Re: the ultimate good

["Harry Veeder" <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
>From: Bob Gannaway <bgnway@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: the ultimate good
>Date: Wed, Jul 28, 1999, 3:19 pm
>

Good post.

>You are looking down on one of two worlds, an imaginary one and the real
>one. You see this first one divided into countries. In any one of them, you
>see people
>doing lots of things but mainly working to produce various products which
>appear to be
>things that someone wants. They may keep some for themselves, but the
>advantage of
>specialization requires that they exchange products. So you see streams of
>products
>flowing within the countries and also between countries. Looking closely,
>it appears that
>the people at the receiving ends of these streams are pleased to get the
>products, as if they need
>and want them. Those at the sending end are not objecting to sending away
>the products
>they have produced, but it has been an effort to produce them and they are
>not just trying
>to get rid of them. However, they are also at the receiving end in the case
>of different
>products, which they appear to want, so they are rewarded for their
>efforts. Everything
>seems to be going well. New needs seem to result in action to satisfy those
>needs. You can
>imagine the dynamics of the streams as a kind of mild tension -- the
>receiving end is pulling
>rather gently and the sending end is dragging a bit, reflecting the effort
>needed to supply
>the stream, but there seems to be no conflict. (You guessed right ? this
>world is the
>imaginary one.)

This is an interesting discussion of a "real" exchange economy. However, it
leaves out the possiblity of another tension. This is where the sender
tingles a little with the prospect of giving and the receiver is embarrassed
a little with the prospect of taking. Yet, we are taught the "fact" that
such tensions are exceptional and only occur among family and friends. Is it
really so? And if it is, what must be done to fill in the divide? It seems
to me that economic theory itself could offer some assistance. If we could
imagine in theory how such a divisionless monetary economy would function we
would have a road map to a better future.

>Now, that other world. It looks pretty much the same at first glance.
>However, a close
>look at those streams of products indicates something strange. At the
>receiving ends, it
>seems as if there is a resistance to the arriving flow, as if someone were
>objecting to having to accept the products, while at the sending ends there
>seems to be a kind of pressure, as if
>for some reason there were a desire to be rid of them.  There appears to be
>a real conflict.
>In fact you can see what appear to be actual barriers at the points where
>the streams cross
>boundaries between countries. Looking still more closely, you can see for
>each stream of
>products an opposing stream of, oh yes, it?s money in one form or another!
>And the
>money streams are obviously in tension; the receiving ends show a strong
>desire to get the money and the
>sending ends don?t want to let it go. It?s as if there were little or no
>desire for products in
>this world, only for money. The products seem to be accepted grudgingly and
>only if the
>need for them is inescapable, because it involves the loss of money.
>Everyone acts as if
>the only reason to produce anything is to get money.

This is a good Keynesian synopsis of monetary economy, but I don't think
it is *generally* true. I think your "tension" often flips so that receivers
become relectant takers and senders become eager spenders.


>Do you wonder why in this second (real) world the desire for money takes
>the place of a
>desire for things people need in order to live, and things that make life
>more worth living?

But can the observer be certain that money users in the second the world
*always* and *everywhere* treat money as subsitute for everything else?
For that reason I see money as the ultimate gadget rather than good.

["Go, go gadget!" -- Inspector Gadget]


>What hidden purpose does money serve that would be a rational basis for
>this orientation?
>Very strange! Might there be a connection with the division of people into
>two classes, the
>moneyed and those who aren?t? Perhaps those with money see it as the basic
>means of
>maintaining their position, while the rest of us perceive money as the only
>escape from our
>troubles, so that everyone eventually concludes that money is the ultimate
>good, the
>?bottom line?.

This is indeed a rational basis for the orientation you describe, but is the
description complete? I feel it is not as I maintain above.

Harry Veeder