Re: justice, justice... Was: Anti-Semitism in the Neo-Confederate movement.

In <dpjl1p$10l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Rafael" <jmalfatto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Barter was quite prevalent in the 2000+ years of the late
>> prehistory of the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, Anatolia, Persia,
>> Western India, and more, and the history before the use of
>> a weight of precious metal as a medium of exchange.

>Which ignores both many thousands of years of human existence prior and
>every society which retained the hunter-gatherer mode of habitation during
>and thereafter.

Herman beat me to this point, but I don't understand your objection.
First, there's archaeological evidence that trade is VERY ancient. Second,
ok - so there have been societies without trade. And, they didn't have
"wealth." When there was food they ate, when there wasn't they died. Just
like the desparately poor people of today whom we were speaking of. YOu
seem to be holding this up as some kind of counter-example, but it isn't.

>> There were trade caravans, and a merchant class, who kept
>> records of how much of what they owned.

>So? Many more did not (e.g. neighbors exchanging wares in a tribal village
>setting) and still do not to this day.

What's your point? Trade is trade. Trade builds wealth. If Village A has
food and Village B does not, you can take food away from some to give to
others but you aren't making anyone wealthy. If you give a check for a
million dollars to one of these isolated tribesmen you're speaking of, you
haven't made him wealthy - if there's no food he still starves, and if
there's no trade then even with a million dollars, or a big stack of gold,
or a nubile daughter, it doesn't do him any good if his fields are empty,
even if his neighbor has a surplus. If he wants access to the surplus, he
has to trade for it. That's called a "market." It creates wealth (in the
neighbor)

>> >Thirdly, (as the saying goes) money changes everything. It's a wonderful
>> >convenience, but those who have the power to create it and lend it are
>not
>> >'producers' in the traditional sense (as Aristotle warned).
>>
>> Aristotle did not have everything right.

>He sure nabbed that one, however.

Aristotle got just about everything wrong, I believe. There's nothing
magic about money - it's no different from barter, just easier.

--s
--

.

Relevant Pages