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
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
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
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
"EFFICIENCY" IS REDUCED CONSUMPTION. To the extent
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...>
> 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!