- 17 Nov 2012 10:05
#14108417
That's all well and good but I still say if the guy is adding value, even if through just storage and upkeep, it's interest.
I'd like to see the mutual credit in practice if you have any IRL examples.
Edit: alright, as I see it.
Money, in it's "just" form, that is to say not subject to manipulation by those in power, should represent labor you have preformed for someone. When you get this money from them it is because they have preformed labor for someone else. All it represents is labor, all the way back to the first labor that created the exchange commodity in the first place.
What you have done is separate the two party transaction of laboris between each other and allowed people to "cash in" labor they preformed in the pass, the labor can then be represented in its value to the whole of the society rather than the one person you labored for. Now society can recognize the value of the labor you preformed.
Edit2: wrote all this at five AM after a seven hour overnight shift so please forgive its rambling ness.
If you or a group of people accumulate excesses in money it is because you have labored more for others than they have for you. If you then loan out the money it is as if you are transferring the value of your labor to the other person.
So we can all agree at least that the man who gets the loan should pay the lender back at least the value of the loan, but in the example given of Robinson crusoe the borrower adds value in the form of upkeep (labor) so if money represents purely the mans expended labor then why would giving an added value on the money loan be any differ than adding a purely labor value on the physical loan?
Crusoe would not have lent out the buckskin if he did not think its upkeep was worth giving it, he would not have lent his wheat if he did not think its storage was a significant additition to its value to do so. How is an added value in the form of money, when money corresponds to expended labor, different?
I'd like to see the mutual credit in practice if you have any IRL examples.
Edit: alright, as I see it.
Money, in it's "just" form, that is to say not subject to manipulation by those in power, should represent labor you have preformed for someone. When you get this money from them it is because they have preformed labor for someone else. All it represents is labor, all the way back to the first labor that created the exchange commodity in the first place.
What you have done is separate the two party transaction of laboris between each other and allowed people to "cash in" labor they preformed in the pass, the labor can then be represented in its value to the whole of the society rather than the one person you labored for. Now society can recognize the value of the labor you preformed.
Edit2: wrote all this at five AM after a seven hour overnight shift so please forgive its rambling ness.
If you or a group of people accumulate excesses in money it is because you have labored more for others than they have for you. If you then loan out the money it is as if you are transferring the value of your labor to the other person.
So we can all agree at least that the man who gets the loan should pay the lender back at least the value of the loan, but in the example given of Robinson crusoe the borrower adds value in the form of upkeep (labor) so if money represents purely the mans expended labor then why would giving an added value on the money loan be any differ than adding a purely labor value on the physical loan?
Crusoe would not have lent out the buckskin if he did not think its upkeep was worth giving it, he would not have lent his wheat if he did not think its storage was a significant additition to its value to do so. How is an added value in the form of money, when money corresponds to expended labor, different?
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.