12-09-2008, 06:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> How? Say, You gave me Rs.100/-. I refuse to pay you back. How did you make a profit?
<!--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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And this process continues with multiple customers, which means poor people are perpetually in debt, whereas rich get richer, EVEN IF THEY MAKE LOSSES.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is ridiculous.
<!--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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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.
<!--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. 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.
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>
<!--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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And this process continues with multiple customers, which means poor people are perpetually in debt, whereas rich get richer, EVEN IF THEY MAKE LOSSES.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is ridiculous.
<!--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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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.
<!--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. 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.
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>