tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8779584641209531101..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Three Flaws with SocialismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23481713382899001162010-06-23T14:07:38.154-06:002010-06-23T14:07:38.154-06:00This entry is complete nonsense. You obviously thi...This entry is complete nonsense. You obviously think socialism means the Democratic Party or something.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64472043439515763542009-02-01T23:13:00.000-07:002009-02-01T23:13:00.000-07:00Agh, crappy Blogger...Here's a manual backlinkAgh, crappy Blogger...<BR/><BR/>Here's <A HREF="http://dbzer0.com/blog/what-is-socialism" REL="nofollow">a manual backlink</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14827278741237063422009-02-01T11:23:00.000-07:002009-02-01T11:23:00.000-07:00The more I discuss economics with people, the more...The more I discuss economics with people, the more I become convinced that, at least to some, economic systems are a religion, requiring just as much faith as any god. Capitalism causes crime by creating an unequal distribution of wealth--despite the fact that capitalism decreases the gap between rich and poor. The idea that putting everything to a vote will not result in the best outcome is cynical, even though the evidence supports the claim. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that certainly seems like a belief based on faith.Katesicklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763353607450736680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-89570483006866523332009-02-01T09:16:00.000-07:002009-02-01T09:16:00.000-07:00bpe3812, in response to Katiesickle and Eneasz, sa...<STRONG>bpe3812</STRONG>, in response to Katiesickle and Eneasz, said:<EM>"You both seem to have a overly cynical view of humanity, why would people behave in such a way in a post-capitalist world?"</EM><BR/><BR/>Because improving the living conditions of human beings doesn't change the basic psychological underpinnings of human behavior. Of course, a society where the vast majority are healthy, happy, and have fewer reasons for conflict (however this is achieved, apart from making sure everyone takes their "happy meds") is probably going to be a peaceful place. Until disagreements arise, factions form, and people find something, trivial or otherwise, to fight about. It would take something more sophisticated and effective than just a general belief in the social contract to keep that society from falling apart. This isn't cynicism, it's realism about the inevitability of conflict over resources and beliefs that are a part of human history, and the varying degrees of success of different social constructs in dealing with that inevitability.<BR/><BR/>Whether it's the case of a majority of citizens who are against conflict, and a minority of troublemakers stirring things up; or a scarcity of resources that forces a "zero sum" game, conflict will arise. Any form of social arrangement has to take this into account, on both a community and worldwide scale, as far flung populations have become resource interdependent.<BR/><BR/><EM>"The main causes of crime and violence is the unfair distribution of wealth which capitalism creates. What you call ownership is also an abstraction, if you want to delve into semantic or philosophical arguments. One does "own" the air they breath just as one owns the water they drink just not in a selfish capitalistic way of thinking. Just think about the capitalistic phenomenon of "intellectual property" - how can one own an idea - now that is absurdity at its finest!"</EM><BR/><BR/>I agree that the gap between haves and have-nots creates crime and violence, and that the gap should be narrowed in a fair and moral way (not that I know how to achieve this). Your concept of ownership of natural resources seems to be more of an allusion to rights and responsibilities toward entities that human beings did not create. Whereas the idea of intellectual property involves unique human effort to create something that previously did not exist. These are very different entities. If an idea involves work that produces benefit, there needs to be a way to encourage those who produce good ideas to continue to do so, and to encourage others to begin producing good ideas of their own. How such efforts should be rewarded is debatable, and there are those who will give their work away without any thought of reward, but I think there needs to be some sort of incentive to encourage the process so more people will want to get involved.<BR/><BR/><EM>"These arguments are definitely an exercise in futility when dealing with Anarcho-capitalists, Randians, Libertarians..."</EM><BR/><BR/>I've read through what the comments here, and it seems to me that the others are objecting to the fact that the social arrangement you're proposing appears to be incomplete. How do you get everyone to agree on the plethora of issues that plague large populations? Propaganda, religion, something in the water? How do you effect trade between regions which possess different, yet necessary, natural resources? How are these trading practices maintained and enforced?<BR/><BR/>I don't think its fair to accuse others of being ideologically dogmatic when they're just having trouble understanding what you're talking about. Since you've said you won't be responding, perhaps you could write a concise essay on your own blog outlining your ideas? This might serve to answer some of the questions posed here, and allow you to express yourself more clearly.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23652688111267709592009-02-01T08:57:00.000-07:002009-02-01T08:57:00.000-07:00Faithlessgod:"Both the gold standard and the labou...Faithlessgod:<BR/><BR/><I>"Both the gold standard and the labour theory will not work, so what will?</I><BR/><BR/>You could start with honesty!!!<BR/><BR/>Follow it with morality!!!<BR/><BR/>You could even base it on your output of cabbages!!!!antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-51198419891120310622009-02-01T07:11:00.000-07:002009-02-01T07:11:00.000-07:00Eansz"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of t...Eansz<BR/><BR/>"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the major reasons the gold standard was abandoned the fact that there wasn't enough gold in the entire US to back even a significant fraction of the money circulating in the system?"<BR/>Yes that is why I do not seek to go back to the gold standard. It did not match the resources available and being created. However to say that lets drop any connection with any resources is bad binary thinking and the result of a hasty generalisation. The question is how to create a resource-backed fiscal and financial system? Both the gold standard and the labour theory will not work, so what will?Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11887375197695330272009-02-01T07:08:00.000-07:002009-02-01T07:08:00.000-07:00BPE"A stateless society can also be backed by a co...BPE<BR/><BR/>"A stateless society can also be backed by a constitution."<BR/>How without a government? Once you have the institutions of a legislature with executive and a judicial branches you have a government and what they govern is, for our purposes, here, a state!<BR/><BR/>"One of the fundamentals of direct democracy is consensus decision making where there is an attempt to appease all parties involved by compromise until a near mutual agreement can be reached. Of course there would be times when this type of decision making would prove cumbersome and in those cases delegates could be appointed to represent all the interests and opinions of a community. These delegates would be instantly recallable if they were not representing the community - even those of the minority."<BR/>Who will ensure that this 'constitution' is abided by and who it to deal with transgressions of it? <BR/><BR/>"Due to their credentials these individuals would be able to sway most people toward their view as long as it was based on reason."<BR/><BR/>Lol!!! People are and have been "swayed" many false claims throughout history at great cost to society and there is no evidence this is likely to change in the future. This is one of the most naive claims I have read in a long time. If your 'socialism' is based on thinking like this, then if it ever occurs it will be a disaster. It looks like you are labouring under the illusion of creating a utopia when you are actually proposing a dsytopia, even worse than today's world.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-26289049439790660202009-02-01T01:13:00.000-07:002009-02-01T01:13:00.000-07:00Katiesickle and Eneasz,You both seem to have a ove...Katiesickle and Eneasz,<BR/><BR/>You both seem to have a overly cynical view of humanity, why would people behave in such a way in a post-capitalist world? The main causes of crime and violence is the unfair distribution of wealth which capitalism creates. What you call ownership is also an abstraction, if you want to delve into semantic or philosophical arguments. One does "own" the air they breath just as one owns the water they drink just not in a selfish capitalistic way of thinking. Just think about the capitalistic phenomenon of "intellectual property" - how can one own an idea - now that is absurdity at its finest! These arguments are definitely an exercise in futility when dealing with Anarcho-capitalists, Randians, Libertarians, those who subscribe to the 2 party political scam in the US and other market dogmatists who have been indoctrinated with the idea that there is absolutely no alternative to the way we live now - so I do not plan on responding to future replies but I do encourage you both to try to imagine a progression away from selfish acquisition toward a future of human cooperation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-78860002996897077342009-01-31T16:07:00.000-07:002009-01-31T16:07:00.000-07:00BPE - this is in reply to your latest post. Basica...BPE - this is in reply to your latest post. Basically, imagine I just quoted the whole thing.<BR/><BR/>This system you propose fails to take into consideration that you are not dealing with theoretical constructs, but real people. An almost-complete consensus on all decisions? Experts swaying people based on reason? These are not statements that apply to reality. This is not even close to how real humans act. This system would fall apart as soon is it made contact with the real world.<BR/><BR/>Also, campaigning would make up a significant fraction of all effort expended by such a society, possibly greater than any other single endevour. Such waste is unworkable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69249346521763096822009-01-31T15:36:00.000-07:002009-01-31T15:36:00.000-07:00bpe:"The state is exactly what you were referring ...bpe:<BR/><BR/>"The state is exactly what you were referring to when you stated, "it is a government of whoever has the most supporters (or the biggest guns)."<BR/>And that is exactly what arises in a pure democracy. THere is no defense against it. If enough people decide they want to burn down your house, or take your stuff, you have no recourse--they have more right to it then you because there are more of them. You either have to get a bigger gang, or submit.<BR/><BR/>"There is a difference between ownership and communal ownership - I have communal ownership of the air I breathe but I cannot do with it as I please,"<BR/>Which means you only "own" it in a meaningless, wordplay sense. It is imagined ownership. <BR/><BR/>"What you are talking about when you use the word "ownership" is selfish hoarding of resources and commodities that cannot be rightfully and ethically owned by an individual."<BR/>No, by 'ownership' I mean individual property rights.<BR/><BR/>"I should stress that when socialists speak of private property they are referring to things like jets, factories, hospitals, apartment buildings, etc. not toothbrushes, clothing, personal entertainment items, etc. etc."<BR/>That makes no difference. The idea is a contradiction no matter what specific type of property you are dealing with. The idea that you can 'own' something while not being able to use it as you see fit makes about as much sense as saying a slave 'owns' his life despite having no control over it. Its a ridiculous claim.Katesicklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763353607450736680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47128362952996906152009-01-31T14:18:00.000-07:002009-01-31T14:18:00.000-07:00A stateless society can also be backed by a consti...A stateless society can also be backed by a constitution. One of the fundamentals of direct democracy is consensus decision making where there is an attempt to appease all parties involved by compromise until a near mutual agreement can be reached. Of course there would be times when this type of decision making would prove cumbersome and in those cases delegates could be appointed to represent all the interests and opinions of a community. These delegates would be instantly recallable if they were not representing the community - even those of the minority.<BR/><BR/>There would still be a need for a degree of specialization in a socialist society - we cannot all be doctors for instance. And there would also be instances where those with special knowledge would be consulted and asked to voice their concerns at a group meeting. Due to their credentials these individuals would be able to sway most people toward their view as long as it was based on reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73932129741617176422009-01-31T14:11:00.000-07:002009-01-31T14:11:00.000-07:00Katiesickle,You are right a pure democracy is a fo...Katiesickle,<BR/><BR/>You are right a pure democracy is a form of government - democracy literally means government (kratos) by the people (demos) but this is not the same thing as "the state". The state is exactly what you were referring to when you stated, "it is a government of whoever has the most supporters (or the biggest guns)." <BR/><BR/>There is a difference between ownership and communal ownership - I have communal ownership of the air I breathe but I cannot do with it as I please, if I were to pollute it with poisons then I would be infringe on the rights of others who also have a communal ownership of the air. What you are talking about when you use the word "ownership" is selfish hoarding of resources and commodities that cannot be rightfully and ethically owned by an individual.<BR/><BR/>I should stress that when socialists speak of private property they are referring to things like jets, factories, hospitals, apartment buildings, etc. not toothbrushes, clothing, personal entertainment items, etc. etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13909703335542710492009-01-31T13:11:00.000-07:002009-01-31T13:11:00.000-07:00Hello Faithlessgod!There was no wealth created til...Hello Faithlessgod!<BR/><BR/><I>There was no wealth created till 1970?</I><BR/><BR/>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the major reasons the gold standard was abandoned the fact that there wasn't enough gold in the entire US to back even a significant fraction of the money circulating in the system? Wealth was created, gold was not, and it became obvious that gold has little to do with wealth.<BR/><BR/><I>"Wouldn't a great deal of effort be wasted pulling more and more of this resource out of the ground to store it in a fort somewhere in order to back currency?" <BR/>No more than currently occurs ;-)<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Currently I believe those resources are being put to some productive use. With a resource-backed currency, they'd have to be locked up somewhere doing nothing. Any other product that could be made with those resources will be much more expensive to make due to the artificial scarcity of the resource.<BR/><BR/><I>I am saying that relating money supply to some broad set of resources would have avoided many of the problems we are experiencing today.</I><BR/><BR/>It would avoid some problems, but it would create costlier/worse problems then it solves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9359059103816202862009-01-31T10:09:00.000-07:002009-01-31T10:09:00.000-07:00bpe, a pure democracy IS a government--it is a gov...bpe, a pure democracy IS a government--it is a government of the people. More specifically, it is a government of whoever has the most supporters (or the biggest guns). <BR/><BR/>Also, isn't it a contradiction to say that everyone owns something, but not everyone can use what they own as they see fit? Everyone may own the property in a meaningless, semantics-only sense, but in reality only a handful of the people actually own it.Katesicklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763353607450736680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81820224451503059442009-01-31T03:03:00.000-07:002009-01-31T03:03:00.000-07:00Eneasz"But how would a currency backed by a limite...Eneasz<BR/><BR/>"But how would a currency backed by a limited resource deal with the creation of wealth?"<BR/>There was no wealth created till 1970?<BR/><BR/>"Wouldn't a great deal of effort be wasted pulling more and more of this resource out of the ground to store it in a fort somewhere in order to back currency?" <BR/>No more than currently occurs ;-)<BR/><BR/>"And as I understand it, the price of gold (and most limited resources) is significantly more volatile than the value of a dollar"<BR/>Because of the disconnect between fiat money and gold.<BR/><BR/>"Having a currency that fluctuates in value that much would be quite a liability."<BR/>Have you seen currency movements the last few years? <BR/><BR/>"Also, how would it be possible to trade with countries who don't use the same resource-backed standard without defaulting to a primitive barter system"<BR/>Back currencies can still trade with floating currencies - it is called exchange rates. No difference between that and Swaps - trading fixed versus floating interest bonds- usually backed by very low counter-party risk - of course that is one thing that went badly askew recently (the measurement of risk).<BR/><BR/>Again note I am not arguing for going back to a <I>gold</I> standard nor specifically for some alternative resource such as labour e.g. the labour theory of value. I am saying that relating money supply to some broad set of resources would have avoided many of the problems we are experiencing today. The question is what resource set is appropriate. I do not know the answer to that but it is not gold nor labour. <BR/><BR/>One day I hope to apply the desire fulfilment theory of value to this as it emphasizes there are no intrinsic values (which supports better marginalism than labour theory btw).Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23545530219016512532009-01-31T02:42:00.000-07:002009-01-31T02:42:00.000-07:00bpe3812"One of the main ideas of socialism is demo...bpe3812<BR/><BR/>"One of the main ideas of socialism is democratic control of the workers over what they produce and democratic control by the people of the land they inhabit.I am talking about direct democracy, not representation by bureaucrats and government officials." <BR/>Okay so a <I>pure democracy</I>. This leads to the tyranny of the majority. Pure democracies will always be biased against the minority unless constitutionally constrained but who is to apply this in a stateless society - since the institutions of checks and balances no longer exist. <BR/><BR/>"in socialism but when it comes to determining who makes the decisions that is very simple: the people who live on the land or in the general vicinity/community, the workers who work in the factory. " <BR/>You seem to be harking back to an agricultural economy we live in a different world now, very few people till the land today. The benefit of division of labour is that people can specialize and contribute their skills to the mutual benefit of all that magnifies the power and scope of the group but that also means some are better equipped to make those decisions on behalf of everyone. A direct majority could be disastrous if made by workers who do not have the skills to make those decisions.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29126431863173919692009-01-30T23:16:00.000-07:002009-01-30T23:16:00.000-07:00Katesickle/faithlessgod -I think understand the ar...Katesickle/faithlessgod -<BR/><BR/>I think understand the arguement better now. But how would a currency backed by a limited resource deal with the creation of wealth? Wouldn't a great deal of effort be wasted pulling more and more of this resource out of the ground to store it in a fort somewhere in order to back currency? And as I understand it, the price of gold (and most limited resources) is significantly more volatile than the value of a dollar. Having a currency that fluctuates in value that much would be quite a liability. Also, how would it be possible to trade with countries who don't use the same resource-backed standard without defaulting to a primitive barter system?<BR/><BR/>BPE - you said:<BR/><I>he people who live on the land or in the general vicinity/community, the workers who work in the factory</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure you've fully thought this out. Someone who wanted to create a factory would have to convince everyone who lived in the area (which could be tens of thousands of people) that the square footage needed should go to that purpose? What if some of them change their minds later? And how would the factory ever get built in the first place? Is this a system that only works if capitalism first built all the means of production and then just takes it from the capitalists? How will they go about making new factories to produce newer goods then? And finally, who decides who the employees of the factory are? Do the employees themselves take a vote anytime someone is to be hired or laid off? It seems this whole society would be based almost entirely on constant campaigning in every aspect of life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77711280465249686702009-01-30T21:05:00.000-07:002009-01-30T21:05:00.000-07:00Katiesickle,You are right that there would be no o...Katiesickle,<BR/>You are right that there would be no ownership of land, factories, hospitals, etc. in socialism but when it comes to determining who makes the decisions that is very simple: the people who live on the land or in the general vicinity/community, the workers who work in the factory. One of the main ideas of socialism is democratic control of the workers over what they produce and democratic control by the people of the land they inhabit. I am talking about direct democracy, not representation by bureaucrats and government officials.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-86609750265127962402009-01-30T19:08:00.000-07:002009-01-30T19:08:00.000-07:00You didn't even mention my favorite flaw with soci...You didn't even mention my favorite flaw with socialism: all the shell games of indignation and guilt. Whenever we make a concession or sacrifice, we expect other people to respect our sacrifice and not waste or abuse their benefit. But even if most people are fair and respectful, somebody sees a chance to get ahead and takes it. Pretty soon, both sides are whining that it's not fair, when the whole idea was mutual benefit.<BR/><BR/>Our natural tendency is to help out the underdog and then expect a return on investment, but it often doesn't turn out so well. We'd be better off choosing either to let people deal with their own problems or to stop attaching strings. Obligations suck for both parties.piahwefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14301480369336177718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3421717632914441402009-01-30T18:23:00.000-07:002009-01-30T18:23:00.000-07:00I don't see how Alonzo is missing the definition o...I don't see how Alonzo is missing the definition of socialism. As far as I understand it, socialism is necessarily pooling more resources and necessarily changes the way a society decides what to produce, no matter what the state's role is. The first point (power to the ignorant) may only be a tendency, since theoretically centralized decision-making should allow more specialization and training. But the other two (guardianship of interest and slow response) are necessarily part of any socialist system as I understand it, since sharing resources entails some risk and requires more communication.<BR/><BR/>@anton: You complain that the US was slow to ban some things "despite" its capitalism, but (a) those are political problems, not economic and (b) those aren't necessarily the "best possible ways" to react to the issues. It's certainly true that the US is awful at implementing socialism (of course we're pretty bad at implementing capitalism, too). But I think most of the "self-inflicted problems" aren't really national problems at all, just a few individuals down on their luck and the rest of the nation feeling (irrationally) responsible or at risk. I think it's quite a stretch to say our "turning to socialism" demonstrates the value of socialism and the failure of capitalism.piahwefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14301480369336177718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36273216269893246152009-01-30T18:18:00.000-07:002009-01-30T18:18:00.000-07:00bpe, you can't abolish the state and have pure soc...bpe, you can't abolish the state and have pure socialism--it cannot work. If something belongs to everyone, who decides how to use it? Do we use that patch of fertile land to farm corn, like one person wants? Do we raise cattle there, like someone else says we should? Would the land be better left as a nature preserve, or a housing development, or something else entirely? All of these people 'own' the land, according to socialism---but they can't all use it as they wish. You either have to pick an individual owner (capitalism) or you need some type of authority who can make these decisions (the state).Katesicklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763353607450736680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13920513240900319032009-01-30T09:39:00.000-07:002009-01-30T09:39:00.000-07:00You seem to be equating socialism with state contr...You seem to be equating socialism with state control which is inaccurate. Although many of the nominally socialist countries have employed an authoritarian state model so I can understand the mix-up. I think you need to specify that you are talking about authoritarian socialism. Socialist theory talks about abolition of the state and buying and selling. And this type of socialism has and does exist i.e. Zapatistas, Much of Spain during the Spanish revolution, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63433454236041708832009-01-30T00:15:00.000-07:002009-01-30T00:15:00.000-07:00I have to object to this whole argument. While I a...I have to object to this whole argument.<BR/><BR/> While I agree that we have to give power to the person with the most information to serve the individual -the individual himself- and that he is the most incorruptible observer of his own interests I cannot see the oligarchy accomplishing this goal either.<BR/><BR/> The oligarchy has shown that a collection of individuals can be made to act against their collective interest in the pursuit or protection of their individual interests. <BR/><BR/> So either we enforce socialist norms into the oligarchy or we simply break down any corporation that surpasses a designated boundary of power. The later seems more productive to me.<BR/><BR/> Or we could continue working under the oligarchy, the decision is ours (still (maybe?)).rgzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00299003818364105534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10016569561201538482009-01-29T11:04:00.000-07:002009-01-29T11:04:00.000-07:00Faithlessgod has it right--having any kind of fini...Faithlessgod has it right--having any kind of finite resource as a standard greatly reduces the potential for things like inflation. With something that can be manufactured--like paper money--the person with the printing press can make as much as they want, with potentially disastrous consequences.Katesicklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763353607450736680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13003773336063309572009-01-29T10:42:00.000-07:002009-01-29T10:42:00.000-07:00HI EneaszWhilst I am not an advocate of going back...HI Eneasz<BR/><BR/>Whilst I am not an advocate of going back to the gold standard, it does make the issue of money finite and constrained compared to today both before and after the financial meltdown whether it is allowing greater leverage and trading on margin or printing money. <BR/><BR/>Still though you are right the gold standard is arbitrary but any fixed standard of a finite resources would substantively alter the money supply compared to today. Simply put many of the abuses and their repercussions could have occurred.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.com