Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
Oswald Spengler wrote:With this the notion of money attains to full abstractness. It no longer merely serves for the understanding of economic intercourse, but subjects the exchange of goods to its own evolution. It values things, no longer as between each other, but with reference to itself. Its relation to the soil and to the man of the soil has so completely vanished, that in the economic thought of the leading cities the "money-markets" it is ignored.
Potemkin wrote:Interestingly, Spengler was (probably unknowingly) agreeing with Marx on this point. In a famous chapter of Das Kapital, Marx expresses it as the formula M-C-M - money is converted into a commodity (e.g., invested in industry or in the financial markets) merely in order to be converted again into more money. This leads, of course, to production for profit rather than for human need, and to fetishisation of money as the be-all and end-all of human economic activity. In more traditional societies and economies, the governing formula is C-M-C, in which money is subordinated to serve merely as a medium of exchange for various commodities; as a way of liquidising commodities to facilitate trade. In traditional societies, the accumulation of money was not regarded as the sole or even main purpose of human economic activity. And those who did regard it as such were called 'usurers'.
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, But in a capitalist economy, one needs money to survive. Money is not needed in a socialist economy. You are talking about different conditions that don't apply to the same scenarios that they are in.
It's like saying you hate the man who is pointing the gun at you, but you need his respect so that he doesn't pull the trigger.
SolarCross wrote:A "socialist economy" is slavery.
SolarCross wrote:No one who spins some narrative about the evils of money ever thinks that applies to his own money just other people's money, lol.
Leftwing thought leader: "Money is evil! It's a capitalist plot! Read all about it in my new book just $9.95 at all good book stores!"
Potemkin wrote:Why do you think money exists, SC? What do you consider its purpose to be? Serious questions.
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, In socialism, there is no medium of exchange, thus leaving your "trade" point as USELESS. The concept of value also doesn't exist. Slaves were denied "it" meaning that the "it" was under a feudalist economy, which was even less labour friendly than capitalism. Capitalism is closer to socialism than feudalism. But you don't realize that because you're confused you fucking retard.
SolarCross wrote:Anything people value can function as money and it exists to facilitate trade between free men. Slaves are denied it of course.
Potemkin wrote:But modern money has no intrinsic value, SC. It's just bits of paper (or bits of plastic now) with ink printed on them. Or discs of base metal with an image stamped on them. What gives these bits of paper or base metal their value, SC?
SolarCross wrote:Some ancient money was like that and some modern money still has intrinsic value, gold is still a thing btw. Either way it has value because people give it value. All value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
After 14 years in power followed by yet another e[…]
I think they divide economists into 2 groups […]
@Hindsite said: I don't know if there was any […]
1) It's both, which I made plain with a quote fro[…]