I received in the mail enclosed with the New Civ Status/Staff
Report for April 1995, a 32 page article called "Money", by Don
Werkheiser.
I would like to respond to some of the statements, because I
think they are fallacious. At first glance they may seem logically
sound, but on closer inspection one can see faulty logic. First, I
should say that my knowledge of money and lending is based on 5 years of
university in Business Administration, as well as experience teaching
economics at a community college, as well as 15 years on the board of
directors of a credit union with approximately $300 million in loans to
members.
Don bases his paper on the premise that "all human relations
reduce to SOR or MOR" - SOR "segregated option relationship" being a
dominance-submission based on unequal status and power, and MOR "mutual
option relationship" being freedom-equality based on each individual
deciding for him/herself whether or not to be involved. The fallacy here
"either-or". It is a gross oversimplification to say that all human
relations reduce to one or the other, for there are are many degrees of
interdependence between the two extremes, and besides there are human
relationships for which status is irrelevant.
On page 2, Don says, "we must first shift the basic human
relationship from SOR to MOR, and then solve the problems of money . .
." The fallacy is "all-or-nothing". What is the problem? We are told
what the solution is prior to understanding the problem. (ready, fire,
aim!) To me, it would seem possible to work on, maybe solve, money
problems without a fundamental change from SOR to MOR, however desirable
that change may be.
On page 4, Don presents another "either-or" proposition: "there
are two basic human relations modalities -- synergy and antagony -- and
the most prevalent and dominant mode of human relations throughout the
world today is interpersonal, societal, and international antagony". As
with any either-or fallacy, it is useful to realize the cases which are
some of both, or neither. Just the international relationship between
Canada and the USA should demonstrate that neither synergy nor antagony
alone can serve to adequately describe the relationship as it really is.
Also, on page 4, Don present a simplistic political theory. The
state is described in terms of its ability to use coercive power on its
subjects. What is missing in this political theory, I find, is the role
of compromise and political accommodation. Another omission is the role
of the state in forming and perpetuating a national identity among a
people. But, if we accept this notion that the state is one big
apparatus of social control, then I wonder, how does anybody go about
innovating or deviating, except in a marginal, covert way? I certainly
haven't made a life of sneaking around, and I see no cause to begin now.
On page 10 by way of illustration Don supposes he points a gun at
me. (Don't give this man a gun!) As he would have it, this
circumstance offers an exchange of my money for my life. It didn't occur
to Don that the customer in this instance might see it as as an exchange
of Don's life for mine. In other words, the customer has a choice, in
the real world. If you present the customer with 2 unattractive
alternatives, you may find you are out of business very quickly.
To sum up, the article cannot be relied upon. A careful reading
will show the reasoning to be faulty.
David Leland
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 23:22:10 PST