by giving much more value than you receive in return?

How many wealthy people do you know intimately as opposed to through sensationalized media stories? What is their motivation?

If you had absolute financial abundance, what would you do with it? If that money were to allow you to express more of who you already are right now, what would you express? A noble purpose? The need for security? Fear and uncertainty? Self-sacrifice? Abundance and increase?

If you become wealthy and then teach hundreds of other people to do the same, have you done them a disservice and corrupted them? Or have you given them a tremendous gift?

Did you ever conclude that becoming wealthy would be out of your grasp? Have you ever thought about changing that belief?

These are all questions to consider when deciding what role money will play in your life.

One of my favorite quotes about money comes from the late, great Earl Nightingale:

Nothing can take the place of money in the area in which money works.

So amazingly accurate when you take the time to think about it.

I’ve had to face down a lot of these incongruencies within myself. What role is money to play in my life? Should I earn just enough to get by? Should I aim for financial independence? Do I serve people best by being broke, by earning just enough to cover my expenses, by achieving financial independence, by getting rich quickly?

Eventually I decided that it would be a good thing for me to become wealthy. Given that my purpose is to grow and to help others grow, I cannot ignore the financial dimension of personal development. If I become financially wealthy, then through my purpose I’ll naturally strive to help others do the same.

Working on my wealth is really no different than working on my self-discipline, my health, my productivity, my relationships, etc.

Once I made this decision, the first thing I had to do was to purge all those limiting beliefs about money from my psyche. I found quite a bit of rubbish in there, and I just let it go and decided that I would find a way to be wealthy that would be congruent with the highest good of all. Then I took some time to adopt more empowering beliefs about wealth and money.

Can achieving greater wealth for myself serve the greater good? I definitely believe this is possible. After all, it was my pursuit of passive income streams that gave me the freedom to create this web site in the first place. Those streams of income allowed me to spend my time writing and posting hundreds of articles without charging for them. I was able to spend months working full-time on this new career before I earned a dime from it. I think it should be obvious to anyone that this site is designed to give away a lot of value without requiring you to pay for it. But I could just as easily have taken a scarcity approach, charging for every shred of info and blocking access to it for those who couldn’t afford it. As I see it, this is one of those areas in which money does work — my passive income gives me the freedom to focus on giving without worrying about receiving.
posted by:
lori
California
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

    Mon, May 14, 2007 - 12:08 PM
    One does not help the poor by being one of them.

    If wealth is evil, then Andrew Carnegie was one of
    the most wicked. He designed his life with an intention--
    to spend the first half of his life building a fortune, and the
    second half giving it all away. One of the biggest impacts he
    had was in education and he built many, many public libraries
    in small towns and medium cities all over the USA.
    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

      Fri, May 18, 2007 - 6:06 PM
      Andrew Carnegie is not the example I would offer of a philanthropist. His business practices were brutal, aimed at maximum exploitation of his workers and suppliers.

      This is what I think is the fundamental problem with seeking to get rich. It inherently creates power over others and you no longer deal with them as equals.
      • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Fri, May 18, 2007 - 11:48 PM
        >It inherently creates power over others and you no longer deal with them as equals.

        I think you will have a hard time proving the inner mental state of the capitalist.
        Perhaps this was common, but generally the culture is moving toward
        co-operative entrepreneurial enterprise. This has been going on since before
        Peter Druker coined the term "information worker".
        • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

          Sat, May 19, 2007 - 2:09 PM
          Actually, Mark, it isn't difficult at all.

          The highest capitalist virtue--and the primary duty of members of corporate boards of directors--is return on shareholder investment. Everything else, to the extent it is even present, is secondary.

          You wrote, "Perhaps this was common, but generally the culture is moving toward co-operative entrepreneurial enterprise." This sounds like human relations department-speak. It really means that capitalists are *pretending* to empower workers without altering the fundamental power relationships. And they might even actually believe they're empowering workers.

          Capitalists are not immune to self-delusion, as we saw in the dot-com crash.
          • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Sat, May 19, 2007 - 3:54 PM
            The highest capitalist virtue is for a company to fulfil
            its Mission of providing a good or a service to a specific
            customer. Its revenue is a measure of its effectiveness
            and efficinency with profit acruing to its owners.

            Perhaps you've never heard of empoyee-owned concerns?
            The dot com frenzy we've all experienced had more to do with
            securities speculation than entrepreneurial enterprise. Most
            start-ups have relatively small capitalization and pay their staff
            in equity. Hence the management- labor power structure is
            undermined.
            • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

              Tue, May 22, 2007 - 9:59 PM
              I found this as the first result on a google search.

              < www.managementhelp.org/boards...pon.htm >

              "There are a variety of views about the roles and responsibilities of a board of directors and most of these views share common themes. This document attempts to portray those themes by depicting various views. Simply put, a board of directors is a group of people legally charged with the responsibility to govern a corporation. In a for-profit corporation, the board of directors is responsible to the stockholders -- a more progressive perspective is that the board is responsible to the stakeholders, that is, to everyone who is interested and/or can be effected by the corporation. In a nonprofit corporation, the board reports to stakeholders, particularly the local communities which the nonprofit serves."

              The operative phrase here is, "in a for-profit corporation, the board of directors is responsible to the stockholders." If you pay any attention at all, you will find some version of this statement, usually speaking of return on shareholder investment, over and over again.

              You write that "most start-ups have relatively small capitalization and pay their staff in equity." I don't know where you come up with this. It is certainly not the case in the San Francisco Bay Area, where after a widespread disdain for venture capitalists (who were blamed for the dot com crash), most start-ups have reluctantly accepted some venture capital, diluting founder control. Further, most people have bills to pay, and cannot survive only on equity; they need some cash to eat. Employee-owned concerns are also few and far between.
  • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

    Mon, May 14, 2007 - 1:01 PM
    No! and again I say No. However money does provide a certain level of power, lol, now, that may be where the evil manifests itself.
    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

      Tue, May 15, 2007 - 12:08 AM
      Or perhaps put another way, Nyet! :-)

      Maybe like power and age, money will make us more of what
      we already are. If we are greedy or generous money exagerates
      those qualities...
      • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Tue, May 15, 2007 - 11:02 AM
        The question I ask myself regularly is: What do I want? I try to hone this down as finely as I can.

        My question for anyone who pursues wealth is: What will you do when you get it? If that is something you can do now, without so much money, why not do it now? I ask myself this same question.

        Perhaps it is noble to become wealthy and then become a philanthropist (i.e., give away a lot of money). I do not have a strong opinion about this either way. But where did the money come from that is then given away? Doesn't it come from getting/taking/earning little bits of money from many thousands/millions of indiviudals through the marketplace?

        Am I generous if I own a company, structure my employees' wages so I can turn a good profit, and then...give them (or others around the world) food and medicine (or a library) that they cannot afford with the wages I pay them? Does that sound a bit like the feudal system (albeit without the laws tying people to specific lands/comapnies)?

        What about anonymous donors? Clearly they do not give away their money to reinforce their egos. Is it better to give anonymously or to put one's name on a foundation?
  • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

    Tue, May 22, 2007 - 10:24 AM
    Pavlina states that "by itself money is neutral and powerless." This is a very common assertion, or at least I hear it frequently, but I'm not at all convinced it's true. In fact, it seems to me that many of the threads I've read on this tribe demonstrate the opposite -- money is a means of controlling and manipulating others.

    I can understand the idea that money *should* be neutral but I'm not convinced it currently *is* neutral.
    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

      Tue, May 22, 2007 - 11:41 AM
      Many people who make such assertions have no idea what money is.
      Money isn't a thing, its a collection of agreements used to measure
      and store value. Money is not powerless, but who grants the power?
      Those who use it, not those who make it. In Ithica , NY and other places,
      the local currency is "more powerful" than the national currecny simply
      because the public (user) prefers it. In the final analysis, the use determines
      the main moral judgement.

      There is no doubt that money *can* be used for evil purposes, likewise it
      *can* be used for good. Money itself has no opinion or preference. Electricity
      can be used to light rooms, cook food, etc and to torture and/or kill prisoners.
      One can say that the incandescent lightbulb is evil, because of its entiromental
      impact, but is that so? Is it preferable to gas or oil lamps? Shall we ban electircity?
      There are alternatives.

      I don't think anybody is going to argue that pre-monetary civilizations are superior
      to ours on anything but a priori grounds. Certainly single currenies have serious drawbacks, so there are advantages to multiple currencies. But no currency... very undesirable.
      • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Tue, May 22, 2007 - 2:36 PM
        Well, I am thinking specifically of money as the currency in use today, and I suppose I'm thinking more specifically about the use of the dollar in the U.S., though I don't think the problems we are experiencing are limited to the U.S. .

        Mark, you seem to be addressing an ideal, I am trying to address the situation as it is in this moment. Today, in the U.S. (because it simply is what I most familiar with) I'm not convinced money (the dollar) is neutral. It seems to me that the dollar is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy who are using it to dictate social policy and to stack the economic odds in their favor.

        Clearly, there is some logic behind the idea that a piece of paper can not be inherently evil. But what if that piece of paper is a contract of ownership over another human being? (I'm thinking of *legal* slavery here) Wouldn't that then be *evil*? Is money (the dollar) as it is currently being used inherently evil? Is it being used to manipulate and coerce people? To limit their choices and force them into making choices that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the non-wealthy? Does money allow people to accumulate power in an unreasonable fashion? In a manner that is detrimental to the well-being of society as a whole?
        • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

          Tue, May 22, 2007 - 6:17 PM
          Lori,

          It's not that I'm unsympathetic to your qualms, but here you've reframed the question
          more meaningfully. You now raise this question of specific use. Which was my question. But a contract is not a paper (in this case a certificate of value called 'currency'), rather it is an agreement between people (supported by conventions of law) expressed in language on paper. Where is bill of sale? Which people are not actually at choice in the agreement? Any trade benefits all parties to the trade. You allege "unreasonable" accumulation, but on what grounds? It's a moral judgement i.e. your opinion. And you haven't stated your criteria, just made assertions.

          There is a fairly universal "good" that people upgrade the quality of their lives. Wealth
          is one of the best ways to do that. Is it not more that you object to differences in satus
          and power? Again staus and power will be judged based on use rather than posession.
          I'm going to bet that underneath the qualm is not reason, but envy. Or if not that then the
          fear that some people are not playing "nicely" by some arbitrary rule.

          Back to the original question. What is money such that it could possibly be evil?
          You are going to have to define money and evil separately to show a connection.
          • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Tue, May 22, 2007 - 6:28 PM
            "Again staus and power will be judged based on use rather than posession.
            I'm going to bet that underneath the qualm is not reason, but envy. Or if not that then the
            fear that some people are not playing "nicely" by some arbitrary rule. "

            You're welcome to bet anything you like about my qualms but for the sake of argument and understanding I would prefer we stick to reason. I'm not at all prepared to state that money is evil. I certainly am not going to defend a position that I am personally questioning. And you are also welcome to restate your opinion that money is not evil as much as you would like, but I'm looking for more substantial discussion
            • Look either a man is entitled to the fruit of his labours or others have the right to steal it. If a man grows wealthy by any means except fraud or force then he has a RIGHT to every penny and the only evil would be to try to take it from him by fraud or force.
              • But who makes money off the fruit of their own labors? Don't most people make money off the fruit of the labor of others? How are you defining labor?
                • B
                  B
                  offline 121
                  What are the fruits of a persons labor? Is it valid to make money by loaning money, gambling (stock market, currency trading, card shark)? Are the fruits of labor putting a patent on seeds and making third world (and first world) countries pay to use these seeds?

                  I believe that the monetary system has lost its way. Money should be created only when something of value is created and added to the human use chain. But the land, air, water, animal and plant life that have existed on earth before man arrived and will continue long after he is gone can and should not be owned. There should be no charging to the planet which was here before. So what is a fruit of labor? A new invention, a new device, food grown or raised. Something produced.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    [quote]Is it valid to make money by loaning money, gambling (stock market, currency trading, card shark)? [/quote]

                    Was force or fraud involved? If the answer is no, then of course it is valid. Honest trade of any sort is always valid.

                    [quote]Are the fruits of labor putting a patent on seeds and making third world (and first world) countries pay to use these seeds? [/quote]

                    Of course, they still have the option of using their original food stocks. Of course they will have to deal with lower yields. The other option as I see it is for no one to bother to research improved seed stocks and just leave half of the world starving until equilbirium is reached.

                    [quote]I believe that the monetary system has lost its way. Money should be created only when something of value is created and added to the human use chain.[/quote]

                    Oh it has but that is because the current system is a fraud. It has nothing to do with honest trade or property rights but rather with a fraud that has been foisted upon the world by centeral banks. It is the system of fiat money that is a fraud, not property rights.

                    [quote]But the land, air, water, animal and plant life that have existed on earth before man arrived and will continue long after he is gone can and should not be owned. There should be no charging to the planet which was here before.[/quote]

                    Ahh a feudalist, the land is owned by the state by grant of G-d. I see it as workable but basically it makes everyone a slave to the state, because no matter how much money you have they can always just tell you to get off of their land thus you are homeless. It was done to the Jews in medieval Europe regularly.

                    [quote]A new invention, a new device, food grown or raised. Something produced. [/quote]

                    Can't build your new invention, grow food, or any other type of produce if you can be denyed use of land at the whim of government.

                    If you want to live in that environment, I hope you can stay on good terms with the local feudal lords.
                    • B
                      B
                      offline 121
                      I never said the government should own the land or have control over it.
                      • [quote]I never said the government should own the land or have control over it.[/quote]

                        Some one has to. Even if the land is "owned by everyone" some one has to have defacto control over how it is used and by whom and that is usually government or a governing body of some sort which takes us right back to where I was before. This is where some fancy theory collides with reality. Some one controls land usage either an individual owner or a governing body of some sort. I prefer to trust the individual.
                        • B
                          B
                          offline 121
                          <I prefer to trust the individual.>


                          Individual ownership i.e. corporate ownership has proven to be a disaster for the environment and for the majority of people.
                          • [quote]
                            Individual ownership i.e. corporate ownership has proven to be a disaster for the environment and for the majority of people.[/quote]

                            are you crack smoking? We have unparalleled wealth and prosperity in the world today!!! Have a few people not prospered? Of course. Not all people are as intelligent or motivated or on occasions simply lucky. We have unparalleled wealth in almost every measurable category (food, health care, clothing, education, leisure time) just because the third world hasn't caught up yet doesn't mean the system is broken only that they haven't risen above it yet.
                            • Vlad demonstrates wilful ignorance, writing, "are you crack smoking? We have unparalleled wealth and prosperity in the world today!!! Have a few people not prospered? Of course. Not all people are as intelligent or motivated or on occasions simply lucky. We have unparalleled wealth in almost every measurable category (food, health care, clothing, education, leisure time) just because the third world hasn't caught up yet doesn't mean the system is broken only that they haven't risen above it yet."

                              When hundreds of thousands of people are displaced for reservoirs for hydroelectric projects to supply power industries that supply jobs only for hundreds or thousands--and this is only one way in which globalization works to the detriment of the majority of people--it is clear that a few benefit at the expense of the many. Yet even as the top 5% of the population (in terms of wealth) grow vastly wealthier while the remainder of the population sees stagnant or declining incomes you escape into an excuse that "not all people are as intelligent or motivated or on occasions simply lucky." You claim "we have unparalleled wealth," but ignore who is prospering and at whose expense.
                              • [quote]Vlad demonstrates wilful ignorance, writing, "are you crack smoking? We have unparalleled wealth and prosperity in the world today!!! Have a few people not prospered? Of course. Not all people are as intelligent or motivated or on occasions simply lucky. We have unparalleled wealth in almost every measurable category (food, health care, clothing, education, leisure time) just because the third world hasn't caught up yet doesn't mean the system is broken only that they haven't risen above it yet."

                                When hundreds of thousands of people are displaced for reservoirs for hydroelectric projects to supply power industries that supply jobs only for hundreds or thousands--and this is only one way in which globalization works to the detriment of the majority of people--it is clear that a few benefit at the expense of the many. Yet even as the top 5% of the population (in terms of wealth) grow vastly wealthier while the remainder of the population sees stagnant or declining incomes you escape into an excuse that "not all people are as intelligent or motivated or on occasions simply lucky." You claim "we have unparalleled wealth," but ignore who is prospering and at whose expense.[/quote]


                                Nah David you're just a pathetic bleeding heart with no historic perspective. The biggest single reason for the majority of the third world's woes is that they've embraced varying degrees of socialism or communism. That they haven't allowed their people the freedom to make the economic decisions that are in their best interests.

                                David don't buy the hype. Go out and build you're life and help others to build theirs. Don't wait for some one else to give you the solution, especially if you're hoping for it to come from government, or you'll be sadly mistaken. The answer to the world's woes is economic freedom and educational opportunities. Both of those things can't be given as gifts but must be exercised by the individual and protected by the community.
                          • That was tried in Israel, with the best intentions.
                            The Farming Kibutzim based on communal
                            ownership of everything found that the tool everybody
                            used every day were not properly maintained and left to
                            rust in the fields because of no "personal ownership" or
                            accountability. They had to modify their socialist ideals
                            to fit with reality.

                            But to be more on track with the question.. notice that
                            money is socialist societies is neither a local currency,
                            nor a barter system. Money itself is voluntary, but because
                            governments keep the people ignorant of this, there are few
                            alternatives.
                        • Vlad writes, "Even if the land is 'owned by everyone' some one has to have defacto control over how it is used and by whom and that is usually government or a governing body of some sort which takes us right back to where I was before."

                          You confuse ideology with fact. Ownership is not the same with "de facto control over how it is used and by whom" in the absence of an authoritarian premise.
                          • [quote]
                            You confuse ideology with fact. Ownership is not the same with "de facto control over how it is used and by whom" in the absence of an authoritarian premise.[/quote]

                            "authoritarian premise" hmmm.... you mean if I live in la la land where everyone gets along and the wolves just play tag with the fuzzy bunnies? I'll not repost to you anymore you're an anti-Semite from your earlier post and a complete loon from this one. No longer worthy of a response.
                • [quote]But who makes money off the fruit of their own labors? Don't most people make money off the fruit of the labor of others? How are you defining labor?[/quote]

                  If you use your earned money, and manage it in such a way that it earns you more money then that too is yours. Unless you think that you have the right to take by force or fraud something from another person? You seem to be saying that it is wrong for a person to manage his assets in such a way as to generate more wealth but that it would be honourable for another person to use the machinery of government or other regulating body to steal from him by force that which he earned through honest trade. If you really believe that then just tell me you're a communist or socialist and I will recognize you as a thief and treat you accordingly, but if that is not what you are saying then please try to state your case better so that I will not unjustly accuse you so.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Vlad, you accuse socialists and communists of thievery without considering the thievery that allows capitalists to claim ownership over resources while denying workers a living wage, let alone a fair share of profit. You accuse me of advocating force or fraud while obscuring the power relationships that work to the advantage of the rich and to the disadvantage of the poor. In so doing, you commit a fraud, perhaps unintentionally, but a fraud nonetheless.
                    • Who is to say what "fair share" is? Can you quantify it, or is it just some
                      special a priori you alone posess? If I follow your line of logic, there should
                      be no profit to share with labor. Maybe King David should decide who gets
                      paid what. Or maybe better... everybody gets paid the same.
                      • Mark, you're being disingenuous here.

                        Consider judgements about "is this a good relationship?" "Do I love this person?" "Is this guy being abusive to me?" "Is she making fun of me?" etc. etc.

                        You can't do a litmus test for any of these things - but good and bad relationships exist, love exists, abuse exists, making fun of people happens. Most people will recognise them in most circumstances.

                        So why can't an "unfair share" fall into the same kind of category? It really occurs, but we only have informal "humanistic" methods to recognise it.

                        I'm guessing that you and Vlad will refuse to accept this position. But *not* because you think this methodology for recognising it is flawed - you'll recognise that such unscientific judgements are important in other parts of life - but because you'll adopt a political position which asserts *a priori* that all economic deals that don't involve barefaced lying are fair, simply by definition.

                        What I think you need to do is not just keep repeating this mantra but to try to explain *why* economic relationships should be considered differently from other kinds of human relationships, in that we should hold them to different criteria of evaluation. Why (for example) can we know (definitionally) that all economic deals are fair, but can't know that all marriages are happy, or all jokes are benign?
                        • >Why (for example) can we know (definitionally) that all economic deals are fair, but can't know that all marriages are happy, or all jokes are benign?

                          We cannot know. Which is precisely my point. All we have in the economic realm
                          is numbers and logic. You can only intuit "fair." It has no meaning other than opinion.
                          Free Enterprise is built on this fact: the open endedness of knowledge. I believe it was
                          Isreal Kirzner who propsed the logic of this argument. The more that is known, the less
                          that is known. Public baths can be argued as "fair"-- necessary even-- in the absence of
                          the possibility of a shower in every home. Likewise the oil based economy is unfair only
                          as long as alternatives are supressed. Unimagined alternatives will remain unimagined as long as there's no reason or opportunity to expore possibilty. How will these thing arise? Nobody knows. No individual, committee or government can know all the facts necessary to provide a universal solution, yet individuals can seek acceptable solutions and stumble upon something that meets the needs of most. But the fairness argument will likely only keep power dynamics what they are. If it precipitates any change, it only changes the Czar from Nicholas to Lenin.
                          • Economic Epistemology -- Fair Price

                            Fri, May 25, 2007 - 11:03 AM
                            The Basic Proposition

                            The basic insight underlying the law of supply and demand is that at any given moment a price that is “too high” will leave disappointed would-be sellers with unsold goods, while a price that is “too low” will leave disappointed would-be buyers without the goods they wish to buy. There exists a “right” price, at which all those who wish to buy can find sellers willing to sell and all those who wish to sell can find buyers willing to buy. This “right” price is therefore often called the “market-clearing price.”

                            Supply-and-demand theory revolves around the proposition that a free, competitive market does in fact successfully generate a powerful tendency toward the market-clearing price. This proposition is often seen as the most important implication of (and premise for) Adam Smith’s famed invisible hand. Without any conscious managing control, a market spontaneously generates a tendency toward the dovetailing of independently made decisions of buyers and sellers to ensure that each of their decisions fits with the decisions made by the other market participants. Were this tendency to be carried to the limit, no buyer (seller) would be misled so as to waste time attempting to buy (sell) at a price below (above) the market-clearing price. No buyer (seller) would in fact pay (receive) a price higher (lower) than necessary to elicit the agreement of his trading partner. To the extent that this proposition is valid, free competitive markets achieve what F. A. Hayek has justifiably called a “marvel.” But it is in regard to the validity of this proposition (and in particular to our reasons for being convinced that this proposition is both valid and relevant) that Austrians differ sharply with mainstream textbook economics. And it is precisely because of the universally acknowledged centrality of the supply-and- demand proposition for all of economics that this disagreement is so important.

                            The Role of Knowledge

                            The mainstream textbook approach to this proposition is, in one way or another, explicitly or implicitly, based on the assumption of perfect knowledge. The Austrian approach does not make the perfect-knowledge assumption the foundation for this proposition; quite the contrary, Austrians base the proposition squarely on the insight that its validity proceeds from market processes set in motion by the inevitable imperfections in knowledge, which characterize human interaction in society.

                            In certain respects the mainstream view is not unreasonable. In many contexts we generally take it for granted that human beings are aware of the opportunities available to them. When economists believe, for example, that a price increase will cut the quantity people seek to purchase, and a price decrease will stimulate sales, this belief is based on the reasonable assumption that such price increases or decreases are in fact likely to become known to prospective buyers soon enough to make a difference.

                            The mainstream view takes this not unreasonable assumption and pursues it relentlessly, in effect, to its logical—but no longer quite so reasonable—conclusion. This conclusion is that in any free market, the market-clearing price is instantaneously (or, at least, very rapidly) established. If every market participant knows what every other market participant is prepared to do (including, especially, the quantity he is prepared to buy or sell at any given price), it follows that any price higher than the market-clearing price cannot emerge (since prospective sellers would realize that they would be left with unsold goods). It follows, similarly, that any price lower than the market-clearing price cannot emerge (since prospective buyers would realize that they will be left without the goods they wish to buy and for which they are in fact prepared to pay a higher price if necessary). The proposition that free-market prices are thus inevitably market-clearing prices proceeds inexorably from the belief that market prices are, in effect, instantaneously known to all potential market participants.

                            The Dangerous Assumption

                            The assumption that all market participants are always fully aware of market opportunities in which they might be interested is often presented, in mainstream textbook expositions, as part of the assumption of so-called “perfect competition.” Perfect competition explicitly presumes universal market omniscience. One way of expressing the Austrian unhappiness with the mainstream textbook treatment is to point out that to start supply-and-demand analysis by assuming that competition is “perfect’‘ (in the textbook sense) is not only to be wildly (and therefore unhelpfully) unrealistic; it is in fact also to rob the analysis of all significant economic content—since the principal results sought to be shown turn out to be simply statements repeating the governing assumption in slightly different language.

                            To demonstrate that the interplay of supply and demand in a free market generates a powerful tendency toward the market-clearing price is to meet a daunting analytical challenge. To demonstrate that in a perfectly competitive market the only possible price is the market-clearing price is simply trivially to identify what has already been planted in the initial assumption. To unpack the mathematically implied properties of a definition may, of course, be a significant (mathematical) contribution. But to demonstrate the attainment in free markets of the market-clearing price by restricting analytical attention to the situation in which this price is the only one permitted to be conceivable, is, as a matter of economic analysis, a hollow triumph indeed.

                            This difficulty that Austrians find with the textbook discussions of supply and demand can be presented in somewhat different terms. The traditional classroom blackboard demonstration of the law proceeds by drawing the classic supply-and-demand diagram—a downward sloping demand curve intersecting an upward sloping supply curve. (For present purposes we forgo the details surrounding the construction of this diagram; it is one familiar to the hosts of students who have ever been exposed to elementary economics.) The core of the classroom analysis generally consists of discussion showing, first, that any market price higher than that indicated by the intersection of the two curves (that is, a price higher than the market-clearing price) must tend to produce competitive pressure toward a decrease in price (since the high price will generate a surplus of unsold merchandise); and second, that any market price lower than that indicated by the point of intersection must produce competitive pressure toward an increase in price (since the low price will generate a shortage of goods offered for sale, as compared with the quantities prospective buyers wish to buy).

                            Austrians do not have serious disagreement with such discussions in themselves; they simply point out that those discussions are utterly inconsistent with the assumption of perfect competition (which textbook analysis takes as its operative assumption). A little careful analysis of the perfect-competition assumption (which analysis can, however, unfortunately not be fitted into this space) suffices to show that under perfect competition there cannot in fact exist two curves (the demand curve intersecting with the supply curve). Under perfect competition the supply-and-demand diagram shrivels instantly to a single point—the point where the two curves would have intersected (had the curves themselves existed!). This is so because any point on a market supply curve or on a market demand curve that is not that intersection point can have analytical existence only by suspending some or all of the condi tions that define the state of perfect competition. The diagram (valuable though it certainly is!) is simply not consistent with the assumed conditions under which it is supposed to be operating.

                            Our discussion has unfortunately been overwhelmingly negative. We have pointed out problems that Austrians have with mainstream supply-and-demand analysis—but we have not suggested how an alternative approach might avoid these difficulties. Subsequent articles in the present series will attempt to fill this gap. For Austrians, the law of supply and demand, properly explained, is at least as centrally important for economic understanding as it is for mainstream economics. We will show how Austrians deploy insight into the entrepreneurial character of dynamically competitive markets (insights that can have no place within the mainstream textbook paradigm) to explain the law of supply and demand in an intuitively and analytically satisfying way.

                            -- Israel M. Kirzner, NYU Professor emeritus
          • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Tue, May 22, 2007 - 10:06 PM
            Mark asked, "Which people are not actually at choice in the agreement? Any trade benefits all parties to the trade."

            This is a remarkably naive view that ignores the power relationships in play. Because money is concentrated in the hands of the few, the many, who remain dependent on money to purchase the essentials of life, are dependent on the few in a way that gives the few extraordinary power over the many.

            If you are rich, you can hire anyone you like to do your bidding. Should that person prove in any way recalcitrant, or even express dissatisfaction with the deal, (s)he is utterly replaceable from the ever increasing hordes of increasingly desperate people.
            • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

              Wed, May 23, 2007 - 9:08 AM
              [quote]If you are rich, you can hire anyone you like to do your bidding. Should that person prove in any way recalcitrant, or even express dissatisfaction with the deal, (s)he is utterly replaceable from the ever increasing hordes of increasingly desperate people.[/quote]

              So the moral of the story boys and girls is get rich first and stay that way. Economic darwinism is nothing new.
              • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                Thu, May 24, 2007 - 10:04 PM
                Vlad writes, "So the moral of the story boys and girls is get rich first and stay that way. Economic darwinism is nothing new."

                What kind of morality is this? Is it a morality that associates adulthood with exploiting your neighbor?
  • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

    Wed, May 23, 2007 - 10:20 AM
    I think people (including Pavlova) slide too easily between different ideas of "wealth", "money" etc.

    Wealth is a pretty vague and abstract concept. At one level, yeah we can all understand that wealth is not "scarce" it's the product of our co-operation, division of labour, the happiness we create for each other etc. And we're always finding more of that. So there's no zero-sum competition for "wealth" in its most abstract sense.

    OTOH, in practice, here and now, there are many resources which *are*, to all intents and purposes "scarce" rather than abundant. This includes stuff like oil, gas, water, land, food, shelter, gizmos etc. If these things weren't "scarce" we wouldn't worry about making them into "property" we'd just let people take them when and where they like : "here, help yourself to my stuff, it's *abundant*".

    And because these things are scarce, we really are in zero-sum games for them. And anyone who is trying to get more "wealthy" (at least in the sense that Pavlova is talking about) is saying they want a bigger share of the scarce stuff than they currently have. Of course, whether wanting more is "fair" or "greedy" may depend on a lot of other factors. A lot of people are going to assume that one factor is how much you already have.

    Now, once again, in principle, all these things are substitutable. And some people will wave their hands and try to convince you that because someone *might* invent or discover an alternative to oil, there is no real sense in which its worth worrying about any temporary, scarcity on the stuff. And that considering that Rockafella might have more than his fair share of it is some kind of personal character flaw in you, ranging from "envy" to not being in touch with the true wonders of cosmic abundance.

    I personally am not going to fall for that. I think a good empirical test of whether something is "abundant" or "scarce" is, is there a culture of excludable property rights associated with it. Where there is genuine abundance (as in information), "property" as a concept falls out of favour. That's happening in things like software and knowledge on the internet.

    If I want to be "wealthy" in terms of RSS feeds I subscribe to, no-one is going to have any problems with this. No one will worry that it's "unfair" that I have 20,000 feeds to their 10. (In fact most people will consider it pretty sad.) Now *that's* what a genuine abundance economy looks like.

    On the other hand, where people insist that excludable property rights are important, that's an economy which really has scarcity and people are playing zero-sum games. And they're just lying to you if they pretend that they aren't.

    Money is a particularly interesting example. Almost all money is scarce (which is why it's frowned on to "get wealthy" by printing more of it.) Some people (hi Vlad) think it should be even more scarce (not even the government should be allowed to print more of it). They think it should be scarce exactly because they believe that the "wealth" that' that money is meant to measure and track is *also* scarce.
    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

      Wed, May 23, 2007 - 1:22 PM
      [quote]Some people (hi Vlad) think it should be even more scarce (not even the government should be allowed to print more of it). They think it should be scarce exactly because they believe that the "wealth" that' that money is meant to measure and track is *also* scarce.[/quote]

      Wealth isn't scarce, it just isn't created out of thin air. It only comes from goods or services (and yes loaning money is still a service though modern banking is a sham). When money is created from thin air or from debts contracts then it has no value. It only lasts so long as people are fooled into believing that it has value. It is fraud that only works until it is widely discovered. Actual wealth, is growing exponentially. If you doubt me you should look at Ray Kurzwiel's site and his law of accelerating returns.
      • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Wed, May 23, 2007 - 4:33 PM
        Surely it's pretty weird to believe at the same time that "wealth" is the kind of thing which isn't scarce, while thinking that "money" - which is meant to be a kind of proxy, used for measuring and accounting for wealth - ought to be scarce.

        I think you have two contradictory intuitions when you consider these things. When you're thinking of wealth as non-scarce you're thinking about some very general notion which is limited only by the human imagination. When you want a gold-backed currency, you want to use it to measure something which is very well defined and accounted for. Now, *what* is it that you want to account for using money? It's all those scarce resources and goods and services which we need to manage through some kind of property rights.

        I'd say that for a lot of people, when they say wealth is scarce, they are talking about those same things that you would want to measure with scarce money.
        • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

          Thu, May 24, 2007 - 5:53 AM
          [quote]Surely it's pretty weird to believe at the same time that "wealth" is the kind of thing which isn't scarce, while thinking that "money" - which is meant to be a kind of proxy, used for measuring and accounting for wealth - ought to be scarce. [/quote]

          I want wealth to grow but money to stay the same. If I have $10, and it used to take 100 hours to make a shirt by hand, and in 1800 I could buy that shirt for that $10. Today I want the same shirt to cost, maybe $2 because it can be made in 2 hours and the cotton by harvested cheaper, and the cotton fields are more productive with hybrids etc. Instead it is just the opposite, a $20 suit in 1800 would be well over $400 today.
          All of our technological advances should be causing deflation, it is only our immoral banking practices that cause the inflation that erodes a man's hard earned wealth.
          • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Thu, May 24, 2007 - 10:04 AM
            Indeed. It's central banking that is the culprit.
            • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

              Thu, May 24, 2007 - 10:10 AM
              [quote]Indeed. It's central banking that is the culprit.[/quote]

              Central banks and crooked politicians who make legal tender laws for fiat money. It makes me sick that people who see the corruption caused by this unholy alliance between private banks and government as an ill of capitalism and thus rush blindly into the hell of socialism and communism.
  • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

    Thu, May 24, 2007 - 12:26 PM
    If wealth is(and I think it is) a deep well of clean water and a river running through 40 acres of fantastically suitable farm land and I want it--is that the same/similar as wanting a million/billion dollars?
    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

      Fri, May 25, 2007 - 8:34 AM
      [quote]If wealth is(and I think it is) a deep well of clean water and a river running through 40 acres of fantastically suitable farm land and I want it--is that the same/similar as wanting a million/billion dollars?[/quote]

      yeah it is, and with a million dollars you could probably pick that up. See makes them equivalent. Both items properly worked could return you an income on the investment. I see little difference between the two except that you can't carry the land in your pocket.
      • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Sat, May 26, 2007 - 2:15 PM
        my point about the land and water senario is humans wanting fertility of some kind to get us through. Greed and hoarding is always popping up butif wealth is good land and clean water i supose we would all quite naturally want wealth.
  • B
    B
    offline 121

    Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

    Fri, May 25, 2007 - 10:16 PM
    CEO William McGuire, of UnitedHealth Group, a health insurance company, stands alone. His annual salary in 2005 was 124 million dollars and he has been provided stock options worth more than 1.7 billion dollars, according to Forbes.com. As part of his retirement package, he and his spouse will receive free health care for as long as they live, according to AFL-CIO Corpwatch.
    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

      Fri, May 25, 2007 - 10:21 PM
      And your point is?
      • B
        B
        offline 121

        Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Sat, May 26, 2007 - 6:24 AM
        United Health Group is also know for not paying health insurance claims.
        • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

          Sat, May 26, 2007 - 9:20 AM
          Then sue them.
          • B
            B
            offline 121

            Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Sat, May 26, 2007 - 9:09 PM
            The American answer to anything. Spend money you don't hvae from your insurance not paying your medical bills to fight a company that can hire an army of lawyers and wait for you to die. Clever idea.
            • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

              Sun, May 27, 2007 - 6:14 AM
              [quote]The American answer to anything.[/quote]

              And there is the real heart of the problem eh.... Those pesky successful Americans, the ones who havent been crippled by an entitled victim mentality yet. They just don't understand your "good intentions" like the rest of the socialized world.
              • B
                B
                offline 121

                Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                Sun, May 27, 2007 - 7:01 AM
                <Those pesky successful Americans, the ones who havent been crippled by an entitled victim mentality yet. >

                The heart of the problem. Those successful Americans, who depend on foreign labor to fuel their inventions (most of run on Silicon Valley is H1B visas), 20 million foreign “guest’ workers (working below min. wage) fueling a society that consumes on average 5 planets worth of resources (be depleting other parts of the globe). For those of us who have lived and worked overseas, I myself have found that inventiveness is alive and well in the rest of the world. Progress is alive and well in the rest of the world. Standard of living is much better in the rest of the world for a larger number of people.

                So besides a nice “sound bite” how exactly do you measure the success of Americans? If it is by standard of living you can’t just take the top 1% and ignores the rest in this country, well you can and places like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation do. You can’t just look at the GNP, over 90% of the money (greenbacks) in the economy today is not in the hands of the public but used for currency and stock trading. What about the collective health of the country? America is far from the top of the list.

                So nice sound bite, right along with your drug use joke. If you don’t like the message call the messenger a druggie. Clever witty so American. Take the easy way. All noise no substance.
                • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                  Sun, May 27, 2007 - 7:42 AM
                  OK, so back to my earlier post on knowledge
                  and the market clearing price--

                  Q: What is the fair value of labor?
                  A: Nobody knows. Its specific to the exact sector. How about
                  chip engineers? HB1 Visas are not a problem if there
                  are enough American citizen EEs to negotiate a market clearing price.

                  Q: What is the market clearing price for medical services?
                  A: Unknown. Depends on the services needed.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    B
                    B
                    offline 121

                    Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                    Sun, May 27, 2007 - 9:42 PM
                    <HB1 Visas are not a problem if there
                    are enough American citizen EEs to negotiate a market clearing price. >

                    The market prices are not set by the supply side, engineers but by the demand side in Silicon Valley. And the demand side will ignore the more expensive local (American) labor pool and import cheaper (about $20K a year cheaper) labor. That is why the demand for H1B visas is so high and why the technology companies want to remove the cap.

                    So is a fair price a living wage or is it what a company is willing to pay with the help of government regulations? Is the fair price the global price? Would you like your wages to be determined by the cost of labor in China. Oh wait they probably already are.
                    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                      Mon, May 28, 2007 - 10:01 AM
                      Labor prices in China determine what all of us are able to buy.
                      If you want to walk around naked, don't buy clothes. !
                      But if you will only buy American Union manufactured...
                      "Look for the Union lable." .. and see if you can even find on.

                      There are cheaper programmers coming into the USA under
                      (expensive HB1 visas) because there aren't American programmers
                      willing to negotiate reasonable wages. Lower wage immingrent and guest
                      workers have always benefited our economy. Likewise, many complain
                      that phone banks go to India (and the caribean), but fail to note the reverse
                      trend as customers are dissatisfied with the service demand native English
                      speakers.
                      • Globalization's Effects (good and bad news)

                        Mon, May 28, 2007 - 10:15 AM
                        Globalization: Boon or Gloom?

                        Globalization has numerous political and economic implications. Its design and structure, its gradual increase in foreign trade and relations, are basic to all civilized orders. New features that made their appearance in recent decades are the explosive expansion of world trade and the appearance of new trade partners. According to International Fund estimates, international trade of goods and services in 1990 amounted to some $5 trillion a year. Since then it has more than doubled, soaring to some $14.5 trillion last year.

                        It is rather remarkable that world trade is expanding faster than economic production. During the 1990s, trade was estimated to have grown some 6.5 percent annually, more than double the growth rate of economic production which barely reached a three percent rate. This intensification of international trade primarily resulted from the economic integration of “developing countries,” especially China, which was joined also by India, other Asian countries, and the large countries in Latin America. Their global trade has risen significantly, which has made them important driving motors of the world economy. Per capita income in China has doubled in less than ten years, which took the old industrial countries, like Great Britain, France, and Germany, half a century. But a vast army of unemployed workers acts to keep Chinese wages down. Some hundred million are squatting in coastal towns looking for work, and countless millions are working in rural areas, many in low-paying farm work. Yet, according to official data, Chinese per capita income in 2006 was $1,740, U.S. income was $36,800.

                        Rapid expansion of the developing countries invariably generates a rising demand for resources and energy. Emerging countries now consume some 50 percent of global energy production, which may keep energy prices rather high in coming years. Emerging manufacturers have also learned to build highly technical products that compete effectively in world markets. Some 50 percent of all computers are built in China.

                        In the old industrial countries, manufacturers are under severe pressure to compete by developing ever new products and methods of production and taking them to international markets. They also are tempted to move some of their production abroad. American corporations moved some of their operations to China and other developing countries in Asia and South America; European companies prefer to move their production to former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. German corporations, which had avoided practically any relationship with Eastern Europe, now are investing heavily in those countries. The primary incentive of such investments obviously is the reduction in costs, which not only may endanger some employment at home but also increase corporate profits. As profits tend to rise, they may even create new employment opportunities at home.

                        Globalization may not affect all domestic industries, but it acts on some enterprises, industries, and locations that may suffer growing pressure of foreign competition; their rates of unemployment may rise. In our age of labor legislation and labor unions, all political parties usually call for protection by law and decree. They advocate various forms of protection, old and new, such as protective tariffs and administrative trade restrictions, limitations of labor mobility, minimum wage legislation, subsidies to threatened companies, special protection of important national industries, or even establishment of regional “free trade zones” with protective outside walls. But such policies merely may delay the loss of employment; they do not improve the ability to compete internationally. Protectionist policies boosting the costs of production may keep inefficient producers alive temporarily by postponing unavoidable readjustment.

                        Globalization exerts an ever greater pressure on labor markets, requiring continuous adjustments. The global market now offers large quantities of low-cost labor which in many countries causes rising differences in personal incomes and, in case of labor immobility or inflexible wages, rising unemployment. The rates usually are double-digit in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other old industrial countries, but these countries invariably enjoy large black markets where illegal wage rates give illegal employment to countless eager workers. A few countries, such as Great Britain, Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands, managed to render their labor markets less rigid and restrictive, which cut their rates of unemployment in half.

                        Unskilled labor, the costs of which tend to exceed its productivity, is condemned to chronic unemployment. In many countries it amounts to a large percentage of labor, subsisting either on unemployment benefits granted by government or on black market activity and earnings, or on both. Plans and programs that would lower employment costs frequently are viewed as grave threats to wage rates, working conditions, and jobs; political parties and labor unions usually distrust the unhampered market order.

                        Globalization has increased the pressures on poorly qualified workers; but it is not the primary cause of their unfavorable employment condition. The greatest employment risk for unskilled workers always is the low level of their productivity. Technological progress requires ever greater labor education and qualifications; workers who fail to learn and adjust may find it ever more difficult to find employment.

                        Globalization is lowering migration barriers in many parts of the world. In Europe, the European Union has opened the gates to millions of workers from formerly communist countries where labor productivity was rather low. Their migration usually improves working conditions in the countries they leave and strains them where they appear. It creates adjustment costs that affect several classes of people rather unevenly. Workers who lose their jobs obviously are the victims; its immediate beneficiaries are consumers, who enjoy larger offers of goods and services at lower prices. Globalization actually keeps rates of inflation much lower than they otherwise would be.

                        Globalization can work for all. Surely, it is no easy task; it requires continuous changes in economic structure and adjustment processes. Labor markets need freedom and flexibility in order to create ever new employment opportunities that offset unavoidable job losses. Workers must have the opportunity and incentive to acquire knowledge and ability needed in a globalized economy. General education and vocational knowledge are becoming ever more important as are entrepreneurship, research, and development. But above all, the economic future of many businesses in a globalized economy greatly depends on the margin of political and social freedom they enjoy.


                        Hans F. Sennholz
                        www.sennholz.com
  • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

    Sun, May 27, 2007 - 5:54 PM
    To my mind... If money is the root of all Evil..

    Then what is the root of money?

    video.google.co.uk/videoplay
    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

      Wed, May 30, 2007 - 2:53 PM
      Answer: No.

      Nothing in and of itself is evil. Evil is not tangible. Not all wealthy people are evil, just as not all poor people are saints, and vice versa.

      Also, there's evil in all of us. Perhaps, for some, money and wealth brings that evil out.

      Money is not evil. Wealth is not evil. A gun is not evil. Evil exists in man and nothing more. A gym bag filled with millions of dollars sitting in the middle of the forest isn't evil.
      • B
        B
        offline 121

        Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Wed, May 30, 2007 - 9:22 PM
        The evil is that some want to collect the money and hoard it at the expense of others.

        Interest is evil. The concept that you should be paid interest for creating money you never had just because you blackmailed a government into granting you the authority is evil. Interest is paid by making other people fight to get money to pay that interest, money that really doesn’t exist, to it is not a zero sum game it is a game you can never win.
        • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

          Sun, June 10, 2007 - 11:08 AM
          The problem here is in failing to recognize that money is inherently authoritarian.

          What we have done in the world is to replace any sense of human value with economic value. As things are, if your value is not recognized by banking authority, you have no right to the necessities of life. If the value you are assigned is less than what it costs to live, then it matters little how many jobs you have to work or how much abuse you must endure in order to survive.

          In essence, in this world, no one has any right to dignity.

          Despite all the high-sounding words in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even the Soviet constitution, dignity is something which is purchased, largely with inherited money. Because as sociologists will tell you, class mobility, even in the U.S. which ideologically tries to deny the existence of class, is extremely limited. Some would even call the divide between the wealthy and the rest a form of apartheid.

          Becoming wealthy, therefore, becomes an expression of value that inherently demeans other people. And yes, to me, this is inherently evil.
      • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

        Thu, May 31, 2007 - 8:14 AM
        I think it's interesting that so many people seem to think that stating their opinion without explaining their reasoning, or giving any supporting facts is a persuasive argument.

        How do you know these things? Why are you so convinced? On what basis have you formed your opinion? When you say evil what are you talking about? What is evil?

        I think the underlying question here is can one individual hold or acquire wealth without doing harm to anyone else. And if you think they can, will you please give some reasoning, or examples to support your assertion. I find Phil's argument persuasive -- if money is scarce and it is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals (or a minority of individuals) what happens to everyone else?

        My thought experiment is this: what would happen if every individual in America had (and let's say they all "earned" it) one million dollars. First of all, it's not even possible, is it? I s there even that much money in circulation? And secondly, wouldn't that just result in runaway inflation? Is it even possible for every one to be wealthy? Or is wealth in some way defined or created by poverty?

        It seems to me that for one individual to be wealthy (to have a million dollars) several other individuals MUST be poor. I'm completely okay with being wrong here but please explain to me your reasoning rather than just asserting how wrong I am.
        • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

          Thu, May 31, 2007 - 9:40 AM
          Maybe you just don't understand the reasoning. I find it interesting that you throw out hypothetical questions that are impossible to answer.

          Deep down, I think you know what evil is. It's not that complicated. You know what good is, don't you? Look it up in the dictionary if you don't know.

          When you say that for one person to be wealthy, other people have to be poor. Then your definition of wealth is a static condition. Don't you think wealth is fluid? A wealthy man today maybe a poor one tomorrow.

          And, let's face it, being rich is not a #1 priority for everyone.
          • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Thu, May 31, 2007 - 10:33 AM
            "Maybe you just don't understand the reasoning. I find it interesting that you throw out hypothetical questions that are impossible to answer."

            Well, maybe I missed the post where you gave reasons or examples. The posts I read consisted of declarative sentences.

            "Deep down, I think you know what evil is. It's not that complicated. You know what good is, don't you? Look it up in the dictionary if you don't know."

            LOL, you're the second person who thinks he knows what I think, deep down. I think that means you have unexamined assumptions that I obviously don't share. I'm sure the author intended evil to be a somewhat facetious term. My question is "does the wealth of one individual come at the expense of another individual?"

            Now, like you, I've always assumed that was not the case until I started my own business. I wanted to hire someone to help me but realized that I couldn't pay them a decent wage and make a profit myself. That was when I began questioning the accumulation of wealth.
            And I think that basic conflict is the reason so many businesses have left the U.S. and will continue to do so.


            "When you say that for one person to be wealthy, other people have to be poor. Then your definition of wealth is a static condition. Don't you think wealth is fluid? A wealthy man today maybe a poor one tomorrow."

            I do not know that's true, I'm very much questioning whether that's true. How do you know it is not true?

            "And, let's face it, being rich is not a #1 priority for everyone."

            No, being rich is not a #1 priority for most people but I don't see the relevance of this to the topic. Are you saying that even if one person's wealth comes at another person's expense it's okay because not everyone needs to be wealthy?
            • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

              Thu, May 31, 2007 - 10:53 AM
              >Now, like you, I've always assumed that was not the case until I started my own business. I wanted to hire someone to help me but realized that I couldn't pay them a decent wage and make a profit myself.

              Ah Ha! It may be possible, depends on how you are trying to raise the capital. Depends
              on the margin, the market value of your product or service, etc, etc. And one person's
              decent living wage isn't another's. I understand your qualms. A an entrepreneur myself,
              I know the pressures. The main resaons most fail are insufficient planning (did you start
              with budget projections including the new staffing?) and insufficient initial capital.
              • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                Thu, May 31, 2007 - 11:16 AM
                Actually, I realized that it probably wasn't ever going to be a very strong business venture and I went in a different direction.

                "And one person's
                decent living wage isn't another's."

                See, this is exactly what made me start thinking about this topic. I began to realize that the only way I could make a profit was to pay someone else less than I paid myself, that tiered income is necessary for an individual to accumulate wealth. That thought has been bothering me ever since. One person earning more means someone else is earning less. We could probably start a new thread debating the ethics of that reality but the fact is it's simply true and it was that fact that made me start questioning the accumulation of wealth overall.
                • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                  Thu, May 31, 2007 - 2:44 PM
                  Mark: "And one person's decent living wage isn't another's."

                  Lori: See, this is exactly what made me start thinking about this topic. I began to realize that the only way I could make a profit was to pay someone else less than I paid myself, that tiered income is necessary for an individual to accumulate wealth. That thought has been bothering me ever since. One person earning more means someone else is earning less.

                  Response: Yes, I understand your point. But thee is an a priori assumption here. I would not assume (based on what you've said) that the employee's labor was of equal value.
                  Greater responsibility, greater knowledge, greater skill, greater impact on the bottom line
                  any of those could translate into greater wage. That's why typically the accountants and sales people are among the best paid staff in organizations and the executives who do the most strategic strategic planning are the best paid. There's a common idea: "equal pay for equal work" -- we hear it often where gender equity is discussed, yet what criteria determines "equal work"? The value of various tasks is dependent on the role the labor
                  has in the overall profitability of the concern. Again, a hopsiltal's janitor is not paid the same
                  as it's surgeons. But with strong unions... no telling. But will the hospital buy the labor at that price?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                    Sun, June 3, 2007 - 2:55 AM
                    "Greater responsibility, greater knowledge, greater skill, greater impact on the bottom line
                    any of those could translate into greater wage."

                    Mark, you've been banging on for the whole thread about how there's no *objective* measure of the value of work, only what the market can *discover* through supply and demand.

                    But now turn this around and consider what's going on *inside* the company.

                    Competitive market forces are not operating within the company to answer the question "who contributes the most to the bottom line : the salesman, the engineer or the shareholder". Why not? Because customers aren't able to choose between these different roles. A company is a collaborative grouping, not a competitive one, and the customer is buying a *bundle* of the value created by the engineer plus salesman plus shareholder. The customer isn't able to evaluate them independently to see which is giving the best value for money.

                    So if the customer buys the value created by the company as a bundle, and the market isn't discovering the *relative* contributions made by each player in the company team ... and, if you're right, and there's no *objective* way to measure the contribution made by each member of the organization ... then *what* actually determines who gets paid the larger share of the profits the company makes? There can only one other possibility : that there's a *power struggle* going on within the company, where each stakeholder tries to get as much of the profit generated by the company as possible.

                    You think that the accountant gets more than the janitor because he contributes more value. But the fact is, neither you, nor she, nor anyone else can actually determine who contributes more. All you can say is that the accountant is more successful in the internal power-struggle to get her share.

                    Or, you may say that what you meant was that there are hundreds of millions of janitors in the world, but only millions of accountants, so the relative rarity of the accountant is what makes her worth more. *HOWEVER* this is not at all the same thing as saying the accountant contributes more to the bottom-line ... the two are entirely independent factors. If all the other computer programmers in the world died tomorrow, my salary would go stratospheric. But my *productivity* wouldn't change. Nor would the contribution made by my software to human wealth.
                    • Who pays what?

                      Sun, June 3, 2007 - 7:22 PM
                      Phil,

                      This is a peculiar idea you bring up around my thought, specious is maybe a better word.
                      It's true that I argue that knowledge workers are a different thing from classical labor.
                      It's true I say that in economics, terms like fair are inherently flawed. I also say that
                      the open endedness of knowledge is the greatest impediment establishing quantitative value of products or labor-- as you say -- only a market can discover a market clearing price.
                      Nowhere have I said that this involves competition or power struggle. I argue that there is
                      no such dynamic. It is only co-operative.

                      I agree that a company's workers (from execs to unskilled labor) work cooperatively
                      and collaborate to process a raw something/s and bundle added value to make it an attractive package, called a product.. My appreciation for the Austrian model of economics is drawn from my experience as an entrepreneur. I know from experience that there are skilled and unskilled labor, and I am willing to bid top dollar for the best employee or consultant I can get. When I build a company I am willing to pay a securities attorney who does corporate engineering 2 or 3 times more than any other lawyer. I'm willing to pay
                      $50,000 a day for marketing expertise from the single best strategist. So there is a productivity differental within a given profession. If the janitor could do these things at the same level of competence, I'd be happy to pay them that. But the fact of the matter is one is a dime a dozen, the other is the number one expert on the planet. Where is the competition and struggle? When I do budget projections for labor costs, I start at salary.com to see what the going rates are. Then I network for the best people my investor's money can buy -- interview and negotiate to make them the best offer I can so that I don't loose them to another company. The best skilled "knowledge workers" get to name their price because there are so few of them. I will not take unnecessary risks with other people's money. And the capital sources are happy that I've planed to reduce the risk and maximize the profits by hiring only the experts.

                      The customer also has two differing kinds of consideration price and quality and once
                      the price demand has been satisfied by sufficient quantity, then they begin to demand
                      a quality consideration. A fast hamburger is everywhere, but Ruth's Chris steaks are
                      found in only a few cities worldwide. When you've had enough of the lowest price
                      thingy, you upgrade your taste. Expresed economically the two have very different
                      demand slopes. I won't go to the cheapest acupuncturist in San Francisco-- I go to the
                      most skilled another city-- but I will buy the least expensive herbs around the corner.
                      There's a buyer in every market niche. Contrary to the rhetoric of our socialist friends,
                      all workers are not the same. And they are not exploited by capital. There is no power struggle in markets unless there are vested interests protecting themselves through
                      unions monoploies and government force.
        • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

          Thu, May 31, 2007 - 9:46 AM
          >It seems to me that for one individual to be wealthy (to have a million dollars) several other individuals MUST be poor. I'm completely okay with being wrong here but please explain to me your reasoning rather than just asserting how wrong I am.

          Crux of the problem. There is no such thing as money. If there were, a fixed amount of
          it, then one having some would automatically xclude others from having some. But, since
          "Money" is not an object-- since it expands and contracts in the market. Since money is a function of circluation, the peiece of pie model fails. The pie itself expands and contracts
          instantaneously.

          One would think that people in an "alternative currency" tribe would understand that
          Frequent Flyer miles in many cases are as good as (or better than) euros; that on Ithica NY, Ithica Dollars are prefered to USD; that Time Dollars work as well in places where they are used. Nobody is deprived of a limited amount of resources. There's only scarcity of specific resources.
          • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Thu, May 31, 2007 - 10:17 AM
            One of the major topics in this tribe has been the fact that money(dollars) does not in fact expand and contract in the marketplace in an ideal fashion which is the reason a lot of people want alternative currencies. In fact money (dollars) appears to be carefully manipulated by a small group of people in power.

            Money(the dollar), the concept and the physical reality of it, is not just an idea. And there absolutely is a fixed amount of it. We could probably google the amount in circulation at this moment.

            Maybe, we need to clarify the difference between wealth and money. I'm questioning money as an aspect of wealth, or perhaps, the exchangeable tangible aspects of wealth. Go back and read Phil's post again. When we think about wealth we are thinking about scarce commodities, not unlimited commodities. We could go with the "best things in life are free" idea but that's not really what I'm questioning.

            But it does sound like you think everyone could potentially be wealthy. Do you? Do you think the market, currency, and wealth could expand in such a manner that every individual (all 7 billion of us) had real tangible physical wealth equivalent to a million dollars each? You don't think it would simply result in explosive inflation?
            • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

              Thu, May 31, 2007 - 10:39 AM
              Well, wealth itself is relative. If everybody had $1M, then-- depending on
              relative scarcity of speific goods -- we may be either rich, middle class
              or poor. $1million Zimbabwe Dollars doesn't buy much.

              I'm not arguing that the money supply is not manipulated, I know this
              quite well. I agree that central banking is the problem. I also agree
              with Bernard Lietear that currency trading is causing hugely destablizing
              volatility. (If world currencies are volitile, they must not be fixed. Therefore,
              central banks' efforts at controlling are failing.) It makes little difference
              whether the central banker is a private, semi-public or fully government.

              In my thinking multiple currency options provide the best opportunity for
              anybody to create wealth by whatever standard fits with their own integrity.
              Everyone could potentially be wealthy--yes--but not anywhere by anyone's
              definition. There are too many variables. One good friend wants house,
              posession of a mansion overlooking Silicon Valley would be wealth for him.
              Frankly, I buy gold and am not interested in a house. How does my gold,
              or my friend's house deprive anybody? If I lived in Nepal, it'd be a diferent story.
              • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                Thu, May 31, 2007 - 1:57 PM
                "Well, maybe I missed the post where you gave reasons or examples. The posts I read consisted of declarative sentences."

                I've found that the best explanations are usually the simplest ones. Read Descartes or Sartre and see how truly maddening over-expaining is.

                "LOL, you're the second person who thinks he knows what I think, deep down. I think that means you have unexamined assumptions that I obviously don't share. I'm sure the author intended evil to be a somewhat facetious term."

                So, you don't know what evil is? I assume the author meant what he wrote.

                "My question is "does the wealth of one individual come at the expense of another individual?"

                This question is so pointless because there is no absolute answer. If I am selling drugs and I kill people to become wealthy, then, yes, my wealth came at the expense of others. If I build a business that provides a useful service and people work for me voluntarily, no, I see that more as spreading the wealth to other people.

                "Now, like you, I've always assumed that was not the case until I started my own business. I wanted to hire someone to help me but realized that I couldn't pay them a decent wage and make a profit myself. That was when I began questioning the accumulation of wealth.
                And I think that basic conflict is the reason so many businesses have left the U.S. and will continue to do so."

                Again, another pointless statement, because there is no absolute answer. You may not have been able to pay them a decent wage, but aren't there other businesses out there that can and do?

                "No, being rich is not a #1 priority for most people but I don't see the relevance of this to the topic. Are you saying that even if one person's wealth comes at another person's expense it's okay because not everyone needs to be wealthy?"

                When you're talking about "another person's expense," what do you mean? What is the expense? Labor? Poor wages? I think we should all take personal resposibility for ourselves when we're talking about other people taking advantage of other people or not:

                "I bargained with Life for a penny,
                And Life would pay no more,
                However I begged at evening
                When I counted my scanty store.
                For Life is a just employer,
                He gives you what you ask,
                But once you have set the wages,
                Why, you must bear the task.
                I worked for a menial’s hire,
                Only to learn, dismayed,
                That any wage I had asked of Life,
                Life would have willingly paid."
                • B
                  B
                  offline 121

                  Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                  Thu, May 31, 2007 - 9:32 PM
                  <First of all, it's not even possible, is it? I s there even that much money in circulation?>

                  Remarks by Bernard Lietaer at International Forum on Globalization (IFG) seminar, [15 December 1997]

                  In 1975, about 80% of foreign exchange transactions (where one national currency is exchanged for another) were to conduct business in the real economy. For instance, currencies change hands to import oil, export cars, buy corporations, invest in portfolios, or build factories. Real transactions actually produce or trade goods and services.

                  The remaining 20% of transactions in 1975 were speculative, which means that the sole purpose was an expected profit from buying and selling currencies themselves, based on their changing values. So, even in the days when the real economy was dominant, some currency speculation was going on. There had always been that little bit of frosting on the cake.

                  Today, the real economy in foreign exchange transactions is down to 2.5% and 97.5% is now speculative. What had been the frosting has become the cake. The real economy has become just a small percentage of total financial currency activity.

                  My estimate is that in 1997 we will have close to $2 trillion in currencies being traded per day. This is equivalent to the entire annual gross domestic product (GDP) volume of the United States being turned over via currency trading every three days.

                  ...
                  Economic textbooks say that corporations and individuals compete for markets and resources. This is not true. Corporations and individuals compete for money by using markets and resources.

                  The opening of the system, which led to floating exchanges, also created a new asset class. Traditional asset classes are real estate, bonds, stocks, and commodities. Today, we also have currencies. This means that money, the medium of exchange, has itself become an asset to be played into investment portfolios. This shift has different implications for businesses, depending on whether you’re an investor or a real business.

                  ...



                  Take the money out of speculation, out of the hands of money mangers and currency traders, out of the hands of corporations that hoard money and yes everyone could have one million dollars.

                  As history has proven, currencies that are not creaded by debt that do not incure interest but have a demmurage charge circulate with a velocity of 20 or more times that of todays currencies. Change money and it will be back in the hands of people and not be as scarce.
          • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

            Sun, June 3, 2007 - 3:01 AM
            "One would think that people in an "alternative currency" tribe would understand that "

            Some of us already did. See my point earlier about the inconsistency of believing that wealth is "abundant" but "money" should be "scarce".
            • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

              Sun, June 3, 2007 - 8:19 AM
              [quote]
              Some of us already did. See my point earlier about the inconsistency of believing that wealth is "abundant" but "money" should be "scarce".[/quote]

              Why is that inconsistent? Scarce money simply makes it valuable. Thus much less prone to inflation. Deflation when properly managed is better for the individual. There will be cycles of both, but simply using just weights and measures rather than printing off empty promises is the only way to set up an honest system. We will never get equality of outcome from an economic system, but an equatable system is the first step towards equal opportunity. Doesn't even require theft like socialism.
              • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                Mon, June 4, 2007 - 11:27 AM
                I've been trying to get more information about the money supply in the U.S.. If any one is interested this article was very helpful:

                economics.about.com/cs/money...upply.htm


                excerpt:

                The New York Fed gives the following definitions for the three money supply measures:

                "The Federal Reserve publishes weekly and monthly data on three money supply measures -- M1, M2, and M3 -- as well as data on the total amount of debt of the nonfinancial sectors of the U.S. economy... The money supply measures reflect the different degrees of liquidity -- or spendability - that different types of money have. The narrowest measure, M1, is restricted to the most liquid forms of money; it consists of currency in the hands of the public; travelers checks; demand deposits, and other deposits against which checks can be written. M2 includes M1, plus savings accounts, time deposits of under $100,000, and balances in retail money market mutual funds. M3 includes M2 plus large-denomination ($100,000 or more) time deposits, balances in institutional money funds, repurchase liabilities issued by depository institutions, and Eurodollars held by U.S. residents at foreign branches of U.S. banks and at all banks in the United Kingdom and Canada."

                According to this article based on money supplies and population levels in the U.S. the Per Capita Money Supply is as follows:

                Per Capita Money Supply
                Money Supply Type Value Money Supply Per Person Money Supply Per Person Over 19
                M1 Money Supply $1,200,000,000,000 $4,123 $5,742
                M2 Money Supply $5,400,000,000,000 $18,556 $25,837
                M3 Money Supply $7,800,000,000,000 $26,804 $37,321

                If I've understood this correctly M3 includes M1 and M2.

                Now this is only money supply and doesn't include other assets -- what other assets should be considered as part of wealth (financial wealth)?

                Another thing I found interesting was that the U.S. money supply is increasing faster than the U.S. economy so is money supply a limiting factor? (That fact must spell disaster for the U.S.!)
                • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                  Mon, June 4, 2007 - 11:33 AM
                  Sorry, I forgot tribe ignores spacing. For the table the columns are:

                  Money Supply Type
                  Value
                  Money Supply Per Person
                  Money Supply Per Person Over 19
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    B
                    B
                    offline 121

                    Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                    Mon, June 4, 2007 - 9:32 PM
                    The money supply is increasing faster than the economy because debt is increasing. Money is created by the creation of debt. That is the only way to grow the supply of money to grow debt. The Fed stopped reporting M2 last year (in March I believe). They claimed it was meaningless but it was the one place to look to quickly see if the Fed was inflating the money supply.
                    • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                      Wed, June 6, 2007 - 3:19 PM
                      Well, the question becoming weathly???
                      You just don't become wealthy. It has to be earned.
                      And if you earned your wealth.." As it can be passed down to Generation to generation.."
                      Then yeah,...you will become evil in time...You have to be!!!
                      • Re: Is Becoming Wealthy Inherently Evil?

                        Wed, June 6, 2007 - 10:35 PM
                        >Then yeah,...you will become evil in time...You have to be!!!

                        This argument is true only if predicated on a fundemental innate evil in human nature.

                        If human beings are innately good, then a family would not over time become evil.

                        Socialism (and all other governement solutions) are predicated on perfect humans
                        i.e. given an ideal situation, selfish interests will magically become obsolete. But the
                        method assumes that they won't naturally pursue goodness-- they must be forced.
                        If a doctor applies a therapy inconsistent with the diagnosis, we call that malpractice.

Recent topics in "Alternative Money and Economics"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Gold & Soft Dollar ? -----or equities? Briggi 10 December 20, 2009
Crash Course in Economics Paul 3 September 23, 2009
Timetable on the Coming Crash Paul 7 July 4, 2009
The Lewes Pound Scribe 5 July 4, 2009