The Theory of Money (the wonderful almighty $)

[amicus]

LT, a socialist reject from the GB, continues to post ‘flame threads’ here on the AH and is not only tolerated, but welcomed, much different than anyone who dares post ideas in opposition to common Marxist theories.

The left wing whiners and moaners carp about the unfairness of it all, the ‘Mighty Dollar’, freedom, free market laissez-faire capitalism, the usual suspects usual bullshit, bemoan the terrible economic injustices of the non socialist world.

The ‘lefties’ are clever, they never advocate their systems or solutions to the problems of mankind, they only criticize everything else, hinting, suggesting they have ‘a better’, solution, more equitable and humane to all.

Quietly they dream of a world where everyone is totally equal, that each receives according to his need the precise amount of money needed to meet their requirements.

What they do not tell you, is that that amount would be zero.

Thas right folks…no money at all. In their undeclared and unsupported system, the ‘government’ would issue ‘chits’ for all the things you need. Your food, your clothing, your housing, your medical care, your children’s education, your means and method of transportation and they would, of course, assign you to a fitting task, ( a job), that met the needs of the state.

The only thing you would not have is choice.

Or, ‘freedom’, but then, sighs, that is an abstract thought, beyond the grasp of most and thus, unimportant.

I did a single google search, under the keywords, ‘the theory of money’, which if you care to read, will lead you to hundreds of articles, journals and books concerning the nature and evolution of money in human society.

Or you can remain fat, dumb and happy and wait for a moneyless Utopia to arrive wherein you will never have to make a choice ever again.

~~~

http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hollander/money.html


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY OF MONEY FROM ADAM SMITH TO DAVID RICARDO
JACOB H. HOLLANDER.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, volume 25, (1910-11) pp. 429-470


“…More than a generation separated the appearance of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" in 1776 from the publication of David Ricardo's "High Price of Bullion" in 1810. Memorable as these years were with events in the industrial life of England, they witnessed but little change in the prevailing body of economic thought. The "Wealth of Nations," despite Hume's lament that the two stately quartos required too much thought and reflection to be popular, reached a tenth edition in 1799.(1) In the political world, Grenville in 1800 could remind Pitt of their common conviction as to "the soundness of Adam Smith's principles of political economy.''(2) In academic circles, Dugald Stewart was Adam Smith's successor in office and in spirit in the University of Edinburgh, attracting from 1800 on a notable group of gifted students to his eloquent exposition of the "Wealth of Nations.''(3) In the intellectual field, young men like Francis Horner, Lord Webb, James Mill, and Thomas Chalmers were supplementing legal and theological studies by critical reading of Adam Smith's text….”


“…The general features of Adam Smith's monetary doctrine were clearly defined.(12) The inconveniences of barter early lead to the use of an interposed commodity in economic exchange. Such a medium, being itself subject to variations in value, cannot be a perfectly accurate measure of value; but experience has shown that the precious metals, by virtue of favorable physical properties, are best fitted to serve as money materials. When both metals are employed one is designated as the standard, and the ratio of the other thereto is fixed either by the market or by public law. The purchasing power of a coin is determined by intrinsic content regardless of its nominal designation, and the concurrent use of two classes of money of unlike quality is prevented by the tendency of the public to hoard the better kind. The value of the standard money varies directly with the number of exchanges to be made and the frequency with which they are effected, and inversely with the whole quantity of money in use and the rapidity of circulation. Foreign commerce causes a distribution of the standard money, and artificial attempts to increase a particular country's stock are useless or mischievous. Variations in the value of money benefit one class of society at the expense of another, appreciation injuring the debtor, and depreciation, the creditor classes. Any substantial difference between the market and the mint price of bullion and any heavy fall in the foreign exchanges is due to the bad state of the coinage and may be promptly rectified by its restoration…”

~~~

The actual prehistory events of using shells, beads, nuts, even grain as a 'proxy' to expedite trade amongst peoples is fascinating, for those of you with a curious bent. The advent of minted coins in even pre Greek times, and then precious metals is also an interesting story.

But the, 'usual suspects', left over hippy campus radicals, still find solace in bucking everything they don't understand.

Nothing much changes. Maybe one can hope LT and associates will one day mature and actually study something, but I ain't holdin' my breath.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

LT, a socialist reject from the GB, continues to post ‘flame threads’ here on the AH and is not only tolerated, but welcomed, much different than anyone who dares post ideas in opposition to common Marxist theories.

The left wing whiners and moaners carp about the unfairness of it all, the ‘Mighty Dollar’, freedom, free market laissez-faire capitalism, the usual suspects usual bullshit, bemoan the terrible economic injustices of the non socialist world.

The ‘lefties’ are clever, they never advocate their systems or solutions to the problems of mankind, they only criticize everything else, hinting, suggesting they have ‘a better’, solution, more equitable and humane to all.

Well, someone who posts in a place where they already know their opinion is going to be popular won't be taking much heat . . . that's probably the whole point.

Someone was playing a Hillary Clinton speech from the other day that really had her nailed. She said people "deserved" a good job, a place to own, and health care. I found the comment amusing, since if you don't have to work for something to "deserve" it, how many people are actually going to work (why not take it easy and enjoy yourself, since it won't matter either way)? A Canadian complaining about Canada's system claimed that doctors are paid by seeing a minimum number of patients. Since there's no reason to see more than that, many meet their requirements, then take the rest of the week off (quite the bummer if you're sick). Bottom line, if you're worried that this kind of rhetoric is going to take over the country, I think you can breathe easy. No one I know trusts Hillary to "give" them what they want. The problem is more a lack of adequate options on the other side (or good third party candidate). The minute you start hearing talk of sweeping change, people will voice their opinion (just like in the immigration debate). At the moment, they just want a president who remembers what country he's in.

 

[amicus]

S-Des...thanks...

"...Well, someone who posts in a place where they already know their opinion is going to be popular won't be taking much heat . . . that's probably the whole point..."

~~~

That is a point of contention with me. I do not presume to think that Marxist theory is the 'popular' trend on the AH, I rather suspect the very vocal left suppresses any other viewpoint that may arise and thus controls the flavor of the forum.

Four years ago, when I first came to the forum, my intent was to talk writing and stories and markets and such. I did not come with the purpose of talking politics or economics.

I still consider this an author's forum and within that, I expect the normal differences in opinion, even on Literotica, which I do not consider a 'porn' site, but one of erotic literature.

I do however, appreciate your commentary in the remainder of your post and I do take some hope from your words.

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

I don't ideologically agree with LT much, but he has of yet not opened a thread with specific substance worth adressing. it's hardly more than left-ish non-challenging musings. So I haven't bothered.

(The Credit Check thread an exception, and I agree with him there, it IS a very poor tool for job application screening.)

So rejoice, ami. You're more interresting than him. So far. So don't slack.

 

[hmmnmm]

I'm well acquainted with the moneyless idea, but not because of leftist leanings.
I'd love to give the other side a go, the money idea, but... anybody got any money?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I like money. I like the idea that we can apply a metric to the quality and quantity of a person's efforts and ability such that we can measure what they should be more eligible for.

 

[JamesSD]

I'm glad to hear that by Amicus's world view, I must be a moderate, despite being a hardcore Democrat, self described liberal. Because none of this remotely applies to my way of thinking.

Total Free Market: Bad
Socialism: Bad
Somewhere in Between: Good

 

[amicus]

I'm glad to hear that by Amicus's world view, I must be a moderate, despite being a hardcore Democrat, self described liberal. Because none of this remotely applies to my way of thinking.

Total Free Market: Bad
Socialism: Bad
Somewhere in Between: Good

~~~

I suppose I should just let this thread die of neglect and it may anyway.

However, I do labor to illustrate that what you call "Amicus's world view", is actually the predominant opinion among rational thinkers world wide and surely not just mine alone.

The minority expression of Marxist ideology which abounds on this forum is virtually un-noticed in the real world.

And the 'middle of the road', you describe between freedom and slavery, that yellow line of agnosticism in all things, is the province of 'road kill', in my not so humble opinion.

Amicus...

 

[Carnevil9]

.....Someone was playing a Hillary Clinton speech from the other day that really had her nailed. She said people "deserved" a good job, a place to own, and health care. I found the comment amusing, since if you don't have to work for something to "deserve" it, how many people are actually going to work (why not take it easy and enjoy yourself, since it won't matter either way)?.....

I've always though that "deserve" is a null word. There is no deserve. You do what it takes to get what you want, or you do not do what it takes to get what you want. Nobody "deserves" anything. And any system of social engineering that believes people do "deserve" something, and attempts to give it to them whether or not they provide value in kind back to that society, is doomed to fail of its own unbalanced weight.......Carney

 

[Le Jacquelope]

LT, a socialist reject from the GB, continues to post ‘flame threads’ here on the AH and is not only tolerated, but welcomed, much different than anyone who dares post ideas in opposition to common Marxist theories.

Amicus, you're a flat out joke. You've constructed a straw man the size of Megatron. Aside from Hillary Clinton - and I doubt even she fits the description of the boogeyman you've created - who else believes in this crap?

The left wing whiners and moaners carp about the unfairness of it all, the ‘Mighty Dollar’, freedom, free market laissez-faire capitalism, the usual suspects usual bullshit, bemoan the terrible economic injustices of the non socialist world.

The ‘lefties’ are clever, they never advocate their systems or solutions to the problems of mankind, they only criticize everything else, hinting, suggesting they have ‘a better’, solution, more equitable and humane to all.

Quietly they dream of a world where everyone is totally equal, that each receives according to his need the precise amount of money needed to meet their requirements.

What they do not tell you, is that that amount would be zero.

Thas right folks…no money at all. In their undeclared and unsupported system, the ‘government’ would issue ‘chits’ for all the things you need. Your food, your clothing, your housing, your medical care, your children’s education, your means and method of transportation and they would, of course, assign you to a fitting task, ( a job), that met the needs of the state.

The only thing you would not have is choice.

Or, ‘freedom’, but then, sighs, that is an abstract thought, beyond the grasp of most and thus, unimportant.

I did a single google search, under the keywords, ‘the theory of money’, which if you care to read, will lead you to hundreds of articles, journals and books concerning the nature and evolution of money in human society.

Or you can remain fat, dumb and happy and wait for a moneyless Utopia to arrive wherein you will never have to make a choice ever again.

This is a huge lie. That's not the world I want to see. Not even close.

One could just as easily say you prefer a world in which people sell their own mothers for profit and the only reason you aren't proposing the Rules of Acquisition as the next amendment to the US Constitution is the Ferengi don't exist but by golly you're working on a genetic modification to fix that.

Perhaps the reason you're spewing this nonsense on the AH is because the real world has thoroughly rejected your economic views and if it weren't for the AH, you would have taken up arms against socialist America a la Timothy McVeigh long ago.

It's people like you that make me glad fertilizer sales are monitored.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

I suppose I should just let this thread die of neglect and it may anyway.

However, I do labor to illustrate that what you call "Amicus's world view", is actually the predominant opinion among rational thinkers world wide and surely not just mine alone.

The minority expression of Marxist ideology which abounds on this forum is virtually un-noticed in the real world.

And the 'middle of the road', you describe between freedom and slavery, that yellow line of agnosticism in all things, is the province of 'road kill', in my not so humble opinion.

Amicus...

You know, perhaps it is better off that you not realize that America's economic system is a balance of capitalism and socialism, and that the vast majority of people of consequence will not see to that being changed.

The alternative is that you might finally snap and, along with hundreds of your innocent & unfortunate victims, make the evening news.

 

[amicus]

LT..."This is a huge lie. That's not the world I want to see. Not even close..."

~~~

Thas the point LT, you fear to describe the 'world you want to see..."

By all means, tell us!

Perhaps you have become so immersed in the Marxist Dialectic you preach in every thread and every post, of the inevitable 'class struggle', between the 'have's and the have not's', that you no longer realize just how silly you sound.

You simply do not have the courage or the intellectual honesty to come right out and describe how your Utopian world of mandated equality could be arrived at and function.

I know that, many others know that, I am simply calling you out.

Instead of just whining and moaning about the unfairness of it all, show us your grandiose plans for mankind.

We are all ears.

Amicus....

 

[Le Jacquelope]

LT..."This is a huge lie. That's not the world I want to see. Not even close..."

~~~

Thas the point LT, you fear to describe the 'world you want to see..."

By all means, tell us!

Perhaps you have become so immersed in the Marxist Dialectic you preach in every thread and every post, of the inevitable 'class struggle', between the 'have's and the have not's', that you no longer realize just how silly you sound.

How silly I sound to whom? You?

I believe a free enterprise system should exist and it should be tempered by a social safety net. A welfare to work safety net.

You simply do not have the courage or the intellectual honesty to come right out and describe how your Utopian world of mandated equality could be arrived at and function.

Here's a news flash for you. America is socialist, America is also free market capitalist, and we're not going to change.

If you hate socialism so much then America is not, and never will be, the country for you. The only reason why you're here now is you like the creature comforts of socialism - because as long as you live in America, from now until hell freezes over, you will be wallowing in socialism.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[amicus]

You know, perhaps it is better off that you not realize that America's economic system is a balance of capitalism and socialism, and that the vast majority of people of consequence will not see to that being changed.

The alternative is that you might finally snap and, along with hundreds of your innocent & unfortunate victims, make the evening news.

~~~

You are such an intellectual coward, Lt, I wonder how you can even glance at a mirror.

Your so called 'balance' of capitalism and socialism, might better be described as a continual confrontation between freedom and slavery, and best be described as adding an amount of poison to otherwise pure and potable water.

I offer, as I always do, an unadulterated advocacy of total and absolute individual freedom and liberty and continue to defend against attempts to pollute freedom with even a drop of slavery.

Everyone, everywhere I have ever spoken or written knows my position clearly. You on the other hand never declare where you stand and only pick and poke at those of us who enjoy and cherish our freedoms.

You are such a coward.

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

You are such an intellectual coward, Lt, I wonder how you can even glance at a mirror.

Your so called 'balance' of capitalism and socialism, might better be described as a continual confrontation between freedom and slavery, and best be described as adding an amount of poison to otherwise pure and potable water.

Well then why don't you go where the water is potable? By continuing to live here you are drinking the poison on a daily basis. That's self destructive. Or maybe you're just too scared to leave?

I offer, as I always do, an unadulterated advocacy of total and absolute individual freedom and liberty and continue to defend against attempts to pollute freedom with even a drop of slavery.

Everyone, everywhere I have ever spoken or written knows my position clearly. You on the other hand never declare where you stand and only pick and poke at those of us who enjoy and cherish our freedoms.

You are such a coward.

Amicus...

I just declared where I stand. You have some serious reading problems, in addition to being too scared to go live where there is no socialism.

You make a crappy defender, continuing to choose to live in a country where slavery - as you inaccurately define it - persists.

If you want to convince others, you should lead by example and escape this slavery-ridden nation. Otherwise by choosing to live here you make it clear that this system is the best choice for others. Which is why so many people are coming to this land where we constantly add "an amount of poison to otherwise pure and potable water."