[Homestead] Go ld -- feel free to ignore
wce1482 at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 8 13:53:14 EST 2008
I took economics in college and had a heck of a time even passing it, so I am not into economic theory. As a general rule however I think that it is always better to have people work for what they get instead of just giving it to them.
--- On Mon, 12/8/08, VAN DELL JORDAN <vdjor at yahoo.com> wrote:
From: VAN DELL JORDAN <vdjor at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Go ld -- feel free to ignore
To: wce1482 at yahoo.com
Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 11:49 AM
--- On Mon, 12/8/08, william Eggers <wce1482 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Backing off won't work. And although as James says
> money must eventually come from work. To get the system
> back on track. somehow money just go from those who have it
> now to those who will spend it. Work is best, but
> someone has to pay the workers and if the money is being
> hoarded by a few, no one is able to pay the workers,
> therefore they can not work and thus will have nothing with
> which to buy. If the govenment sets up work that results
> in something to sell, we have socialism or communism. So
> the government must find something or someway to get money
> to workers without undercutting business. The Egyptians
> did it by building great monuments. We have in the past
> done it by building roads and public buildings. Regardless
> of how it is done, some way must be found to get the money
> back to those who will spend it. First it must be pryed
> out of those who have stockpiled it up by unfair or illegial
> means then some way must be found to get
> it to where it will do some good. Just giving anything
> to anyone, be in workers or bankers, devaluates what is
> given. To have value, it must be earned. The only inity
> big enough to do this is the government. If it
> doesn't, the debt it now has will be nothing to what it
> would be as the government income is mostly from workers and
> if they don't have, the government can't get it.
> So it is either help the workers get some money to spend or
> everything as we know it goes down the drain.
Would this be a good time to ask, what is money? The basic purpose of money is
to provide a means for exchange of goods and services.
If we provide a way for people to get there needs are we limited to the
traditional ways of creating money.
Maybe in times like this we need to see if current definitions of money supply
are appropriate? I think the answer to this question gets very complex and gets
into economic theory.
I have often thought that perhaps we should find a way to provide a job for
everyone. Start by turning any "welfare" into "workfare".
If regular jobs are not available, then we could go to public works projects.
More information about the Homestead