GuitarBizarre

I think he'd be more offended to hear someone try and use a twisted reading of his work, taken out of context and embellished, to try and imply Pratchetts support of a cause he's never made an official or even implied statement endorsing. I've read every Pratchett book, and he frequently makes comments like that. They are humorous and tongue in cheek and he's never attempted in any way to purvey a belief system through them.


OccultHawk - Theres nothing in that statement that in any way backs up your assertion. Oppression is actively putting down others, whereas money is providing an easily counted and apportioned recompense for acts beneficial to others that in turn provides the person doing those tasks or providing those services to not only feed and clothe themselves but also to make rational decisions based on their ideals in terms of further distributing that wealth to others in the form of charity and recompense for services rendered.

As for your crappy job, nobody forces you to stay at that job, nobody prevents you from starting up a business (and no, you don't need a loan to do so. Mark Zuckerberg didn't need a loan, and there are places like Etsy and Ebay that allow you do so entirely out of your own pocket and according to your own rules providing you agree with their terms). As far as running out of money, that isn't moneys fault, its your own. Anyone with investments will tell you that you can make money work for you. If you're good at that, then you're a successful businessman, stockbroker, etc.

If you can't do that, then you can still ask after better pay, or you can develop skills and talents with which you can provide others with a service for which you will recieve recompense.

As for sociology professors, no. The type of professor you'd consult for matters regarding fiat currency would be a professor of law who had studied in areas related to economics and trade. Sociology is to do with determining the impetus and reasoning behind behaviours exhibited commonly by a group. Its remit is more to do with societal ills in the form of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. in addition to simple explanations of group behaviour such as analyses of cultural practices and how they influence human relations. Nothing to do with currency at all, unless the culture itself, independent of its economic system, had an existing imbalance of wealth.

Now, of course, the US does have an astonishing imbalance of wealth, with 90% of its total wealth controlled or owned by 10% of the population, but the monetary systems that allowed that were in place and functional long before that fact came to be, seeing as the american system of currency grew out of that of western europe, and the only reason America moved away from the european model was because the british attempted to tax its colonies, which were raking in vast amounts of cash by virtue of being essentially subsidised by the Crown. That lead to the war of independence. The existing disparancy between wealth and status came to be because of SLAVERY, and also the subsidy of colonies in the 'new land' by european governments, in order to obtain greater physical resources (A goal that ultimate failed as the United states in its current form came to be as an independent nation), which has nothing to do with currency whatsoever, and everything to do with opportunistic enterprising for personal gain, and would have taken place in much the same manner had americas system of trade been simple bartering, as cotton and the promise of physical labour with minimal recompense would have become tools with which to trade with others and subjugation of the black peoples would have still had more than adequate percieved benefit for those doing the enslaving.

__________________