(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 16

[Steven]

On May 18, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

> Some of us call it "playing by the rules of the game." Money as such
> (that is a standardized and common currency) is a creation of a
> government and as such subject to rules set by that government.
> Attempts to pretend otherwise are the economic equivalent of
> solipsism.

I try to stay out of these debates and just listen because I learn a  
lot about Wolfean literature here.  Really.  But the idea that money  
is a governmental creation is a serious misapprehension.  Money is a  
store of value.  A symbolic representation, yes, but one fashioned by  
human intercourse, not by fiat.  The devaluation of a currency is a  
gov't function and has been repeatedly witnessed as such through  
history but it's an illusion that money is subject to rules set by  
gov'ts.  If it were then devaluations would never occur because a  
gov't could simply outlaw the problem.

Steve-- I read DinaF a long time ago and recall that it was marketed  
as a juvenile read - true or no?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090518/cafc4fc6/attachment-0004.htm>