| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: exchange vs free? | | Date: | , August 15, 2005 23:42:08 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2475 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
Howdy Michael,
I agree with 'free' being received ( distributed) without anything in exchange.
Without meaning to get bogged down in arguing over word usage, there are things
we know that are right but not necessarily self explanitory to others.
However I would never say that an employer pays employees with goods and
services.
Even the phrase that money (tickets) are a medium of exchange is held to be not
sufficient and is thus preferred to be called a 'claim'.
I prefer the notion of 'property' because it isnt ambiguous and its ideological
implications are very very significant.
Peter H
Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
>
> "sells labour in exchange for claim forms . . . buys labour by
exchanging
> claim forms" (Peter)
>
> I would avoid expressions like this. The exchange concept is that the
ticket
> is the MEANS of exhange of other things, not that the ticket itself is
> exchanged. The above phrases should read "exchanges labour for consumer
goods and
> services . . . exchanges consumer goods and services for labour."
>
> "The 'unearned' increment due to science or social interaction . . . is
> referred to as 'free'. Is this adequate? I don't think so. In the
same regard
> the dividend isn't charity. . . . If they are free, then can they be
stolen, and
> perhaps we should apologize to the bankers? . . . It is either justly
> appropriated or mis-appropriated by theft. . . . So all claim forms are
property
> rights, etc. This to me speaks of something of far greater significance
of
> getting something free." (Peter)
>
> It calling the fruit of this increment "free," I don't mean to imply
that it
> belongs to no one and is "free for the taking." I mean to imply that it
can
> be distributed without requiring anything in exchange. Even in an
imaginary
> fully automatic, cost-free production system, it would still make sense
to
> distribute plentiful but still finite goods by means of money and
prices.
>
> Michael
>
>
|
Re: exchange vs fr
Reply to this message