raghu wrote: > I was answering Charles' point about the total amount of money being > enough to throw a few trillion dollars and bail everyone out.
I'm sorry. I wasn't following the thread very closely. I just replied to your line, out of context. > Even > though the total amount of money in existence may be essentially > infinite, we can only access a limited amount now - so we have to > choose who to bail out: the bankers or the home-owners. (Or at least > who gets how much). Well, here again, if I may just address this statement at face value: The total amount of money in the world is not essentially infinite. It is finite, even if you define money as M_n, where n is a very large number; in other words, even if you take all existing commodities to be immediate money. For money to be essentially infinite, the (commodified) wealth in the global economy would have to be essentially infinite, which would entail that the productivity of labor is essentially infinite as well. We may wish to be gods, but we're just humans. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
