12-09-2008, 08:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Dec 9 2008, 06:27 PM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 9 2008, 06:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Which means, even if the borrower fails to return the money, I still make profits from your deposits (which are promptly converted to tangible physical assets).How? Say, You gave me Rs.100/-. I refuse to pay you back. How did you make a profit?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Banks are authorized to create x times the deposits, even if there's no commodity to back it. This is how they make profits. If you want to know more, try to understand fractional reserve banking, then you wouldn't even ask such inane questions.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Which means, the so-called losses that I make are simply profits that I miss out on, and NOT losses in the conventional sense.
What conventional sense? The lost opportunity is a real loss. The usual concept of losing money only accounts for an "accounting" loss. But the opportunity lost is as real as an accounting loss.And this process continues with multiple customers, which means poor people are perpetually in debt, whereas rich get richer, EVEN IF THEY MAKE LOSSES.
This is ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ridiculous, because you have no idea how the banking system works.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But to understand all this, it's necessary that you understand how the monetary system works. Then you'll see how the system itself is created by the elite to fool the masses. If you are referring to the paper-money versus commodity-backed money, that is a different issue, and has nothing to do with lending, and its alleged problems. Please, get back to the issues you have with lending. Remember, in a gold-backed currency, you will still have lending.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->These are all old questions, answered by Marxists many years ago. #1 is product of labor, and an idea is useless unless labor is employed to translate to reality#2 what you call capital, if it's a finished good, machinery, technology, it's a product of labor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, and the marxists have been discredited, along with the useless "labor theory of value" you keep bringing up. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In your dreams, perhaps. LTV is the only theory that can explain why commodities are exchanged at all. Labor is the only factor common, which is what facilitates the process of exchange. So far, no one has disproved it. So try again.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The initial idea (#1) is not labor - if you think it is labor, how much value would you assign to it? Same goes for capital (#2). If that is also labor or its product, how much value would you assign to it? You cannot redefine labor to mean everything.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In economic terms, we don't consider ideas as commodities, so your point makes little sense. Since you still haven't proved that commodities are NOT entirely products of labor, I see no reason why I should continue this any further.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if by value, you mean revenue earned, would you like the workers to be paid a share of the revenue rather than wages? So, if no one buys the Indica, should the workers get Rs.0/- as their share of the revenue? Because remember, that is what happens to the capitalist. He is taking a risk. <b>Would you like the workers to be saddled with a similar risk?</b>
[right][snapback]91631[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where's the question of risk, when socialist production is done by the workers, and for the (consumption and benefit of) workers? Let me simplify this. In socialism, the worker is both the consumer and the manufacturer. Which means, he's only going to produce what he intends to consume, so where's the question of scarcity or its opposite, overproduction, or its consequences, such as risks, losses etc.?
Banks are authorized to create x times the deposits, even if there's no commodity to back it. This is how they make profits. If you want to know more, try to understand fractional reserve banking, then you wouldn't even ask such inane questions.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Which means, the so-called losses that I make are simply profits that I miss out on, and NOT losses in the conventional sense.
What conventional sense? The lost opportunity is a real loss. The usual concept of losing money only accounts for an "accounting" loss. But the opportunity lost is as real as an accounting loss.And this process continues with multiple customers, which means poor people are perpetually in debt, whereas rich get richer, EVEN IF THEY MAKE LOSSES.
This is ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ridiculous, because you have no idea how the banking system works.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But to understand all this, it's necessary that you understand how the monetary system works. Then you'll see how the system itself is created by the elite to fool the masses. If you are referring to the paper-money versus commodity-backed money, that is a different issue, and has nothing to do with lending, and its alleged problems. Please, get back to the issues you have with lending. Remember, in a gold-backed currency, you will still have lending.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->These are all old questions, answered by Marxists many years ago. #1 is product of labor, and an idea is useless unless labor is employed to translate to reality#2 what you call capital, if it's a finished good, machinery, technology, it's a product of labor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, and the marxists have been discredited, along with the useless "labor theory of value" you keep bringing up. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In your dreams, perhaps. LTV is the only theory that can explain why commodities are exchanged at all. Labor is the only factor common, which is what facilitates the process of exchange. So far, no one has disproved it. So try again.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The initial idea (#1) is not labor - if you think it is labor, how much value would you assign to it? Same goes for capital (#2). If that is also labor or its product, how much value would you assign to it? You cannot redefine labor to mean everything.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In economic terms, we don't consider ideas as commodities, so your point makes little sense. Since you still haven't proved that commodities are NOT entirely products of labor, I see no reason why I should continue this any further.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if by value, you mean revenue earned, would you like the workers to be paid a share of the revenue rather than wages? So, if no one buys the Indica, should the workers get Rs.0/- as their share of the revenue? Because remember, that is what happens to the capitalist. He is taking a risk. <b>Would you like the workers to be saddled with a similar risk?</b>
[right][snapback]91631[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where's the question of risk, when socialist production is done by the workers, and for the (consumption and benefit of) workers? Let me simplify this. In socialism, the worker is both the consumer and the manufacturer. Which means, he's only going to produce what he intends to consume, so where's the question of scarcity or its opposite, overproduction, or its consequences, such as risks, losses etc.?