posted
Money is a relatively late concept with the first currency dating to the 7th century BC. Before this bater was used extensively and there were other means of transferring wealth. There was also the use of gold or electrum which would be used at each exchange.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But were there government systems preventing stealing and protecting private property back then?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without government and police people will steal from each other and there will be no trade and exchange between people. For example today people know that they cannot steal from the supermarkets because they will be caught and arrested. So without someone using force and authority, people will steal and there will be chaos and disorder.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should distnguish nomisma from money used today its not the same thing. Money we use today is a piece of paper, like a food stamp with a prescribed value. Nomisma carried its own worth for example a gold coin was worth its weight in gold. Some times ancient governments would cheat a little especially true in the Middle Ages to try and make their currency worth more than its metal was worth. This evolved into eventually having no nomisma ie credit cards. Banks today represent a networked government treasury, in ancient times the treasury was in one place and heavily guarded.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Money has always been whatever people believed it was and it's worth what people think it's worth. Originally money was simply standard weights which had evolved to having an imprint of an issuing authority. Using money was still very much like barter but now people could make commercial arrangements much more easily since one party might always have something the other was willing to trade for. Early coins were invariably large denominations and typically exceeded a day's wages.
Today money is still as good as gold so long as people believe it.
Cash was an important development in man's progress but wasn't achieved until the pyramids were already ancient.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The payment system forces us to pay for everything. I don't like the coercive payment system. I don't like to pay for everything i need. Did ancient Egypt also have this coercive payment system?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Social Origins of Money: The Case of Egypt John F. Henry Department of Economics California State University, Sacramento
Abstract
It is important to note that in Egypt (and this would accord with Mesopotamia and other areas) money was developed in a non-market, non-exchange economy. While some economic historians and anthropologists of a neoclassical persuasion diligently speculate that the Egyptian economy must have paralleled that with which we are now familiar, there is no evidence for exchange in the Old Kingdom.
The Egyptians had no vocabulary for buying, selling, or even money; there was no conception of trading at a profit (Bleiberg, 1996, pp. 14, 23-4). It is very clear that there was no market in grains (Eyre, 1999, p. 53). A market economy (of a sort) and the monetization of the economy, including the production of coins, had to wait until Greek domination (Bowman and Rogan, 1999, pp. 25-6). Moreover, there is no evidence of private property in land in the Old Kingdom (Ibid., p. 24).
Egypt was not a monetary economy: production was not undertaken in order to "make money." But it certainly had money. And money was not a medium of exchange, but a social relationship. It was bound up with the transition from egalitarian to class society, the social requirement that the older tribal obligations had to be maintained in form though the substance of those obligations had now irrevocably been altered, and the funerary rituals that bound this class-fragmented society together. The ruling class, surrounding the semi-divine king, levied non-reciprocal obligations ("taxes") on the underlying population. These taxes had to be accounted for and a measure had to be developed to allow a reasonably systematic form of bookkeeping to maintain records of obligations and the extinguishing of those obligations. In Egypt, this unit of account was the deben, and it is important to note that the deben was an arbitrary standard that rested on a particular weight. And this weight remained the same regardless of whether it referred to grain, copper, or silver. Money has no value in and of itself. It is not "the thing" that matters, but the ability of one section of the population to impose its standard on the majority, and the institutions through which that majority accepts the will of the minority. Money, then, as a unit of account, represents the class relations that developed in Egypt (and elsewhere), and class relations are social relations. [Source]
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I already knew of Egyptian economy is that it is based on soley on trade.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But normal trade is voluntary and does not involve coercion. The present economy is not voluntary, it is coercive and needs systematic force in order to preserve the vast gap between the rich property owners and the poor who have no property and need to sell their labor in order to survive.
A system with exchange and accumulation is a capitalist system, with all the disadvantages it brings with it. Dependency and a lack of individual freedom, economic inequality, a centralized control system with a gigantic bureaucracy, the money system and value papers, banks, people who count money, steal money, people who chase the thiefs, people building cashiers machines, pay interest, mortgages, robbery, mass murder for financial gain, gambling, etc..
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: Did the ancient Egyptians also have this big money administration system like there is today?
No! While Ancient Egypt's economy was class based, it never developed into a Capitalist economy, nor was it an economy based upon human slavery. Ancient Egypt's economy was an African based economic system, and you should research this type of system to fully understand it, if you're truly interested...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did ancient Egypt have this coercive payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afterall, it's through the monetary and payment systems which the private capitalist elite (which is largely in control in government) exert control over their people. Without a money system, the central bankers (which are sometimes over the government) will have nothing to print.
posted
At first I thought this was going to be a very legitimate and interesting thread that makes authentic inquiries about ancient Egyptian society.
But judging by the topic starter's comments on another thread. He is just projecting his economic insecurities into a public forum.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What i don't like about capitalism is the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services. Private sellers, workers and cashiers act in many ways like government by having the power to dictate prices and by coercing people to pay money for goods and services.
An exchange system is much more complicated than a sharing system, because whenever a product is moved from one person to another, from one place to another, something else has to move the same track but in the other direction.
I buy an icecream, an icecream moves from a seller to me, and money moves from me to the seller. He has to buy the icecream from another person in another city, so his money has to travel the same way as the icecream, but in the other direction.
This trade system, or exchange system, means that we have two flows to take care of instead of one. That means that the bureaucracy becomes doubled in size, we need to use a lot of manpower to calculate and regulate the flow of money plus the flow of useful necessities.
A money system is a centrally controlled system, the few rich and their protection system, the state, have ultimate control of the system. The people in the system have influence and power which is determined by how much money they have, and how well they play the cultural game. The poor have no freedom at all, the rich and the priests decide what they are to do.
An alternative to a centrally controlled money system is a moneyless sharing voluntary system, where each individual decides for himself what to do. Such a system based on sharing and voluntarism is not a centrally controlled system.
The money system, the property rights, the exchange principle make our calculations a lot more complicated and we would have to use half of the workforce just to handle this parallell flow of money, shares, property rights, interest rates, etc..
A trade system, a system of exchange, is also the basis for material inequality, crimes, etc..
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big money system of the world today is called capitalism. Capitalism is a development of Europe that began in the 1500s and really grew with the growth of European colonial activities around the world. At its core, capitalism is based around the generation of capital. Capital is the excess money, often called profit, generated by bussiness activities. This capital then becomes the means to finance new business activities, which in turn generates more capital. The name of the game in capitalism is the generation and control of capital.
Unfortunately, however, European greed and desire for absolute control of MOST of the worlds capital, led them to create a system of exploitation in order to place Europeans PERMANENTLY at the top of the world's economic system. They did this through slavery, exploitation, war and genocide, which were used to forcefully aquire the land, labor and resources of other people outside of Europe for use in generating capital for European banks, companies, churches and governing bodies. This system was backed by a set of laws that implicitly acknowledged ONLY the rights of the European to own, trade, sell, profit or benefit from the land, labor, wealth and resources of other countries. From this unfair system of wealth distribution, European companies and countries became ever more wealthy and powerful and were therefore able to exert much economic control over many parts of the world. Even though the overt imperialist agenda of the European or Western world is no longer overt, it is still a force in the world of economics. Globalization is basically the 21st century version of what started with the colonialist commercial capitalist imperialist expansion of Europe 400 years ago. Its aims are no different, which is to control most of the capital in the world's economy and to be able to continue generating capital from other peoples land, labor and resources, putting MOST of the wealth in the hands of Europeans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I agree Doug. The system of capitalism isn't perfect, but it is a very good system nontheless.
The problem is that many people do not realize (or prefer to ignore) the fact that the West's (Western Europe's and North America's) status as the wealthiest on the planet is quite simply due to conquest and imperialism. Even today imperialism still exists in 3rd world countries, especially in Africa where the nations do not control the flow of their own goods and resources but rather they are controlled by the wealthier nations. That is why we need things like the Fair Trade embargo etc. to ensure that all nations have the same chance to compete in the global market, one which is dominated by Europeans and European progeny. Before the Western domination, Africa and Asia ran things. Africa still has a chance to turn everything around if it were to end political corruption in many of its nations.
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: What i don't like about capitalism is the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services..
This payment is incentive which ensures that the goods and services is in good quality. You expect people to do things like produce goods and give services for free! Even before the monetary system or the existence of money, goods and services always came with a price!! Did you not know this??
If you don't like it, you can always leave such an economy and move somewhere else were everything is free but in low quality.
quote:Private sellers, workers and cashiers act in many ways like government by having the power to dictate prices and by coercing people to pay money for goods and services.
LOL The only government which controls prices is communism, which I thought you supported!
quote:An exchange system is much more complicated than a sharing system, because whenever a product is moved from one person to another, from one place to another, something else has to move the same track but in the other direction.
If you are speaking of egalitarianism, such societies exist however they are usually found in so-called 'primitive' societies where resources are not as complex and come directly from nature. Unfortunately you whine about "electricity" being a necessity!
quote:I buy an icecream, an icecream moves from a seller to me, and money moves from me to the seller. He has to buy the icecream from another person in another city, so his money has to travel the same way as the icecream, but in the other direction.
And it seems fair to me.
quote:This trade system, or exchange system, means that we have two flows to take care of instead of one. That means that the bureaucracy becomes doubled in size, we need to use a lot of manpower to calculate and regulate the flow of money plus the flow of useful necessities.
LOL There is no such great bureaucracy in charge to keep track of all this. The only ones ensure that the currency is legal and so are goods and profits. Prices are dictated by supply and demand as well as reasonable costs.
I suggest you take an economics course, because you make no cents, I mean sense. LOL
quote:A money system is a centrally controlled system, the few rich and their protection system, the state, have ultimate control of the system. The people in the system have influence and power which is determined by how much money they have, and how well they play the cultural game. The poor have no freedom at all, the rich and the priests decide what they are to do.
Not necessarily, especially in democratic nations where *all* citizens are given the same rights regardless of economic background. While the wealthy have more privileges, they do NOT control the system! There are many stories here in America of dirt poor people becoming wealthy.
quote:An alternative to a centrally controlled money system is a moneyless sharing voluntary system, where each individual decides for himself what to do. Such a system based on sharing and voluntarism is not a centrally controlled system.
Again you refer to an egalitarian type economy which does exits, but it's still not perfect and has its limits just like every other economy. If it really is the "perfect" economy then that would be the form of economy found throughout the world, would it not?
quote:The money system, the property rights, the exchange principle make our calculations a lot more complicated and we would have to use half of the workforce just to handle this parallell flow of money, shares, property rights, interest rates, etc..
*sigh* Again, I say take an economy class or something. You overthink the system and make it more complicated than it really is.
quote:A trade system, a system of exchange, is also the basis for material inequality, crimes, etc..
Nope. The basis of material inequality are people who have used the system to their advantage or have created niches for themselves. Again, you insult the thousands of people who became rich out of their own hard or clever work. And the basis of crime is greed or selfishness without consideration of other people-- such is a trait found in people regardless of economic status whether rich or poor.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This payment is incentive which ensures that the goods and services is in good quality. You expect people to do things like produce goods and give services for free! Even before the monetary system or the existence of money, goods and services always came with a price!! Did you not know this??
If you don't like it, you can always leave such an economy and move somewhere else were everything is free but in low quality.
But it would have been better if products were free of charge. If goods and services were without payment, everyone could afford them including those who have no money. I don't like it that people are forced to pay money for goods and services and if you don't have money, you starve.
quote:The only government which controls prices is communism, which I thought you supported!
So the sellers are like government by controlling the money price that people have to pay. Why do capitalists say that capitalism is without government intervention? Capitalism needs big bureaucracy and a lot of manpower to dictate and control prices and to make sure that people pay the prices.
quote:If you are speaking of egalitarianism, such societies exist however they are usually found in so-called 'primitive' societies where resources are not as complex and come directly from nature. Unfortunately you whine about "electricity" being a necessity!
Nah electricity is still necessary for refrigeration, air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: But it would have been better if products were free of charge. If goods and services were without payment, everyone could afford them including those who have no money. I don't like it that people are forced to pay money for goods and services and if you don't have money, you starve.
Products are derived from resources which are only so finite. You cannot expect to recieve resources freely without working for it. The same goes with services which also accounts for most of the products that are refined from resources. Do you expect people to serve you for free??
It is a give and take world we live in. Something must be payed whether it is in the form of money or service.
quote:So the sellers are like government by controlling the money price that people have to pay. Why do capitalists say that capitalism is without government intervention? Capitalism needs big bureaucracy and a lot of manpower to dictate and control prices and to make sure that people pay the prices.
LOL You still don't get it do you? Sellers in capitalist societies are independent of any government except in communist societies or absolute monarchies or something. Sellers set prices based on 2 factors-- the scarcity of the product & the demand of the people! Thus it is not really the seller who controls prices but availability of the product and the people themselves! And again, the bureaucracy is only as big as the government is. In free capitalist societies government has little role in the overall economy.
quote:Nah electricity is still necessary for refrigeration, air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter.
Not really, as modern humans have been living for millennia without these utitlities. What about all those people in the world who don't have electiricity?? Many of them who live without any political interference are doing quite fine. YOU don't seem to be!
Now, enough of this nonsense! You are beginning to talk in cirlces. I suggest you take a course on economics or at least read a book on the subject!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Capitalism is a development by refinement from feudalism, just as feudalism is a development by refinement from slavery … Capitalism is but the gentlemen's method of slavery.
Kwame Nkrumah, Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for De-Colonisation
Since Kemet's economy was never based upon slavery, the dialectic is broken; so we must therefore look to the African economic models...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Products are derived from resources which are only so finite. You cannot expect to recieve resources freely without working for it. The same goes with services which also accounts for most of the products that are refined from resources. Do you expect people to serve you for free??
It is a give and take world we live in. Something must be payed whether it is in the form of money or service.
It's not a pure exchange system. In a pure exchange system everyone will have the same amount of money. In practice people take more than they give. The employers in capitalism don't pay their workers the full price for their labor, something always goes as profit. Also the means of production are not owned in common, they are owned privately.
And without electricty life would be hard. First of all, the best way to preserve food is to freeze it and without electricty freezing is not possible. Secondly, without air conditioning in the summer the heat would be almost unbearable.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: It's not a pure exchange system. In a pure exchange system everyone will have the same amount of money. In practice people take more than they give. The employers in capitalism don't pay their workers the full price for their labor, something always goes as profit. Also the means of production are not owned in common, they are owned privately.
What are you talking about?! Of course it is a pure exchange system! The amount of money or money paid is proportional to the hours worked as well as the significance of the service. Of course employers don't pay their employees all the money made because some of that money has to support the company itself! For example, a store owner cannot pay all the money made to his employees but has to spend some on the store itself-- from ordering products to paying the bills of the store! Also there are two types of profit-- economic profit and accounting profit. Both are benefits made from work so I don't see what the problem is. And so what if the means of production is owned privately, that means each individual owner accurately assess what is in his or her production range instead of having everything owned by a central authority which makes it harder to assess all the resources at hand.
quote:And without electricty life would be hard. First of all, the best way to preserve food is to freeze it and without electricty freezing is not possible. Secondly, without air conditioning in the summer the heat would be almost unbearable.
Of course life is harder without it, but life is also harder without refined goods. And for the last time, humans have existed without electircity and still do in some parts of the world.
You sound like a spoiled yet foolish brat who can't live without electricity but wants to live in a society where everything is free! It is beggining to get annoying.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What are you talking about?! Of course it is a pure exchange system! The amount of money or money paid is proportional to the hours worked as well as the significance of the service. Of course employers don't pay their employees all the money made because some of that money has to support the company itself! For example, a store owner cannot pay all the money made to his employees but has to spend some on the store itself-- from ordering products to paying the bills of the store! Also there are two types of profit-- economic profit and accounting profit. Both are benefits made from work so I don't see what the problem is. And so what if the means of production is owned privately, that means each individual owner accurately assess what is in his or her production range instead of having everything owned by a central authority which makes it harder to assess all the resources at hand.
Still it does not mean the world will not be better off without money and without the management of money. If everything is free (without money), the workers won't need their employers to give them money wages, the workers could just get it for free in the supermarkets. All have the same right to a good quality of life and the satisfaction of their needs, regardless of how socially valued is their work. Money is only needed if we want a society with big social inequality, so one person can own a billion times as much as another.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You sound like a spoiled yet foolish brat who can't live without electricity but wants to live in a society where everything is free! It is beggining to get annoying.
You sound like an angry rich capitalist who is angry about the fact that if everything would be free for everyone, then not only the rich could afford it but also the poor and those who don't have the money and the financial means to buy it.
The very concept of exchange economy is also flawed. Exchange presupposes that people have some money to exchange with but many people have not enough money to exchange with and become dependent on others. Those who can accumulate a lot of money, private property and profits get power over other people.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: You sound like an angry rich capitalist who is angry about the fact that if everything would be free for everyone, then not only the rich could afford it but also the poor and those who don't have the money and the financial means to buy it.
LOL I am far from being rich, but a capitalist? Of course, so I can make the money I need or desire. Everything comes with a price whether it be money or not. Resources are finite so something must be given up to earn those resources or products. If someone does not have money, all they have to do is make money! I understand that there are some countries in the world where such a feat as earning enough money is extremely difficult to impossible, but only because their particular economic system is seriously flawed in someway-- usually a corrupt government that hoards money and resources. The country I live in, the US is not like that, thank God. So I can make money and not be poor. Which is why you sound like a foolish brat who thinks electricity is somehow crucial to human survival yet hates capitalism! I have family members who lived without running water and electiricty, yet they're doing well and not hating on money or capitalism!
quote:The very concept of exchange economy is also flawed. Exchange presupposes that people have some money to exchange with but many people have not enough money to exchange with and become dependent on others. Those who can accumulate a lot of money, private property and profits get power over other people.
They can (and often times do) get power over people, but some countries like the U.S. have laws against that. Having excess money gives certain privileges but it does not give us the right to rule over other people. Also, my country has plenty opportunities for people not to be poor or overcome poverty. Again, you insult the many poor people who came up to be the wealthy people they are today!
Why you chose the screen-name "player" is a total mystery to me since all you do is hate on real players and the game itself instead of stop being lazy and become an active player yourself to better your economic situation (if you even have a bad economic situation). I wouldn't be surprised if you are some ignorant rich nutcase like Karl Marx, the founder of communism! LOL
RESOURCES ARE FINITE, WHICH MEANS THEY MUST BE EARNED SOMEHOW WHETHER IT BE MONEY OR SOME OTHER FORM OF PAY.
Communism is not a solution considering the situation of communist states. Do you even know about the situations communist states faced or still do??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't want to humiliate Player 13, or be otherwise obnoxious. I just want to know what his thoughts and alternatives are. I read the websites he linked, and none of them offered a realistic solution; one of them was actually full of satire.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have always had disproportionate goods and services. A carpenter in ancient Egypt had to eat so exchanged his services for the necessities of life. A miner exchanged gold or copper while a farmer traded olives or barley. Everyone can't be a miner and everyone can't use more wealth than they create.
Before money barter was the means of distributing wealth. No doubt there were regional or local refinements everywhere it was used.
In no society that has or will ever exist are people simply handed the needs of life. Everyone can't be a king or a politician.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: Can you explain to us how finite resources that everyone desires remain "free" please?
So you introduce an economy of scarcity instead of an economy of abundance? There is more than enough resources (even now) to satisfy the needs of everyone so that no one should be poor.
quote:Originally posted by sam p: People have always had disproportionate goods and services. A carpenter in ancient Egypt had to eat so exchanged his services for the necessities of life. A miner exchanged gold or copper while a farmer traded olives or barley. Everyone can't be a miner and everyone can't use more wealth than they create.
Before money barter was the means of distributing wealth. No doubt there were regional or local refinements everywhere it was used.
In no society that has or will ever exist are people simply handed the needs of life. Everyone can't be a king or a politician.
^^ Exactly! Why some folks like "player"13 can't understand this is beyond me.
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: So you introduce an economy of scarcity instead of an economy of abundance? There is more than enough resources (even now) to satisfy the needs of everyone so that no one should be poor.
But resources can't just be given away for free. It has be earned somehow. I can't speak for other nations, but here in the U.S. there are so many opportunities to find jobs or careers or to make money somehow that there should be no excuse for being poor.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But resources can't just be given away for free. It has be earned somehow. I can't speak for other nations, but here in the U.S. there are so many opportunities to find jobs or careers or to make money somehow that there should be no excuse for being poor.
I live in Israel and here you don't make so much money without a high school diploma or without a professional certification. There is always competition for high-paying jobs while the low-paying jobs are for those who are less educated but i can still try to do my best.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The money money system is an abstraction of the concept of an universally agreed upon item of value that can be used as the basis of barter and trade. The evolution of the concept where an item can be deemed as having an agreed upon "value" between two groups as a form of currency has led to the current state of paper and plastic being the basis of international currency. The paper or plastic itself has no value, other than the predefined value assigned to it by the international banking system. Therefore, when you are talking about the money system, you are talking about the mechanism by which paper currency is assigned value on the international market. This system has many advantages and disadvantages, which are totally separate issues from the whole concept of how trade and commerce and evolved historically among various societies in the world.
The basis of the evolution of trade, industry and commerce is first and foremost the basic need of man to sustain himself. The need to create implements for day to day survival led to the development of specialized skills in certain areas of human endeavor, which developed into industries. As individuals became more skilled in producing various necessities, they generated more goods than what they needed for their own survival. This surplus became the basis for the development of exchange as a means of survival. Because everyone was not able to be skilled in all areas of industry, trade became an important means to acquire and exchange those things one was unable to produce or manufacture themselves. As societies developed and became organized, industry and trade became key components of the functioning of the society, as a means of self preservation. Without effective industries and trade, the society could not expect to function and survive. Ancient Egypt is an example of a society built around the principle of organizing industry, labor and trade for the well being and functioning of the state. Such organizational principles were fundamental in the growth of the Egyptian state and became part of the whole apparatus of state, through symolism and ceremony. As societies became more organized and efficient, they too produced surplus goods that could be traded with others. This developed into a system of commerce, where the day to day trading activities between groups of people were organized and regulated in order to provide a meaningful basis of transactions. Commerce led to the development of weights and measures, taxation, monetary systems,mathematics and transportation.
The modern monetary system is built around maximizing the amount of money generated from the trade of goods and services produced by the land and labor of people working for an enterprise or group of enterprises, with the majority of any value received from such output going to the owners of that enterprise. This system promotes ownership of enterprises as the ultimate means of generating wealth and is espoused as the most advanced means of human social organization on the planet today. However, this system is built on using force, oppression and exploitation in order to acquire more land and resources and the labor to produce the wealth among the most powerful countries on the planet. This system is not built around communities and nations being self sufficient. It is only built around the well being and wealth of those countries with power and control who can use that power and control to maintain their ability to extract value from everyone else's goods and labor.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Player 13, you didn't really begin to answer the question. There is an economy of scarcity to begin with. For example, in the modern world being computer literate is key to being involved with the upper levels of all modern economies. Computers cannot be found in the wild, though. Their components require incredible infrastructure to mass produce, and experts in their operation are also scarce. Electricity, a resource that has already been addressed, is not abundant either. Nobody in this world is absolutely poor. Being poor is a societal condition of relativity. People have forgotten how to live off of the land, and that is the problem in terms of survival. I have a wealthy friend that has been trained to live in the wild with only a knife, he just spent a week in the wilderness for his own enjoyment. He is not materialistic so he doesn't miss his electricity and luxuries, but he misses his friends who don't know how to live in nature. All primitive people used to live with nothing but stone tools, but humanity has mostly moved away from that. The Earth definitely can provide our TRUE necessities, but that isn't what you are talking about. You are talking about amenities, and even luxuries, for free. These things are inherently scarce since relatively few people have the knowlege and resources to build them.
On a side note, you have made it sound like a high school diploma is scarce, and as I understand Israel has compulsory education. Would you mind explaining more why education is scarce, but resources are not? In the current system education is the most important modern resource, and most economies offer it for free. Unless you want the truly scarce professional training.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In education, the first chance was free for everybody. But if you need a do-over, you have to pay for it. The cost of each course is about 800 dollars and i have no idea how i'm going to pay for it. The price is just too high.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, remember that it is not just the fact that there are limited resources on the planet. There have ALWAYS been limited resources on the planet. The monetary system is only part of the problem. The issue today is that CERTAIN cultures and societies promote WASTE and OVERCONSUMPTION of resources, while others get far LESS of their FAIR SHARE of the same resources. There is an IMPLICIT VALUE SYSTEM in place, which automatically puts CERTAIN groups and cultures at the TOP OF THE CONSUMPTION PYRAMID, where most the earth's finite resources are destined to go the benefit of the MINORITY of the earth's population. This value system therefore promotes an IMBALANCE in the distribution of wealth and resources among the world's population. This is traditionally why Africa and South America have been left at the bottom of the so-called pyramid scheme. In fact, the pyramid analogy is a PERFECT example of the difference between ancient AFRICAN perspectives on social organization, trade and resources versus modern ones.
Africans viewed the pyramid as a symbol of a society organized along "universal" principles of order and balance, as a reflection of the divine principles of which are the basis of life itself. The organization of the society, was designed to support the WHOLE nation and population in general, through an effective distribution of land, resources and materials to support the functioning of the nation and the people. The basic motivational principle underlying the achievements on an individual and group level being desire to maintain, support and improve the group as a whole. The MODERN view of the pyramid, as seen on the dollar, is based on individual greed and selfishness driving the desire for money and wealth as the epitome of individual development and achievement, which in turn furthers the goals of the capitalist countries to be ON TOP of the food chain, in a Darwinian sense of survival of the fittest, might makes right and so on. This promotes an idea of a minority at the top "deserving" to benefit from the resources, land and labor of the whole as a DESIRED result of the monetary, economic and social organization. In this system, IMBALANCE is a fact of life which JUSTIFIES greed and injustice to guarantee ONES OWN place on the top.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sam p: In no society that has or will ever exist are people simply handed the needs of life. Everyone can't be a king or a politician.
Maybe only in a communist utopia are people going to be handed to neeeds of life for free. Communism always wanted to abolish private property and the money system so that goods are available to all regardless of family, wealth or occupation.
Btw i don't agree with you that capitalism equals freedom. Capitalism is only free for those who can make money and have options available for making money. Capitalism is not free for the poor and those who have no options for making money. Those who have no money cannot exchange anything with others also.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But resources can't just be given away for free. It has be earned somehow. I can't speak for other nations, but here in the U.S. there are so many opportunities to find jobs or careers or to make money somehow that there should be no excuse for being poor.
You can only get out of poverty if you have options available. Some of them are fairly obvious, too: -get a better job -work more hours -get a second job -get an education if you have money to pay for it. Education is the road toward wealth but poor people don't have money to pay for do-overs.
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: Maybe only in a communist utopia are people going to be handed to neeeds of life for free. Communism always wanted to abolish private property and the money system so that goods are available to all regardless of family, wealth or occupation.
There is no such thing as a "communist utopia"! Peoples who lived in or still live in communist nations can tell you that. The average North Korea would call you insane to think their society is "utopian"! What you fail to understand is that resources are finite, and to distribute these resources equally among all peoples is a near impossible task (Just ask all those starving North Koreans). It is also unfair to the division of labor where people have jobs that are more difficult to attain or more significant to be paid the same as those working easier simpler jobs. In such a case, employees have no incentive to do satisfactory performance in their work (just ask many Cubans). By the way, even in communist societies, people can't get free things for nothing. People still have to work to provide for the state!
quote:Btw i don't agree with you that capitalism equals freedom. Capitalism is only free for those who can make money and have options available for making money. Capitalism is not free for the poor and those who have no options for making money. Those who have no money cannot exchange anything with others also.
Complete nonsense! If a nation is democratic enough, it should have capitalist opportunities for *all* of its citizens. There are always jobs available for everyone. I agree that corporate greed may be a hinderance for supplying jobs to everyone, but as long as it is kept in check there should be opportunity for everyone. And nevermind big corporations, what about small businesses? Such things are all too common for anyone to be poor. Where I come from the vast majority of poor homeless people are drug-addicts and people with mental disabilities. There is no excuse for a fully functioning person to not be able to work and make a living.
quote:You can only get out of poverty if you have options available. Some of them are fairly obvious, too: -get a better job -work more hours -get a second job -get an education if you have money to pay for it. Education is the road toward wealth but poor people don't have money to pay for do-overs.
Yea, and?! These options are available, it's not the governments fault or capitalists fault if not everyone takes advantage of these options.
And let me point out that a major problem is lack of financial education. Many people do not know how to manage the money they have, let alone make money.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Btw i don't agree with you that capitalism equals freedom. Capitalism is only free for those who can make money and have options available for making money. Capitalism is not free for the poor and those who have no options for making money. Those who have no money cannot exchange anything with others also.
Complete nonsense! If a nation is democratic enough, it should have capitalist opportunities for *all* of its citizens. There are always jobs available for everyone. I agree that corporate greed may be a hinderance for supplying jobs to everyone, but as long as it is kept in check there should be opportunity for everyone. And nevermind big corporations, what about small businesses? Such things are all too common for anyone to be poor. Where I come from the vast majority of poor homeless people are drug-addicts and people with mental disabilities. There is no excuse for a fully functioning person to not be able to work and make a living.
Capitalism, democracy and freedom are three TOTALLY separate things. Modern capitalist societies were built on the historical exploitation of the land, labor and resources of other peoples around the world in order to generate capital to finance the growth and power of Western countries. Capitalism is not freedom. Capitalism is greed pure and simple, because the goal of capitalism is to increase the amount of profit made by owners and stockholders (non-workers) off the operation of a given enterprise. Ultimately, capitalism seeks to maximise the amount of profit made by decreasing the amount spent on labor and other "overhead" costs. Therefore, capitalism is not about creating jobs that allow everyone to live well. Actually, it is just the opposite, true capitalism, as seen in the modern themes of globalization and outsourcing, seeks to find new sources of cheap labor, without all the rules and restrictions of the labor laws found in Western countries. Therefore, capitalism is about DECREASING the amount of labor required to produce products and services in order to increase profit. Capitalism is only associated with freedom and democracy because the home of capitalism is in countries of the West who claim to be free and democratic. HOWEVER, these countries did not BECOME the most powerful and richest capitalist countries because of freedom and democracy, as any history book will show that clearly. Capitalism is all about the bottom line. Capitalism is the reason for colonialism, slavery and wars. Capitalism finances terrorists (rebel groups), stages coups and starts wars in order to promote capitalist "interests" that directly leads to the suffering of millions of people around the world. Capitalism only seeks one thing, which is to increase the wealth and power of the elite at the top of the capitalist heirarchy so that they can control the MAJORITY of the worlds labor, land and resources as a means of CREATING WEALTH for themselves in such a way that NOBODY can COMPETE with them. In other words, white supremacy.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There is no such thing as a "communist utopia"! Peoples who lived in or still live in communist nations can tell you that. The average North Korea would call you insane to think their society is "utopian"! What you fail to understand is that resources are finite, and to distribute these resources equally among all peoples is a near impossible task (Just ask all those starving North Koreans).
Why is it impossible to distribute resources equally in order to have material equality? Precisely because resources are scarce it is a reason to distribute them equally, otherwise some people will have a lot of resources and others will have none.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It is also unfair to the division of labor where people have jobs that are more difficult to attain or more significant to be paid the same as those working easier simpler jobs. In such a case, employees have no incentive to do satisfactory performance in their work (just ask many Cubans).
In a merit-based system those who work more hours and are more qualified and skilled will be paid more. However this argument assumes that compensation itself is the only motivation, rather than the desire to perform the job. In other words, it denies all forms of altruistic motivations for doing the job, or relegates them to a fringe of society where they are not important contributors to economic and social activity. Fundamentally this argument favors a commercial society over an altruistic society. in an altruistic system, skilled workers will agree to do the jobs even if it pays the same as their low skilled brethren.
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of these issues about equality and merit have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism as a monetary system is about GREED as a motivating factor for people to go out and work or build industries TO MAKE CAPITAL (money) off the labor, land and resources of OTHER PEOPLE. It does not CARE about equal distribution of resources, as it actually PROMOTES an UNEQUAL distribution of resources, which is based on a darwinian survival of the fittest, might makes right mentality, that justifies doing whatever it takes to stay on top. Captilism is about social competition for resources where whoever wins is the only one that counts. Therefore, the whole process of exploitation, slavery, oppression, wars and genocide are justified because it keeps the capitalists ON TOP and everyone else on the bottom.
Oh, and by the way, just going to work everyday does not make you a capitalist. Going to work everyday is just a means to put food on the table. It is based on the same act of working for day to day survival that mankind has been practicing for thousands of years. What makes it capitalism is WHO gets MOST of the benefit from YOUR labor, WHERE the money goes and WHAT they do with it. That is where capitalism starts as a MONETARY SYSTEM and it has nothing to do with the basic needs of the individual who has to work everyday, as that is fundamental in ANY monetary system. Therefore, a monetary system is just that, a system of money distribution, not just work. It is about HOW money made from the work of others is distributed and WHO gets most of it. The creation distribution and control of CAPITAL is the KEY to capital-ism. Capital being the most important aspect of capitalism as it has ALWAYS been. Capitalism HAS NEVER been about fair distribution of MONEY for work done. Anyone who believes that is blatantly ignorant. Capitalism is about extracting the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CAPITAL for any amount of work done, not for the worker, but for the COMPANY or ENTERPRISE and those CAPITALISTS that control it. The CAPITAL is then put into circulation VIA BANKS and FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS which PROVIDE THE CAPITAL for MORE ENTERPRISES and COMPANIES who in turn generate MORE CAPITAL from OTHER PEOPLES labor, land and resources. To know capitalism you must understand HOW the capitalst system works, what makes it function, who controls it, what its primary purpose is and the means by which it maintains itself. Theoretical talk about merit and equal distribution of resources is irrelevant because the reality is that resources ARE NOT distributed equally in a CAPITALIST system and captalism HAS NEVER promoted such an idea.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, Good observations re capitalism with its subtext mantra that every object is a potential commodity.
The problem with capitalism is that though its theoreticians worship the idea of "private property" it is the very system in which there is the least private property and the one which breeds the greatest economic insecurity. The average individual has only his/her labour power to sell.
It is also system that thrives on a maximum profits as a function of minimum costs--including wage costs.
Contrary to what might be believed capitalism does not relish full employment because that could breed inflation. So the governments in capitalist countries always prefer at least 5% unemployment.
Capitalism is also based on perpetual growth--without which it would suffer serious deflation and loss of wealth.
Capitalism is based on the perpetual oppostion between those who own capital and those who don't have capital--and provide only their labour power. it is a system where most people work just to survive--if they can find a job--while those who own capital just enjoy life and live off the exploitation of labour.
Africa remains technologically underdeveloped because of the principle of maximum profits and the good life for the Euro-American world and gained at the expense of the undervalued labour and resources of Africa and much of the Americas.
The perennial Egyptian question also has to do with capitalism because in order to exploit African labour without feelings of compunction the idea of the inferior "negro" had to be invented.
Capitalism required the dehumanisation of the African thus the necessary claim that that the African was less evolved biologically than the European--hence the impossibility of the African ever being capable of producing "civilisation".
With this racial paradigm in place capitalism was then free to reduce the African to a commodity on a bill of lading--soon to be the private property of the plantation capitalist and the faceless and nameless "native" and "field hands" for the press gangs and plantations of colonial Africa.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The basis of the MODERN capitalist system as a monetary system grew out of the COLONIAL expansion of Europe around the world. This expansion was treated as a BUSINESS VENTURE, where the colonies were COMPANIES granted charters by the QUEEN to OWN whatever land and resources they found, NO MATTER if people were ALREADY THERE. These companies and charters explicitly stated that the goal was to PRODUCE WEALTH, ie CAPITAL, for the BANK OF ENGLAND and its STOCKHOLDERS. This same system is what created the DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY, which operated under the same RULE of EUROPEAN MARITIME LAW which put EVERYTHING under European rule of law and commerce. THAT is capitalism, in which EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is a RESOURCE to be CONTROLLED AND EXPLOITED to generate wealth for EUROPEANS. All the original colonies founded by Britain in America, Africa and elsewhere were CHARTER COMPANIES, which had a RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to GENERATE CAPITAL for the BANK OF ENGLAND and its SHAREHOLDERS. It explicitly gave these Europeans the right to SET UP COUNTRIES on OTHER PEOPLES LAND and to have LAWS, ASSEMBLIES and GOVERNING BODIES to SUPPORT these "colonies" as LEGAL ENTITIES on OTHER PEOPLE'S LAND. This EXPLICITLY denies the RIGHTS of those on whose land these COLONIES were built and does not CARE ABOUT such issues. The ONLY RIGHTS that are protected in this framework is the RIGHTS of the COLONISTS to establish COLONIES and operate ENTERPRISES on EVERYONE ELSES land. This is NOT FREEDOM, NOT DEMOCRACY and NOT JUSTICE. This system does not ensure the efficient distribution of the produce of the land to the people. This system does not ensure that everyone gets the benefit of the latest advancements in medicine, construction and agriculture. This system ONLY exists to put these benefits in the hands of those descended from the capitalists, who are Europeans and to promote the LONGEVITY and CONTROL and WELL BEING of these European colonies world wide.
quote: The Virginia Company refers collectively to a pair of English joint stock companies chartered by James I in 1606 with the purposes of establishing settlements on the coast of North America[1]. The two companies, called the "Virginia Company of London" (or the London Company) and the "Virginia Company of Plymouth" (or Plymouth Company) operated with identical charters but with differing territories. An area of overlapping territory was created. Within the area of overlap, the two companies were not permitted to establish colonies within one hundred miles of each other. The Plymouth Company never fulfilled its charter and its territory that later became New England was then also claimed by France.
The charters of the companies called for a local council for each, but with ultimate authority residing with the King through the Council of Virginia[2] in England.
quote: An Ordinance and Constitution of the Treasurer Council, and Company in England, for a Council of State and General Assembly.
1. To all people, to whom these presents shall come, be seen, or heard, the treasurer, council, and company of adventurers and planters for the city of London for the first colony of Virginia, send greeting. Know ye, that we, the said treasurer, council, and company, taking into our careful consideration the present state of the said colony of Virginia, and intending by the divine assistance, to settle such a form of government there, as may be to the greatest benefit and comfort of the people, and whereby all injustice, grievances, and oppression may be prevented and kept off as much as possible, from the said colony, have thought fit to make our entrance, by ordering and establishing such supreme councils, as may not only be assisting to the governor for the time being, in the administration of justice, and the executing of other duties to this office belonging, but also, by their vigilant care and prudence, may provide, as well for a remedy of all inconveniences, growing from time to time, as also for a as also for advancing of increase, strength, stability, and prosperity of the said colony.
The point being who is the Queen or any other body of Europeans to decide on who can own LAND and RESOURCES that DONT belong to them? Can I just ANNEX England to be my OWN PRIVATE Golf club and nature resort?
Of course not. But THAT is what capitalism is all about, exploiting the LAND, LABOR and RESOURCES of OTHER PEOPLE for the benefit of European capitalists. The only FREEDOMS or RIGHTS that exist in this system of laws is the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS of European capitalists to EXPLOIT everyone else for THEIR OWN MATERIAL WELL BEING and the PROGRESS of Europeans over everyone else.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with everything Doug says except for a few things. The motivation for making money is not necessarily "greed", self-serving perhaps but not really greedy which means someone who wants more than what he or she deserves or has earned while disregarding other people. Mothers want to make money not just for themselves but for their children. A perfect example of true capitalist greed would be how the drug company knew about the addictive effects of the painkiller oxycotin but kept quiet and sold it anyway.
But, capitalism, freedom, and democracy ARE 3 totally different things I agree. Each one is independent of the other. For example, in a communist society where there is no capitalism and everything is controlled by the government, people have NO democracy and definitely no freedom either. Definitely not a "utopian" society, but apparently "player" does not realize that.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
In a communist society the state is a kind of monopoly capitalist because the state alone owns most available capital.
If capitalism, democracy and freedom are independent of each other then logically speaking you can have a capitalist society in which there is no freedom and no democracy. Is this what you meant?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Djehuti wrote: But, capitalism, freedom, and democracy ARE 3 totally different things I agree. Each one is independent of the other. For example, in a communist society where there is no capitalism and everything is controlled by the government, people have NO democracy and definitely no freedom either. Definitely not a "utopian" society, but apparently "player" does not realize that.
And you don't know what you're talking about either!
A communist society (none of which exists today; there are societies which are in transition towards a communist society) is a society where the working class, the majority, controls the means of production and distribution, and the government represents the interests of this majority (the fruit growers are the fruit eaters).
In a capitalist society, government represents the ruling minority, capitalist class; democracy is not an abstract concept - you have bourgeois democracy under capitalism and socialist democracy under socialism;
freedom is also not an abstract concept - under capitalism freedom means the freedom of private capital to operate and under socialism freedom means the freedom of the majority working class; but there is too much to the science of society to explain it all here*...
One caveat, however, is that most people who support capitalism are not capitalist themselves, but members of the working class! ; and the goal of practically all workers within capitalist society is to 'escape' the working class and to become capitalists themselves (the Reno/Las Vegas/Lotto syndrome); the idea of the majority working class' control of society is a dim notion at best...
*Some recommended texts: Class Struggle in Africa, Kwame Nkrumah Das Kapital, Karl Marx ...other authors, Frantz Fanon, WEB DuBois, Cheikh Anta Diop, Sekou Toure...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I agree with everything Doug says except for a few things. The motivation for making money is not necessarily "greed", self-serving perhaps but not really greedy which means someone who wants more than what he or she deserves or has earned while disregarding other people. Mothers want to make money not just for themselves but for their children. A perfect example of true capitalist greed would be how the drug company knew about the addictive effects of the painkiller oxycotin but kept quiet and sold it anyway.
But, capitalism, freedom, and democracy ARE 3 totally different things I agree. Each one is independent of the other. For example, in a communist society where there is no capitalism and everything is controlled by the government, people have NO democracy and definitely no freedom either. Definitely not a "utopian" society, but apparently "player" does not realize that.
The point is that a mother getting a job to feed her child is not a CAPITALIST concept. It is a survival concept that exists in ALL SOCIETIES regardless of the monetary system in place, including communism. A CAPITALIST is not A WORKER, a capitalist is the one who CONTROLS THE CAPITAL and REAPS the benefit from OTHER people's labor. THAT is where CAPITALISM is greed, because it PROMOTES the idea of a small minority getting MOST of the money from other people's land, labor or resources. The basic need for survival does not have anything to do with it, as that basic need will be there no matter what system is in place.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Not necessarily. Those who know about finances and are business saavy can earn/make lots of money for her or himself and his or her family. Again, self-interests are not the same as outright greed which disregards the needs or wants of others totally. Large corporations are usually the ones guilty of this but not all capitalists are like that. Also, capitalism does not necessarily entail a wealthy minority class. As long as opportunities are not restricted, everyone should make enough money not to be poor or on the bottom rung but still have a chance to be rich. Those who are smart enough know how to make the system work, and with government intervention the economic system at least should not be static and become a kind of caste system where people are born either rich or poor and stay in those positions with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Although I must admit, the US government nowadays seems to be dangerously approaching this situation!!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
But judging by the topic starter's comments on another 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This payment is incentive which ensures that the goods and services is in good quality. You expect people to do things like produce goods and give services for free! Even before the monetary system or the existence of money, goods and services always came with a price!! Did you not know this??
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Do-overs are always expensive, I am in one now with my fiancee ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
; and the goal of practically all workers within capitalist society is to 'escape' the working class and to become capitalists themselves (the Reno/Las Vegas/Lotto syndrome); the idea of the majority working class' control of society is a dim notion at best...
Printer-friendly view of this topic