Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

[Alan Kerr]

It is interesting. But you forget to mention something key to this.The SPGB Preamble says that"… The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist production."(SPGB Preamble)From this point of view, we do not shape our way to produce as we want. But it is rather our way to produce that shapes what we want.That’s how some at least of the SPGB think. It is also how some at least of the old SLP thought. According to this, to make a step forwards our step must also make us more productive. It is a practical question.It is as Marx and Engels said"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer."(Communist Manifesto)Of course, Marx and Engels were saying something very new there. In fact, the socialists of the old school do want to be universal reformers. It is the socialists of the old school who want to give future society a once and for all true way to share wealth. To them this must depend on their true socialist beliefs or what socialists want or something. But future society must really see what works best in detail by counting labour-time costs at the time and as we go on with changing things.

[Prakash RP]

' … I am afraid I don't think you should be awarded a Nobel Prize or that statutes [ sic ] should be erected in your honour all over the world for the great service you imagine you have done to humanity by repeating something that has been known for over 2000 years. ' ( comment #63 by ALB )  I wouldn't ask you to erect my statue or recommend my name for a Nobel Prize. But I think it's not wrong of me to ask you not to deny me my due, OK ? I also think by not denying me my due recognition, not only will you help me win the limelight, you'll also help focus the world's attention on, and thus awaken humanity to, the brute fact that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity and its significance, the immediate corollary to it, namely, that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled one. Professor Robert J. Aumann holds that the same thesis with different wording ( i.e.   the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility ' ) is ' well-known ' and that it occurs in Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , a work by Daniel Bernoulli , which was first published in 1738 ( i.e.around 300 years back.). Nevertheless, ' [ he ] does not know who stated this thesis first. '

[Prakash RP]

[ I'm sorry. I posted it by mistake. I'd like it to be deleted. ]  ' … I am afraid I don't think you should be awarded a Nobel Prize or that statutes [ sic ] should be erected in your honour all over the world for the great service you imagine you have done to humanity by repeating something that has been known for over 2000 years. ' ( comment #63 by ALB )  I wouldn't ask you to erect my statue or recommend my name for a Nobel Prize. But I think it's not wrong of me to ask you not to deny me my due, OK ? I also think by not denying me my due recognition, not only will you help me win the limelight, you'll also help focus the world's attention on, and thus awaken humanity to, the brute fact that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity and its significance, the immediate corollary to it, namely, that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled one. Professor Robert J. Aumann holds that the same thesis with different wording ( i.e.   the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility ' ) is ' well-known ' and that it occurs in Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , a work by Daniel Bernoulli , which was first published in 1738 ( i.e.around 300 years back.). Nevertheless, ' [ he ] does not know who stated this thesis first. '

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

' … I am afraid I don't think you should be awarded a Nobel Prize or that statutes [ sic ] should be erected in your honour all over the world for the great service you imagine you have done to humanity by repeating something that has been known for over 2000 years. ' ( comment #63 by ALB )  I wouldn't ask you to erect my statue or recommend my name for a Nobel Prize. But I think it's not wrong of me to ask you not to deny me my due, OK ? I also think by not denying me my due recognition, not only will you help me win the limelight, you'll also help focus the world's attention on, and thus awaken humanity to, the brute fact that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity and its significance, the immediate corollary to it, namely, that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled one. Professor Robert J. Aumann holds that the same thesis with different wording ( i.e.   the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility ' ) is ' well-known ' and that it occurs in Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , a work by Daniel Bernoulli , which was first published in 1738 ( i.e.around 300 years back.). Nevertheless, ' [ he ] does not know who stated this thesis first. '

Here is another claim for theoretical greatness which is as likely to gain recognition as your claim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOH8QK-6HA

[Prakash RP]

 ' … Here is another claim for theoretical greatness which is as likely to gain recognition as your claim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOH8QK-6HA ' ( comment #214 by Bijao Drains )  Thank you a lot for this comment. But, are you sure that it disproves my claim to have proved the thesis at issue first ? ALB seems to assert because the thesis at issue is a repetition of ' something that has been known for over 2000 years ', my claim to have proved it first and all my effort to awaken humanity to what it signifies do not deserve recognition. Nevertheless, he seems to be unable to support his position with necessary evidence. Could you provide any evidence to show that you were aware of the thesis at issue, its proof, and the significance it carries before I posted it on the SPGB's website ? Who do you believe proved it first ? 

[Anonymous]

[Prakash RP]

Thank you a lot, gnome. I'll remember it. Nevertheless, I'd like you to oblige me with your comment in response to the following. Suppose one day you've run across someone like Bill Gates, an American billionaire with a noble heart*, who spends millions of dollars every year to help the American poor and penniless to live a better life, and who shows strong  aversion to both capitalism and communism as he thinks both these systems are seriously flawed. In his view, capitalism helps all those amass huge wealth who aren't really higher-calibre people than those who are deprived of capitalism's favour while communism aims at ridding humanity of economic inequality and thus deserves to be accused of disregarding the fact that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability. How would you awaken him to his misconception and convince him that it's communism, and only communism, that happens to be the answer to capitalism ? Ignoring people like Bill Gates is most unlikely to help the cause of communism because there're so many, maybe such people make up the overwhelming majority of the 99% who hold the similar view of capitalism and communism, IMHO.  * I'm not sure whether he's truly noble-hearted or whether he derives a lot of pleasure from giving away.      

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

….while communism aims at ridding humanity of economic inequality and thus deserves to be accused of disregarding the fact that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability. How would you awaken him to his misconception and convince him that it's communism, and only communism, that happens to be the answer to capitalism ? 

Unfortunately, I doubt Gates knows what communism really means anymore than you do.  True communists recognise that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability, hence the adage: "from each according to ability; to each according to need".

[Anonymous]

So much argumentation to end up defending the capitalist class, and rejecting communism, it is like reading Freidman and all others capitalist economists who love capitalism and hate communism without having a clue of what socialism really isI have always said that these so-called economic innovators are just pro-capitalists lovers and reactionaries. Probably, he has not read several articles published by SOYMB which show that the so-called philanthropic capitalists are making a lot of money thru their own  donations, they are not noble, they are just a bunch of legalized thieves The question is how Bill Gates was able to accumulate so much wealth, and where does wealth come from.?  We do not need so much argumentation to understand that money is a product of economic exploitation, and surplus value is produced by the working classThe history of Microsoft shows that they did a lot of tricky manoeuvres in order to accumulate wealth, and like any capitalist enterprises they bankrupted others business to eliminate competition, and they stole technological ideas from others inventors, and they have tried to eliminate open source software.Another point is that Bill Gates and his gangs do not have a clue of what communism really is, like many others peoples who do not know anything about communism and like to talk about it, or to blame the problems of state capitalist Russia on Marx and Engels, the death and collapse  of communism it is a funeral without a body inside the coffinNoble is the working which is working for free and giving the product of their labours to a bunch of gangsters known as capitalists, I cannot insert in my brain the idea that a wage slave should be defending their own mastersI stick to my gun with Karl Marx,  he has been  the only economist who has been able to discover the real origin of capital and money, and surplus value without defending the capitalist class

[Prakash RP]

' Unfortunately, I doubt Gates knows what communism really means anymore than you do.  True communists recognise that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability, hence the adage: "from each according to ability; to each according to need". ' ( gnome's comment #218 ) Dear gnome, I'm afraid you've lamentably missed the point. Bill does not want to know what the communist position on this point is. Bill questions the validity of the communist position at issue, OK ? 

[Prakash RP]

 [ reply to gnome's post #216 ] Dear gnome, I think you ought to have considered some points before mocking at me. A humble seeker after the truth, I have no pretension to erudition. Nevertheless, I appreciate the simple arithmetic logic that 2 and 2 makes 4— the logic that most of the erudite cannot see. I do not miss the truth glaring, like the mid-day summer sun, before our eyes— the truth most of the erudite do miss. Notwithstanding a humble guy, I do pride myself on having originated and presented humanity with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING — the principle humanity must make its life principle if humanity wants to be civilised through and through. I also seem to deserve the credit for enlightening humanity about the fact that men are NOT lions of men ( i.e. a man having the calibre and capability to make a worthy husband ) and the most basic distinction, other than their physical attributes, between men and women. Of course I do not claim to be infallible, but I cannot accept something that I consider true as not true. I may be wrong to claim to have proved it ( the thesis at issue ) first. I just want to know the truth. I thought I had dealt with all sensible arguments in this regard. Then I sought to know SPGB's official stance and Adam Buick's position on it, both of whom disgustingly failed to articulate their stance on it— i.e. a plain and point-blank yes or no to my claim along with a short note to justify their stance. All of the Nobelist trio that endorse the thesis in question seem to have chosen to resort to a baffling, deafening silence on the significance of the thesis, the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that the poor and penniless millions that sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence throughout their life were all born poor is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich were all born rich and super-rich to exploit the born poor and thus grow richer and richer is NOT attributable to any good acts or achievements of theirs. A copy of the message from Professor Robert J. Aumann shows that the Nobelist economist ' apologises profusely ' to as humble a guy as this yours truly is for what he did not write a word about is presented below along with a copy of my message to the Professor in response to which he sent it. Could anyone throw light on this point ? The way the Professor behaved gave me the impression that someone must be holding a gun with its barrel at his head and threating to pull the trigger if he dared to defy what he was dictated to.     [ copy of Prof Aumann's 4th message dated Nov 12, 2017 along with my sixth message dated Nov 10, 2017 to Professor Aumann ] Prof. Aumann's OfficeNov 12 (9 days ago) to me      Dear Mr. Prakash RP, Prof. Aumann apologises profusely, but he must end this correspondence now. He wishes you the best of success in your endeavours. Sincerely, Victoria   ויקטוריה חבטלעוזרת זמנית לפרופ' אומןמרכז פדרמן לחקר הרציונליותבניין פלדמן, חדר 225האוניברסיטה העברית, גבעת רםירושלים 91904טל': 02-6586254פקס: 02-6584863www.math.huji.ac.il/raumannVictoria ChvatalTemporary Assistant to Prof. Aumann  The Federmann Center for RationalityThe Hebrew UniversityGivat Ram CampusJerusalem 91904Tel. +972-2-6586254Fax. +972-2-6584863www.math.huji.ac.il/raumann     From: Prakash RP [mailto:prakashrp54@gmail.com]Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 2:33 PMTo: Prof. Aumann's OfficeSubject: Re: a humble THESIS by a humble guy  Dear Professor, if you'd pardon my ignorance and encroaching on your precious time again, I'd like you to take cognisance of the following point and oblige me with the pieces of info I'm so eagerly seeking after. I've taken cognisance of your point: ' It has been known for hundreds of years that the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility. ' So, as it ' has been known for hundreds of years ', its SIGNIFICANCE that happens to be an immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that the economic INEQUALITY ( uneven distribution of wealth leading to the social division into the rich, the super-rich, and the poor and penniless millions that make up around 99% of humanity ) does not happen to owe its origin to the QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled hand and that by the unskilled one, ought also to be known for hundreds of years, oughtn't it ? Would you please refer to some works containing the SIGNIFICANCE of the thesis at issue ? Thanks, Prakash RP. prakashrp54@gmail.com   

[ALB]

Professor Aumann wrote:

Prof. Aumann apologises profusely, but he must end this correspondence now. He wishes you the best of success in your endeavours.

That's an understandable reply.

[Prakash RP]

Would like to add the following points to my comment #220.   The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE. How would you deal with such objections, gnome ? 

[Prakash RP]

 ' That's an understandable reply. ' ( comment #222 by ALB )  Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your comment, ALB ?

[ALB]

I apologise profusely, but this correspondence must send now. I wish you the best of success in your endeavours.

[Author]

Posts