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

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/11/16 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> 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.

Ownership, and the right to use are related, but not equivalent
issues. Having the right to use is like owning things on a daily
basis, except that you may lose your access to those things by not
fulfilling a contract... for example a divorce in the above scenario.
Yet, as long as the contract is maintained, it is as if she is rich
and owns many things...

We seem to have strayed a bit from OWS... perhaps. Are you saying that
right to use is what OWS is after, and not ownership???

>> > 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.

OK, I'm following you now. The misspelling of Nikita Khrushchev's name
threw me a bit...

Yes, you can spend oodles of other people's money, and yet not be rich
in the capitalistic sense. Look at your average US congressman. They
are rich in the sense that they decide how to spend more money than
all but the richest private citizens, and yet if they take a small
bribe, they can lose it all. It is power over money, which isn't
identical to "rich" but is highly correlated in its properties.

The scientists who developed space flight capabilities for the
Russians was not rich, but spent a lot of money.

>> 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.

If power (influence) translates to money, both of these men are good
examples. Gore is making tens of millions of dollars off of his green
hedge funds, and Clinton makes money in a number of ways that would be
illegal were he still in office. (I'm not saying he is unethical in
this, since he IS out of office.) Clinton is probably the most
influential Democrat in America, with more credibility for most than
even the current sitting president. When he recently intoned that
Obama had made some specific missteps, it was reported by both the
left and right media. When Gore makes a movie, it wins an Oscar.
That's power any way you slice it.

-Kelly