- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Money has to be backed up by something of objective value.

Posted by: David ( USA ) on October 19, 1999 at 10:37:33:

In Reply to: Process of capital accumulation posted by Samuel Day Fassbinder on October 18, 1999 at 10:43:29:

: : You misanalyze the realized returns through investment. When you go and put your money in a bank you are essentially allowing them to use your money to finance companies and individuals.

: SDF: Since banks can basically "manufacture" money through their agreement with the Fed, the idea that it is "my" money that these banks are using, is a convenient legal fiction, but nothing more, not really a description of economic activity.

That is why I am completely against our current monetary system. Money has to be backed up by something of objective value. Whenever banks print more money they merely make the money you have worth less.

: I mean, if the banks didn't loan money the only people able to finance a company start-up would be the rich.

: SDF: The idea that "nobody would work if rich people weren't paying them to work" falls apart when we analyze "household chores" or "schoolwork," both typical forms of unpaid labor.

I never said that. What I stated was in essence that opening up and starting a company is a very expensive and risky venture. Not many people are willing to lay down their entire fortunes and future to become entrepeneurs. Only those to whom the risk is not as great (i.e. the rich) would be opening up new stores and services. Many people are more content with the safer route of selling their labor and expertise for money.

: : At least with banks you can have some worker who makes "slave wages" borrow money to open up a diner or something. Of course, when that happens you wouldn't have much to bitch about (except maybe regulations) which would take all the fun out of being socialist.

: SDF: Maybe we could all open diners, and serve ourselves restaurant meals every day while performing all of the duties (cook, dishwasher, waiter/waitress, plumber etc.) all by ourselves, and then we wouldn't have to pretend that we don't have to HIRE SOMEONE TO WORK FOR US in order to operate a business.

Where will you get the money to buy the food? Will your revenues offset the cost of the various taxes you have to pay and purchasing supplies? Oh yeah, I forgot, there would be no money. So when you need more eggs to make breakfast for your customers you merely go down to a grocery store take some eggs and, voila, the system works. Of course none of your suppliers would have to worry about lack of supply, because in a socialist utopia (notice I used "utopia" in the context of "no place" [as opposed to "eutopia"- "good place"]) all you need do is apply brute force and factories pop out of the ground.

: After all, we are "sovereign individuals" and therefore capable of opening diners all by ourselves, without having to hire staffs of grunt workers who don't themselves own diners, right?

You have every right to do that. However, I am sure you will end up working some very grueling hours.

: Can everyone be a business owner in a capitalist economy? Or does someone have to WORK in order for there to be profit for someone else?

How about, does everyone of the capability of being a business owner in a capitalist economy? Keep in mind that owning a business is not all that easy. It takes a lot of ambition, drive, and intelligence. Especially with all the red tape these days. Ask yourself whether some people would be happier working for someone else, than handling a business.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup