[Nettime-bold] RE: <nettime> RVINS OF A NEVV ECONOMII DIGEST [lebkowsky, weishaus]

["Jon Lebkowsky" <jonl@well.com>]

> I'm no ecomonist, but I do know that capitalism is about money, which is
> what capital is. Wealth is to capitalism what gold medals are to the
> Olympics. The more the better. Where do you introduce morals into such a
> system?

"Capital" is actually defined as "accumulated goods, their value,
accumulated goods or possessions for the production of income."  Money is
just a fundamental medium of exchange, representing the value of goods and
services.

> It also goes to population growth. Capitalism needs constant population
> growth to make new consumers, which, at the same time, is destroying the
> planet, already overrun with humans, crowding out habitate of
> other species,
> destroying the land, water, air. Capitalism, too, needs raw materials in
> order to produce goods for sale, and these are running out. It's
> a neurotic
> system on the border of insanity. It needs intensive therapy.

My argument is that there is nothing inherently loony about owning and
trading "capital" until you move from an ethics of sustainability into a
moral void where greed grows without ethical constraint.

> But, I think, if history is the teacher, change will only come
> after major world-wide catastrophes. What we can do now is expand the
> conversation to include more & more people, especially young people, to
> change the perception of capitalism that the corporate media
> gives. Only by
> creating healthy minds will the system will be seen for what it is.

I tend to agree. Speaking with an environmental expert on another subject,
global warming, I heard a similar comment: he said that sanity about the
environment would probably come only as the result of one or more
environmental catastrophes. A sobering slap in the face. If and when
catastrophic events occur, we will hopefully have laid the groundwork in
education, which aligns well with your suggestion that we should "expand the
conversation to include more and more people."  And I agree that we should
change the perception of capitalism, but I don't think this means adopting
some alternative to capitalism. There will always be "capital," in the sense
that there will always be trade, and in the sense that self-interest will
always be an aspect of our human existence. I think the enemy here is greed,
not capitalism.

thanks,
Jon


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold