Re: [LandCafe] Re: marrying land & monetary reform
See, if you subscribed to the Georgist News, you'd not have to ask. Want to get the free e-monthly of pithy blurbs on movement progress?On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:15 AM, DavidH <discodave1974@ yahoo.com> wrote:
I knew that Max is in quasi-Georgist territory, but I did not know that he has hosted Fred Harrison. Do you know the approximate date of that show? Or can I find it at his website?
- Amazing that people argue about things like this. I mean, we can take the term "money" to mean whatever a dictionary says it does, or we can take it as some kind of rigid designator of a natural kind and insist that only silver can be money. Or, I suppose we could claim that's it's only money if it's called "money" in whatever language is spoken where it's used.
It simply doesn't matter. How could it? What IS important is that there is no equivocation conducted by use of the term. So, I recommend you two stop arguing and just use "money1" and "money2" or "money" and "money*". Nothing substantive ever follows from word choice.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
> Quoting Dan Sullivan on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:28:13 -0500:
> On 27 Feb 2010 at 11:04, Scott Bergeson wrote:
> When I was speaking of money, I was not speaking of the
> definition used by those who think only wealth (gold, etc.)
> can be money. I consider that definition to be nonsense.
> You, Stephen Zarlenga and others have changed it to
> "that which legally discharges debt obligations".
> Perhaps you should quit grating on the nerves of language
> prescriptivists like me and call your circulating
> medium of exchange something else, like disobs.
> (Discharges of obligations - See Eric Frank Russell's
> "And Then There Were None".) I consider redefining
> words whenever you get a wild hair to be nonsense.
> It's the gold-bugs who redefined money. Some of the
> earliest currencies were fiat currencies, such as the Roman
> Nomismas, and they were considered money by monetary theorists
> as well as by the general public that circulated them.
> Since money is silver, if these mythical
> insects did that, their redefinition is invalid.
> The dishonesty is in trying to win the argument
> that money should be backed by wealth by redefiing
> money to only mean that which is backed by wealth.
> No, it's a synonym for silver. Back whatever
> you want with whatever you want, it isn't money
> except in the degenerate case of silver-backed
> silver. (What's that; choice of mintage forms?)
> This is similar to socialists defining capitalism
> as a system that exploits workers in order to make
> the argument that capitalism exploits workers. Such
> argument -by-defiinition is dishonest, and that
> fact that the dishonest definition has been in place
> for some time does not make it any less dishonest.
> Save perhaps as metaphor, seems way off-topic.
> Properly means "headism".
> 1854, "condition of having capital".
> May I suggest many (Some, such as Dave Wetzel, excepted)
> self-proclaimed "socialists" have misdefined their
> term for themselves? They seem rather antisocial,
> indeed, sociopathic, to me. Okay, money was originally
> coined silver. Calling anything else "money", no matter
> how long hucksters have foisted some alternative
> definition, does not make it any less dishonest.
> Moreover, it is not *the* definition of money.
> Rather, it is *a* definition that the gold-bugs
> try to impose on everyone.
> Can we call a fantasy exterminator on these
> "gold bugs", already? It's a fiction story!
> Dictionary.com lists it as the third of 12 definitions.
> In ancient China, cowry shells were apparently "exchange".
> How about we NOT redefine them as "money"?