[ExI] Money and Human Nature (was Re: Capitalism, anti capitalism, emotional arousal)

[Stefano Vaj]

On 16 November 2011 18:43, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, better a pauper in America than a rich man in the former USSR...
>

One POV, but my point is another, namely that they do not compare. Enjoying
a relatively lavisher lifestyle does not mean that you "own" anything
yourself. A trophy wife with an appropriate pre-nuptial in the US may feed
herself just on caviar and Dom Perignon, and yet she may not even own her
pants.

 > The same way as a researcher in Krusciov's Russia. Abolition of private
> > property of course does not mean that collective property is equally
> > abolished.
>
> Sorry, you lost me on this one...
>

The Jesuit Order may be very rich. USSR or the Party might have been very
rich. This allows them to have members devoting their life to unproductive,
esoteric tasks. This does not mean that those doing so are "rich" in any
capitalistic sense.

Yes, but you can't deny that former president Clinton is powerful.
> Even Al Gore is powerful... and he didn't even win his run... barely.
>

Mmhhh. Depends on one's definition of power. Certainly their personal worth
is not really relevant. But yes, they might (still) be opinion leaders.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20111116/903abab8/attachment.html>