Money-Capitalism-Gambling-Freetrade-Nationalisation

[RWStanding]

Money-Capitalism-Gambling-Freetrade-Nationalisation
Within broad limits politicians and others define words to suit their social goals.
Money is not good or evil but should simply be a means of exchange.
Capitalism is the employment of capital.
Gambling is a pastime.
Free Trade is the greater or lesser avoidance of restrictions on commerce and presumably production.
Virtue and vice enters the equation in the way these meanings are manipulated and particularised, and the end-purpose in view.
Altruistically:-
Perhaps the great perversion on Money is where its use is held to justify the end. And the mere act of paying for a service makes the service acceptable. Money represents the wealth that is actually being exchanged or squandered and it is the goods and how they are used that have to be justified, for altruist society.
Capitalism is no doubt allied to free trade. And nobody can deny that capital needs to be employed usefully for society. If capital is used for personal gratification, above a level of personal subsistence, and to no social benefit, then it is not an altruist society.
Free Trade is virtually a misnomer. At an absolute degree there would be no legal and moral boundaries for what is produced, how people are employed, or the purpose it is sold for, besides mere absence of tariffs.
Gambling is here used as an illustration of how trade may operate - above the level of social games with play money being used, or a mere penny or two. The present industry employs a large number of people in a society that needs everyone available for useful social work. There is no social justification in the profits, even where given to 'good' causes, since that amount can only be a fraction of the wealth otherwise available. And where, what may be a minority, waste a significant proportion of income on gambling, they will put themselves at risk in many ways especially if addicted. They may deplete their resources for future welfare, as in retirement, and it is not altruistically desirable that society must then pick up the tabs. If, however, gamblers are give n free reign as 'adults' then they must also be accorded freedom to fall by the proverbial wayside. In which case society is not altruist. It may also be taken for granted that gambling of that kind, in Totalitarian society, would either be severely curtailed, or made use of by some kind of Mafia hierarchy.
Nationalisation of industry, commerce and trade, has become little more than an absurdity. Our present society, nationally and globally, is at least limited Altruism. The National interest has long been taken care of to varying degrees by suitable legislation to control what is done and how. What may better be termed the Social interest can be ensured in many ways that manage the way Private ownership works. At an extreme, some will say, private industry would be a form of franchise.
In any case the Science and Technology will provide increasing real wealth, even if we severely restrict how commerce exploits the world. Future generations will value the environment, nature, and society, far and above excessive goods. Heaven help them!

[Belinda]

RWStanding, I regret that I cannot read your post carefully enough as I am not educated in economics. I found that there is too much in your post for my level. It may be a good idea to restrict your post to the first paragraph, the one about money, and provide illlustrations from real life events.

[FlashDangerpants]

Let me assure you Belinda that being uneducated in matters economic is not a major impediment to understanding Mister Standing.

He seems to be struggling towards some sort of socialist justification for regulated free trade (it's hard to say for sure because he appears to be using Altruism as a sort of shorthand for an array of things).

Somewhere in there is some discussion of the financial services industry that sort of discusses risk and reward (thus the gambling bit) and I think is trying to mention the value of markets in assigning investment capital efficiently - although I don't think he's really got the idea of human capital down. He's also skipped the question of liquidity in order to reach a conclusion (afaics) that the financial services industry is itself a grand waste of human capital that serves no productive purpose. But I think he isn't automatically opposed to this as long as no institutions are deemed to big to fail?

[Belinda]

Well, Flash, you got more out of it than I did.