Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Judson Chambers
    Dear QGJ, I d like to comment in greater depth at another time, but for the time being, I found your comments quite clear and on point. I seem to notice few
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 6, 2002
      Dear QGJ,

      I'd like to comment in greater depth at another time,
      but for the time being, I found your comments quite
      clear and on point. I seem to notice few clear
      understandings of "human action" and anthroposophic
      insight in economics. What I do see are defensive
      apologia against such clarity with quips about "intent
      and allusions to who ??? wrote the nonsense", and a
      failure to "think" about the actions of the human
      concerning his scale of values. Dr. Starman, by the
      way, is gallant in his efforts, though disagreeable in
      some respects.

      The cited article by Prof. Dr. Dieter Suhr (offered to
      us by "888"<fireofthe12@...>) was abysmally
      abstract and obscure. His description of the origin of
      money was totally absent. His analysis is a fantasmic
      outlook on human economics and is oblique and
      certainly not a credit to an anthroposophic outlook.

      I think this will change as our thinking becomes more
      courageous in time. Bottom line I congratulate you for
      your clarity.


      Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:35:47 -0000
      From: "QGJ" <qgj21@...>
      Sub: Re: Money

      What does it mean to say that money "is held back and
      prevented from functioning as it should" and "sabotage
      the transaction series"?

      I understand you to be saying that when individuals
      are "enticed" to save or hold back money, rather than
      spending it, this is somehow less "efficient." If
      this is what you mean, I think I disagree. You only
      have basically three options as a money-holder:
      1.) You can spend it. This dissipates your power
      back into the economy in a sense, or exchanges one
      concrete commodity (a certain amount of currency) for
      another commodity (the product or service that is
      2.) You can (save/invest) it. This money does not
      just disappear. When you deposit/invest, it is in turn
      loaned out to other individuals, who use it for
      "productive" purposes.
      3.) You can just hold money, under your mattress
      perhaps. Counterintuitively, this is perhaps the most
      "efficient" use of money economically. Imagine you
      are extraordinarily wealthy and you own 5% of your
      country's wealth. By locking that up in a vault and
      not using it, everyone else's money becomes 5% more
      valuable (this is a deflation effect). When (and if)
      you return this money to circulation by spending or
      depositing it, an inflationary effect will occur. The
      reason this works, is because THE ONLY REAL
      that you produce (and earn) more than you consume, but
      then do not make your own personal demands on the
      aggregate economy (through spending), you have
      effectively increased the wealth of the economy. If
      you were to take those paper dollars and burn them,
      this effect would be permanent.

      This theory runs counter to the (defunct?) Keynesian
      theory that more spending = a better economy.
      Keyensian economics will probably never die, because
      it provides a perfect justification for politicians'
      desire to spend money.

      --- In anthroposophy@y..., "888" <fireofthe12@y...>
      > http://www.sffo.de/suhrnnge.html
      > An article by Prof. Dr. Dieter Suhr
      > Interest Free Money: The Neutral Money
      > 5.1. The Theoretical Carrying Cost Concept

      Do you Yahoo!?
      New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.