12-09-2008, 07:42 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Dec 9 2008, 06:25 PM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 9 2008, 06:25 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Either way, workers will pay the price on behalf of capitalists.
What price? The loss of a job? Again, it is not my job. Let me be clearer. <b>There is no job. A job is nothing more than work my employer needs done.</b> When my employer decides that he can get that work done for a better price elsewhere, he will do so.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has been explained already. You're proceeding on the assumption that jobs are gifts given to the worker by the capitalists. It is not. Labor is what makes commodities possible, and commodities make profits possible. Hence, to say that capitalists don't require labor is silly, it's the other way around. Without labor, there's no commodities=no profits=no capitalism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Try to understand the meaning of 'money,' before you ask these questions. Money that's created today isn't really backed by gold, which means it doesn't correspond to any physical commodity that has value. Meaning, the loans being given are NOT given out of goodness of the heart (LOL at that), but to keep people in debt. Let me give another example. Suppose you deposit a chair, and I loan out a table. A transaction like this wouldn't run into difficulty, because both of them are physical commodities.
The issue of commodity-backed money vs paper money is irrelevant to the issue of why lending is bad. You just wasted your time posting the above para.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wasted, because you couldn't understand how the monetary system works. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Have you even heard of how fractional reserve banking works? Try to turn a few pages, and you'll understand why this is all extremely important. Until then, I am not gonna waste my time arguing with a guy who doesn't know the basics, so much so he wonders how understanding fiat money system is relevant to the subject matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->OTOH, with money functioning as medium of exchange, a lot of manipulation can and will be done, because I don't have to prove that the money I loan has value corresponding to that of the table (or any other commodity).You are right. But that is because, the borrower already finds value in your money. And, that is enough. As long as your borrower finds your money valuable and <i>scarce</i>, it has economic value.
[right][snapback]91630[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, no serious economist will agree that as long as borrower finds value in money, there's value. What a silly thing to say! Unless money can correspond to the products and services in an economy, it'll lead to hyperinflation (if there's an increase in money supply, as it always does in such systems). This actually proves that money LOSES its value due to such practices. The result: common man has to bear the brunt of rising prices and suchlike.
What price? The loss of a job? Again, it is not my job. Let me be clearer. <b>There is no job. A job is nothing more than work my employer needs done.</b> When my employer decides that he can get that work done for a better price elsewhere, he will do so.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has been explained already. You're proceeding on the assumption that jobs are gifts given to the worker by the capitalists. It is not. Labor is what makes commodities possible, and commodities make profits possible. Hence, to say that capitalists don't require labor is silly, it's the other way around. Without labor, there's no commodities=no profits=no capitalism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Try to understand the meaning of 'money,' before you ask these questions. Money that's created today isn't really backed by gold, which means it doesn't correspond to any physical commodity that has value. Meaning, the loans being given are NOT given out of goodness of the heart (LOL at that), but to keep people in debt. Let me give another example. Suppose you deposit a chair, and I loan out a table. A transaction like this wouldn't run into difficulty, because both of them are physical commodities.
The issue of commodity-backed money vs paper money is irrelevant to the issue of why lending is bad. You just wasted your time posting the above para.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wasted, because you couldn't understand how the monetary system works. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Have you even heard of how fractional reserve banking works? Try to turn a few pages, and you'll understand why this is all extremely important. Until then, I am not gonna waste my time arguing with a guy who doesn't know the basics, so much so he wonders how understanding fiat money system is relevant to the subject matter.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->OTOH, with money functioning as medium of exchange, a lot of manipulation can and will be done, because I don't have to prove that the money I loan has value corresponding to that of the table (or any other commodity).You are right. But that is because, the borrower already finds value in your money. And, that is enough. As long as your borrower finds your money valuable and <i>scarce</i>, it has economic value.
[right][snapback]91630[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, no serious economist will agree that as long as borrower finds value in money, there's value. What a silly thing to say! Unless money can correspond to the products and services in an economy, it'll lead to hyperinflation (if there's an increase in money supply, as it always does in such systems). This actually proves that money LOSES its value due to such practices. The result: common man has to bear the brunt of rising prices and suchlike.