[MD] Protestant Capitalism

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> No, it is not. No one values money for its own sake, no one, ever. Money
> ONLY has value in virtue of the social understanding of what money is and
> what you can do with it. Even the very wealthy, who seem to use it as a
way
> of keeping score, value you money for what it means not for what it is.

[John]
Perhaps there is some semantic confusion between us.  Perhaps you think when
I say "money" I mean the literal paper and metal objects that symbolize
relative monetary value.

[Krimel]
Perhaps there is. I think you are confusing the sign with the signified.

[John]
What I mean by "money" is that mutually agreed upon means of exchange that
represents higher status in a society -whether its printed and you can hold
it or it is electronic information you can view on a screen.

Obviously nobody wants money because they like the feel of it in their
pocket or because they are bequiled by squiggles on a screen.  But all the
time, people want money for security in case something happens or in case
they want to buy something someday, they know not what.    Or for power.
 Money for power is probably the easiest example to make my point - all the
billionaires millionaire fillionaires whom posses more than enough wealth to
provide every tangible and intangible need you could imagine.  Yet they
still want more.

Money is power, social power, so saying you want more money to get more
power IS money for it's own sake.  Or power for its own sake, however you
want to term it.  Or it is in the way I'm terming it anyway.

[Krimel]
This reminds me of Freud's notion of penis envy. The post Freudian Karen
Horney rightly saw this and much of Freud's theory are hopelessly sexist.
She claimed Freud was confusing women's desire for power and autonomy in
Victorian society with the symbol of that power: the male organ. Women might
want to borrow the occasional penis but they don't want to wear them.

[John]
Well I see a problem with your optimism.   Because of Capitalism's powerful
anti-dynamic, you know, the old saying that you gotta have money to make
money, those who have the most money have the most power in determining its
value and their motives (Tah-dah!) are selfish.  It's designed into the
system that way.  Thus I don't hold much hope out for your "we".

[Krimel]
America is a great experiment that We the People are engaged in. We try and
fail. We stumble and fall but we get up and keep trying. The tragedy is when
we don't learn from our mistakes. When we demonize the "other". When we let
the success of regulation delude us into thinking the regulations weren't
needed after all. 

[John]
Honestly?  I'm more attracted to a chance market than a controlled one.
 Unless I'm doing all the controlling of course.  It seems to me that chance
is more fair than intellectual control.  Really, intellectual control is
just a fancy way of saying political control.  Shudder.

And hey, everybody you named makes more than an old woodcutter, and I ain't
complaining any.

[Krimel]
What is wrong with political control? That is joint action of the people's
representatives, steering our course through fog and cloudy waters. But you
say just let 'er drift?

My brother lives in a shed and like you he thinks all that free market
neo-conservative crap is somehow working in his favor. It is truly
astounding that the people most harmed by the wealthy have been enlisted as
foot soldiers in their cause. You think tax incentives for homeownership
should be removed and let chance rule? You think we should note statistics
on teen pregnancy just say fuck 'em, chance will sort it out. What happens
when companies become large enough to seize control or become too big to
fail? 

You think it's cool to just stand around flipping coins while the world
burns?

Are you with Alfred Pennyworth on this one?