2 Responses

  1. Tom Livanos June 10, 2011 at 4:57 am |

    An excellent piece on the limitations of cost-benefit analysis. I also agree with the previous commentator. Both however are conspicuous for their lack of any solution. Cynicism never solved anything in this world. My view is that politicians and public servants ought to discuss policy/potential policy with the public they are there to represent. Read the words. Public. Servants. Politicians are… elected. Representatives.

    Reader, you should demand that both groups talk to you and others in your community. Your community. Irrespective of personal likes/dislikes, we are all interdependent. Be prepared to speak first and speak loudest. Also be prepared to defend another’s right to do the same – right to your own death if need be. We are nothing without our connections to others and other living creatures. I have already started doing so with letters to each and every member of my national parliament. What are you doing? If not you, then who?

    Thanks and regards,
    Tom Livanos.

    PS. I have my email addresses within the profile content of my MySpace page which I have listed as my website. If you write to me, tell me how you found out where to find me.

  2. Rory Short June 9, 2011 at 10:51 am |

    Hilarious, but at the same time frightening. This is because George reflects an unconscious tendency within the general social psyche that is very worrying indeed. This tendency objectifies money which then enables it to be elevated to the position of being the ultimate measure of value.

    How has this objectification happened?

    The original purpose of money was to act as a record of commonly accepted value between the two halves of a mutual exchange of goods and/or services. This ‘recording’ enabled the two halves of the exchange process to be uncoupled from one and other, both in time and in location, thus releasing the exchange process from the constraints imposed by bartering. No matter what has happened to the conceptualisation of money since its invention the above actually remains its only real purpose.

    Now for the multiplicity of exchanges that take place on a continuous basis in any society, an illiterate one at that which was surely the case in the early days of money, it was necessary to have physical notes and coins representing money because one could not only rely on written records. Given the existence of physical notes and coins I guess it was quite unconsciously easy for the objectification of money to start happening within the general social consciousness.

    The objectification of money might have taken place unconsciously but it has not changed the reality that money, no matter how it is represented, is just a record of value accorded to real goods and services.

    In this digital age we have the technology to completely replace physical ‘notes and coins’ with publicly viewable digital recordings of value. Each recording of, unit of currency, would have to have recorded with it the legal identity of its holder [possessor] and units of currency would remain in the possession of their current holder until transferred via the computer system to another holder. Not only that but we could also keep a publicly available history of the legal identities of the holders of any unit of currency. This would mean that the ‘moral colour’ of any unit of currency would be available to any person who wanted to view it. Money Laundering would no longer be possible unless the launderer was able to hack into the relevant computer systems.

    In this way the public could be weaned off viewing money as an object of any kind and I think there would be far less acceptance of attempts at the commodification of nature and of human emotions.

Comments are closed.