Lew Rockwell attacks LTV: I reply.

Following my debates with “anarcho”-capitalists and my participation in the anti-ancap FAQ, I have been somewhat of a defender of the Labour Theory of Value against its dogmatic, intellectually bankrupt opposition.

Recently, Lew Rockwell, the rabid Christian capitalist, has published an article by Glenn Jacobs, professional wrestler and RonPaulite, who tries to body slam the Labour Theory of Value but ends up biting the mat. I am going to look at the theoretical claims against LTV in that article.

We’ve all heard the phrase “equal pay for equal work.” Many of those who habitually repeat this mantra may not realize that it is simply a variation of the discredited labor theory of value (LTV), which is generally associated with Marxian economics. According to the LTV, the value of a product is related to the labor needed to produce it.

Apart from the “discredited” slur, I agree with everything so far. But I would go a lot farther than that: I would simply say, equal pay for work, period. Not including the particular costs of a given job (such as the education needed), all hours of work should be paid the same. One hour of labour is equal to one hour of labour.

The marginalists proved that value is not the result of a product’s inputs, but the result of the subjective judgment of individuals.

This is an obvious logical fallacy, but hard for most people to see, so I will take this opportunity to explain the main reason why STV is fallacious (those of you who have read the FAQ will not need to read this). Usually STV is expressed in manner similar to this:

“How much we value any product differs from time to time and from scenario to scenario, and the same is true for any other individual, therefore the value of the product is subjective.”

This is a fallacy of equivocation on the word “value.” The first part of the argument refers to the person’s values (which are moral, relative to that person, and cannot be otherwise), and the second part of the argument refers to the value of the product, which is a property of the object itself (and is therefore not relative to any person).

By using one meaning of “value,” and then switching to another meaning of “value,” they are using equivocation, which is nothing but a fraudster’s shell game, and can only work by confusing people. And yet this is the very basis of STV.

To come back to our article, I have to give credit to Jacobs for not using the equivocation and using “subjective judgment” instead of “value” to designate moral values. But this only shows the error even more clearly. What relation can there possibly be between “subjective judgment,” which is clearly relative to the person, and the value of a product, which is not relative to the person? How does any amount of “subjective judgment” change the facts of reality? The simple answer is that it doesn’t.

Saying that “value is… the result of the subjective judgment of individuals” is as nonsensical as saying that “color is… the result of the subjective judgment of individuals” or “volume is… the result of the subjective judgment of individuals.” Facts must be processed by the individual in order to be understood, but facts in themselves do not depend on the individual in order to exist. To argue otherwise is to plunge oneself headlong into solipsism, which is patent pseudo-philosophical nonsense. Facts exist regardless of our capacity to understand them.

Unfortunately, it was the convoluted logic of the LTV that led President Obama to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on January 29.

According to the right-wingers, Obama is a “socialist” and therefore must subscribe to LTV. In fact, anyone who saw how fanatically Obama defended the bailouts would know that he is a capitalist through and through. No socialist politician would ever be permitted to run for president.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, jobs are not the property of the employee. Unions will state that the positions which they hold are “their jobs”; protectionist anti–free-traders will claim that immigrants are stealing “American jobs.” The fact is that the job is the property of the employer. There is a very simple way to logically prove this fact. If an employee worked for a single individual and that individual died would the employee still receive remuneration? Would the employee still have a job? Of course not; the job has died with the employer. But if, on the other hand, the employee died, the job would still exist.

This reasoning is plainly a circular fallacy, since it implies the truth of property theory, which of course will lead one to a capitalist view.

If a capitalist owner can legitimately claim the means of production as his property, and can legitimately make a contract with another person wherein the latter surrenders his production to him in exchange for a wage, then we can say that the capitalist owner “owns the job” and that, like any other property, the link dissipates only at his death or as he wills (i.e. fires the employee and hires no one). But these ifs completely depend on property rights being coherent.

But property rights are incoherent for many different reasons. For one, property rights depend on the premise that owned objects are productive agents and participate in someone else’s product. That is the theoretical basis for usury (for money, interest; for land, rent; for means of production, profit). Since objects are not animated and do not produce in and of themselves, they are not productive agents, and the owner is not owed any usury for someone else’s use of them. Therefore the very concept of an employee, being defined as a person who uses someone else’s means of production and thus owes him his production, is nonsense.

(Note that this is only one argument against property: in his book What is Property, Proudhon gives many such arguments, some of which I have quoted in the past)

Freedom of contract – the ability of individuals to bargain freely without government interference – is the bedrock of a free-market economy and was a fundamental part of American legal doctrine until the late 1930s.

I’m gonna let Proudhon field this one:

“The negro who sells his wife for a knife, his children for some bits of glass, and finally himself for a bottle of brandy, is not free. The dealer in human flesh, with whom he negotiates, is not his associate; he is his enemy.

The civilized laborer who bakes a loaf that he may eat a slice of bread, who builds a palace that he may sleep in a stable, who weaves rich fabrics that he may dress in rags, who produces every thing that he may dispense with every thing, — is not free. His employer, not becoming his associate in the exchange of salaries or services which takes place between them, is his enemy.

The soldier who serves his country through fear instead of through love is not free; his comrades and his officers, the ministers or organs of military justice, are all his enemies.

The peasant who hires land, the manufacturer who borrows capital, the tax-payer who pays tolls, duties, patent and license fees, personal and property taxes, &c., and the deputy who votes for them, — all act neither intelligently nor freely. Their enemies are the proprietors, the capitalists, the government.”

To this I will only add that anyone who actively promotes the absurd joke of a “freedom of contract” in an unfree society such as ours is in the pockets of our enemies, whether he is conscious of it or not.

Another common misconception about employment is that the employer is buying the employee’s labor. However, the employer is not buying the employee’s labor per se; he is buying the employee’s productive ability. In general, the goal of a businessman is to maximize production while minimizing cost, thereby maximizing revenue and profits.

How does explaining the rationalization for exploitation in the capitalist system go anywhere towards refuting LTV? The rest of the article simply veers off the tracks and turns into a RonPaulite denunciation of government intervention, which ironically was necessary in the development of American, British and Japanese capitalism, and all the other bloated corporate networks of the world. Very few of the corporations we know would even exist without government salvation.

The Ledbetter Act is aimed at equality. But individuals are not equal. We all have different talents, resources, interests, abilities, educations, and backgrounds.

Another argument that gets trotted our every time a propertarian wants to make any point. You can’t give them much credit for originality.

That being said, inequality of abilities does not bring us to the conclusion of inequality of wages. In fact, that would only make sense if there was equality of jobs, that is to say, if all jobs required an equal level of all abilities. In that case, however, the opposite from STV would obtain: people with less abilities should be paid more, since they would be forced to expand more energy or to risk their physical health for the same output.

But that is not what we observe. In fact, there is a great inequality of jobs. Some jobs require some skills, some require other skills, in greater or lesser quantity. Insofar as there is a parity between the inequality of abilities and the inequality of jobs (being that jobs are filled by people who can fill them), there must therefore be equality of wages.

This is a logical conclusion based on sound reasoning, and therefore it will likely escape the grasp of most capitalists.

74 thoughts on “Lew Rockwell attacks LTV: I reply.

  1. rechelon September 10, 2009 at 00:56

    > “and the second part of the argument refers to the value of the product, which is a property of the object itself (and is therefore not relative to any person).”

    Nonsense. You’re just randomly proclaiming that an object’s value is some static material reality innate to it. Which is begging the question. The STV doesn’t assume this or utilize that kind of definition ever. The STV defines value as an (average-esque) result that market processes crank out of all the various subjective valuations people assign to it.

    Measuring the “labor” put into an object, on the other hand defies calculation more than you would imply. What would you measure? The disutility of work lies in its hijacking of our mental facilities and expenditure of our physical energy. That’s a pile of vastly differing neurological and physiological realities that aren’t translatable. On the other hand, the “I value this MORE than this” decisions of the consumers actually allow us a highly adaptable and nuanced measurement.

  2. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 03:53

    “Nonsense. You’re just randomly proclaiming that an object’s value is some static material reality innate to it.”

    Yes… I proclaimed that an attribute of the object is an attribute of the object, not of the individual. Which is to say that I proclaimed that reality is what it is. And I didn’t say anything about “static.”

    “Which is begging the question.”

    How is it begging the question to point out that the attribute of an object is the attribute of an object?

    (and is it more or less question-begging than the STV defenders who keep pointing to the current economic system as proof that STV is correct?)

    “The STV defines value as an (average-esque) result that market processes crank out of all the various subjective valuations people assign to it.”

    You merely restated with slightly more sophisticated words the principle that STV determines the value of an object by looking at people’s preferences, which as I already proved is logically invalid.

    “Measuring the “labor” put into an object, on the other hand defies calculation more than you would imply. What would you measure?

    Every cost is ultimately reducible to the time of labor.

    “On the other hand, the “I value this MORE than this” decisions of the consumers actually allow us a highly adaptable and nuanced measurement.”

    A measurement of something that is INHERENTLY RELATIVE to the individuals, and CANNOT be made anything else. That’s nice, but it has nothing to do with the attributes of anything else but individuals.

  3. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 04:01

    I’m not even going to get into the fatal pragmatic differences between the “idealized, theoretical STV” and “actually-existing-STV.” I’m talking purely about the logic of it. Logically, STV is a non-starter.

  4. rechelon September 10, 2009 at 04:15

    LOL

    > “How is it begging the question to point out that the attribute of an object is the attribute of an object?”

    Because strictly speaking (if you’re going to use those connotation of “attribute”) it’s NOT an attribute of an object. Value is a social construct. Rather than phrasing the question here as what is the “value” of an object, it would be better to say how do we “value” an object. The value is not an attribute of the object unto itself. Because without a society — without a social context — the is meaningless. Value is something that we impose on top of an object. Like assigning gender to an object. Except that obviously things like what gender is el telefono are normatively applied as binary universals. Value is the result of a much more dynamic and complex interplay.

  5. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 04:26

    “Because strictly speaking (if you’re going to use those connotation of “attribute”) it’s NOT an attribute of an object. Value is a social construct.”

    So… if it’s not to determine the value of products, what exactly IS STV good for, then, in your view?

  6. rechelon September 10, 2009 at 05:02

    To determine the value of said objects.

    Which is to say the STV allows us a way to conceptualize and effectively calculate the strength of society’s relation to an object. Not reveal some inherent material attribute of said object.

  7. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 05:10

    “To determine the value of said objects.”

    Now you’re just contradicting yourself. First you admitted, in your second-to-last comment, that the “value” determined by STV is not the value of the object, now you’re saying that STV determines the value of the object. What utterly tedious drivel.

  8. rechelon September 10, 2009 at 05:39

    That’s a language problem. Not conceptual. In this case English uses “of the object” interchangeably with “how we _ of it”. It’s implied. But my bad for drifting back into that use that seems to be so tripping you up. I’ll rephrase:

    To determine the value we place in said objects.

    Same diff.

  9. Fivemileshigh September 10, 2009 at 07:39

    “One hour of labour is equal to one hour of labour.”

    One issue: If I can make 56 widgets in one hour, and you can make 78 widgets in the same hour, should we both get $20 an hour?

  10. David Z September 10, 2009 at 12:10

    rechelon has you beat. “value” is not a property of an item, like mass, volume, or color.

  11. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 15:26

    “In this case English uses “of the object” interchangeably with “how we _ of it”. It’s implied.”

    No… those are two different things. One is an attribute of the individual and one is an attribute of the object. We already went through this.

    “To determine the value we place in said objects.”

    Well then STV is simply useless, since there’s little use for that in an economic system.

    “rechelon has you beat. “value” is not a property of an item, like mass, volume, or color.”

    Once again, if the “value” found by STV is actually not an attribute of the item, then it tells me a lot about the individuals that desire it, but nothing about the item.

    If “value” is entirely “subjective,” then it has no relation to reality. An object’s mass can be measured, an object’s volume can be measured, an object’s color can be measured. Either an object’s value can be measured or it cannot: if it cannot, then it’s useless to talk of people’s preferences, any more than it would be useless to ask people what colour they would prefer the sky to be.

  12. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 15:27

    “One issue: If I can make 56 widgets in one hour, and you can make 78 widgets in the same hour, should we both get $20 an hour?”

    One hour of labour equals one hour of labour. Extra costs (such as necessary schooling, demanding physical effort, and so on) aside, all hours of labour should be paid the same.

  13. Aaron Kinney September 10, 2009 at 16:07

    So in your eyes, Franc, time is the only measurement of value possible when it comes to work? Or am I missing something?

  14. fp September 10, 2009 at 16:08

    well done franc. rechelon is a fool. LTV doesn’t deny that value is a social construct. it doesn’t attempt to reveal an “inherent material attribute” of a commodity. it explains how labor is the fountain from which remunerable use values flow. most of us value honey over nectar, but what is behind that? the labor of bees. we can’t pay bees, but we can pay human laborers, and they’re entitled to the full exchange value of their product. the purpose of STV is to deny this, to allow for the claims of property owners to a portion of the laborer’s product. watch this: youtube dot com slash watch?v=xME37kf0WkI

  15. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 16:19

    “So in your eyes, Franc, time is the only measurement of value possible when it comes to work? Or am I missing something?”

    Measurement of the value of a product? Yes, ultimately all costs of production (including the costs of the tools and raw materials) are reducible to working time.

    That is a very good text fp, thank you for pointing it out.

  16. rechelon September 10, 2009 at 16:47

    > “Well then STV is simply useless, since there’s little use for that in an economic system.”

    > “If “value” is entirely “subjective,” then it has no relation to reality. An object’s mass can be measured, an object’s volume can be measured, an object’s color can be measured. Either an object’s value can be measured or it cannot: if it cannot, then it’s useless to talk of people’s preferences, any more than it would be useless to ask people what colour they would prefer the sky to be.”

    Are you fucking crazy Tremblay? Right, because we can’t measure opinion. That’s not the entire fucking foundation and point of economics. Supply and DEMAND.

  17. rechelon September 10, 2009 at 16:52

    And fuck off trolls who think that anyone who argues that STV is the more elegant and rooted conceptual model somehow have to have a blind spot to economic exploitation. The STV operates in the realm of “is” discourse. The ethical inferences that vulgar ancaps derive using it operate in the realm of “ought” discourse. It simply does not follow that the STV forces one to turn a blind eye to the power dynamics of wage slavery for instance.

  18. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 16:57

    “Are you fucking crazy Tremblay?”

    AFAIK, I am not crazy.

    “Right, because we can’t measure opinion.”

    I didn’t say that people’s preferences could not be measured in SOME way. They obviously can’t be measured in themselves, since we don’t have direct access to people’s minds, but we can measure their effects in people.

    “That’s not the entire fucking foundation and point of economics. Supply and DEMAND.”

    Yes, and…? When did I say I supported mainstream economics? When did I say supply and demand curves had anything to do with reality?

  19. John H. September 10, 2009 at 16:59

    Coming up next: Tremblay vs. Carson! A battle to the death over the title “True Mutualist!”

  20. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 17:01

    I have no dispute with Carson and admire his work. Just because I am slightly to the left of him doesn’t mean I want to fight him. Don’t be ridiculous.

  21. John H. September 10, 2009 at 17:04

    Given that he explicitly does NOT hold this position, surely one of you must not be a mutualist.

  22. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 17:07

    Actually, one’s opinion on STV and LTV does not determine whether one is a mutualist or not. Mutualism is an economic and social ideology, not a theory-of-value ideology.

  23. John H. September 10, 2009 at 17:08

    Fair enough, I suppose.

    Would you walk us through your particular view of LTV and how it would work in a real-world example?

  24. Aaron Kinney September 10, 2009 at 17:08

    Re: fp,

    “it explains how labor is the fountain from which remunerable use values flow. ”

    Thats different than time itself though. Labor != time, even though labor requires time. So even though what you said is true, it doesnt justify the “equal pay for equal hours worked” idea.

    Im still not convinced that the time spent laboring is the sole determining factor in a persons compensation. Theoretically, Johnny Blueshirt could produce just as many widgets as Eddie Punchclock does, and in half the time. Should they get paid the same if they both worked the same hours? And if so, would they BOTH then be receiving the “full value of their labor”? I think not.

    LTV to me seems to indicate that a time-based compensation rate is unjustifiable.

  25. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 17:15

    “Would you walk us through your particular view of LTV and how it would work in a real-world example?”

    No. That would require a whole new entry, and I’m not gonna start writing novels on the comments section.

    “Im still not convinced that the time spent laboring is the sole determining factor in a persons compensation.”

    I never said it was. I said that all costs were ultimately reducible to labour time. Those are two different things.

    Obviously there are supplemental costs that must enter into consideration when looking at wage (I already named two: costs of schooling, and the costs of physically demanding work. No doubt there are more).

    “Theoretically, Johnny Blueshirt could produce just as many widgets as Eddie Punchclock does, and in half the time. Should they get paid the same if they both worked the same hours? And if so, would they BOTH then be receiving the “full value of their labor”? I think not.”

    Yes, they are. The specifics would depend on the specific organization they are engaged in. For instance, if it takes Blueshirt only half the time to accomplish what they have agreed as being the rough equivalent of an hour of work, then he should be free to organize his remaining time as he wishes. That’s one way of doing it. It really all depends on what people in that sort of work know is normal and accepted, and what is laxity or a higher ability to produce.

    “LTV to me seems to indicate that a time-based compensation rate is unjustifiable.”

    What conclusion *does* LTV lead you to, then?

  26. fp September 10, 2009 at 17:17

    “fuck off trolls”

    right. anyone who understands that STV is only one piece of the puzzle, and that LTV encompasses subjective valuation but adds pieces to the puzzle that STV (rather conveniently) leaves out, is a troll. that most misidentified of internet species.

    “elegant” is not a word i would use to describe “dumbed down.” more like “obfuscatory.”

    the fact that so many of you have descended on this article tells me that, a) franc had his way with you and it burns a little, and b) at least some of you just might be pots calling the kettle black.

  27. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 17:21

    I should specify at this point that I do believe preferences has a place in the trading process, obviously. My main beef is with STV’s fallacious nature, STV as a theory in intself, not with the idea that preferences have a place in the trading process.

  28. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 17:25

    I also find it interesting that everyone is concentrating on that portion of my entry, and not on all the other ones. It seems, like FP said, that this is a sensitive issue: they know how much they’re wrong on this and they have to defend it.

  29. Aaron Kinney September 10, 2009 at 17:53

    “What conclusion *does* LTV lead you to, then?”

    If we believe that value is subjective, which I do, then the LTV leads me to no new conclusions whatsoever about what constitutes a justifiable compensation system. It seems superfluous.

  30. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 17:56

    “If we believe that value is subjective, which I do, then the LTV leads me to no new conclusions whatsoever about what constitutes a justifiable compensation system.”

    I can’t make any sense out of this. You seem to be arguing that STV and LTV lead to the same outcomes, which you know very well is not true. You’re either trolling me, or expressing yourself very badly.

  31. Aaron Kinney September 10, 2009 at 18:03

    I think Im expressing myself badly. It should have been more of a question than a statement. Let me rephrase it:

    If value is subjective, then I dont see how LTV can alter the outcome. Pay a guy the full product of his labor? Sure, but the “full product” would still be subjective, would it not? Again, what am I missing here?

  32. Francois Tremblay September 10, 2009 at 18:08

    “If value is subjective, then I dont see how LTV can alter the outcome. Pay a guy the full product of his labor? Sure, but the “full product” would still be subjective, would it not? Again, what am I missing here?”

    How is paying someone’s full product “subjective”?

  33. Aaron Kinney September 10, 2009 at 19:04

    Because the value of the product itself is subjective. So anything based on that products “full value” will be just as subjective.

  34. David Z September 10, 2009 at 20:39

    If “preference has its place in the trading process” as FT said at 17:21, and preference is subjective (or at least has a subjective component) then what we end up with is two parties, both exchanging the full products of their own respective labor, based on their own subjective preference/valuation of the other product and weighing the opportunity cost of parting with their own produce.

    aaron kinney WIN.

  35. Francois Tremblay September 11, 2009 at 03:21

    “Because the value of the product itself is subjective. So anything based on that products “full value” will be just as subjective.”

    1. No, the value of the product is not subjective.
    2. “Full product,” not “full value.” You mixed up your expressions.

  36. Francois Tremblay September 11, 2009 at 03:25

    “If “preference has its place in the trading process” as FT said at 17:21, and preference is subjective (or at least has a subjective component) then what we end up with is two parties, both exchanging the full products of their own respective labor, based on their own subjective preference/valuation of the other product and weighing the opportunity cost of parting with their own produce.”

    You didn’t include any part of LTV in this.

    “aaron kinney WIN.”

    Since you didn’t include LTV in your scenario, you’re basically saying that I lose as long as you ignore the facts.

    Idiotic.

  37. David Z September 11, 2009 at 10:47

    2. “Full product,” not “full value.” You mixed up your expressions.

    if the worker is entitled to the full product of his labor, and “value” somehow inheres to the product, he has received his labor’s worth of value. This seems like a distinction without a difference.

    “You didn’t include any part of LTV in this.”

    I don’t think it’s relevant, as long as (we seem to agree) preference is at play.

  38. Francois Tremblay September 11, 2009 at 14:23

    “If the worker is entitled to the full product of his labor, and “value” somehow inheres to the product, he has received his labor’s worth of value. This seems like a distinction without a difference.”

    I didn’t say it was an important distinction. I was just correcting Aaron’s formulation.

    “I don’t think it’s relevant, as long as (we seem to agree) preference is at play.”

    Not relevant? It’s how we determine the value of products. Without it, there can’t be any trade.

  39. Brian N. September 12, 2009 at 20:46

    Mr. Tremblay, you’ve reasoned yourself into a bad corner. Someday, somehow, I hope you find your way out.

  40. Francois Tremblay September 13, 2009 at 03:13

    And this mindless boast is based on…?

  41. Db0 September 15, 2009 at 09:09

    Oh you did it now! Don’t you dare mention LTV in the presense of AnCaps, the rampart elitism and accusations of idiocy can’t but follow.

    In case you’re interested, Here’s my perspective on the LTV & STV. I consider the exchange value of a product to be an actual synthesis of the two rather than the result of each one alone.

  42. Francois Tremblay September 15, 2009 at 15:29

    Thank you for the link db0. As you can see, so far I’ve been in a heap of trouble for talking about LTV, but it’s worth it.

  43. db0 September 15, 2009 at 15:54

    Heh, you should have seen the heap of trouble I got in with Misoids when I dared to challenge the time preference theory.

  44. KingofthePaupers September 15, 2009 at 17:56

    Jct: When people would argue: “isn’t it fair that I get something for foregoing my present consumption? I’m giving up something, even risking it all?” I could only ask “why should Bill Gates get another $5 billion in interest for foregoing the present consumtion of his $50 billion? He can’t consume $50 billion so he can’t be foregoing consumption of $50 billion worth 10% on his money.

    Better though is to explain the time preference for money to people using poker chips. Why would anyone prefer to have their chips now rather than have their chips later since you can buy in at any time? Why the preference for having your chips now over buying them later?

    It’s only when chips are kept in short supply by charging interest on them that there arises a time preference for money. When there is no interest, there is no time preference.

  45. David Z September 16, 2009 at 13:40

    King, I like the Bill Gates example!

    Setting aside the obvious manipulations of money by governments/central banks, interest exists because the chips are in short supply (i.e., we live in a world of scarcity). Suggesting that scarcity exists because of interest is putting the cart before the horse.

  46. David Gendron September 16, 2009 at 13:46

    @David Z and KingofthePaupers

    You seem to dismiss the fact that Microsoft is a state-based monopoly created by intellectual property.

  47. David Z September 16, 2009 at 16:13

    David: indeed, MS is a state-based monopoly and it is unlikely that BG could accumulate anything close to $50B without that privilege.

    All other things being equal, I think it is an example to which most people could relate, it resonates well.

    That said, Bill Gates is also a reductio ad absurdum argument, as you note.

  48. David Gendron September 16, 2009 at 16:57

    “interest exists because the chips are in short supply (i.e., we live in a world of scarcity) . Suggesting that scarcity exists because of interest is putting the cart before the horse.”

    When the false scarcity is provoked by the State, I don’t think it’s a good example.

    But, you’re agree with me with the fact that MS is a state-monopoly. Good! :)

  49. David Z September 16, 2009 at 21:58

    I might not choose the word “provoked” since I see scarcity (at least in the physical realm) as an irreducible fact of reality. I would instead suggest that scarcity is exacerbated by the state. But yeah, other than that pedantry, I definitely agree.

  50. KingofthePaupers September 16, 2009 at 23:43

    “One issue: If I can make 56 widgets in one hour, and you can make 78 widgets in the same hour, should we both get $20 an hour?”

    Jct: In a fair game, you should make 78/56 more. Bring 78 widgets to the cage to get 78 chips, bring 56 widgets to the cage, get 56 chips. What’s hard?

  51. Francois Tremblay September 16, 2009 at 23:48

    “In a fair game, you should make 78/56 more. Bring 78 widgets to the cage to get 78 chips, bring 56 widgets to the cage, get 56 chips. What’s hard?”

    What’s hard for YOU to understand is that we’re not talking about a game, we’re talking about real life. In real life, an hour of work equals an hour of work.

  52. KingofthePaupers September 16, 2009 at 23:51

    David Z: “King, I like the Bill Gates example!
    Setting aside the obvious manipulations of money by governments/central banks, interest exists because the chips are in short supply (i.e., we live in a world of scarcity).

    Jct: Chips are in short supply because, for a Principal, you owe Principal + Interest. The shortage is inherent in the mort-gage death-gamble contract. You’re going to bring back more than you took out. So is everyone else.

    “Suggesting that scarcity exists because of interest is putting the cart before the horse.

    Jct: I think it’s pretty obvious when I charge interest on poker chips and make them inflate.
    September 16 2009
    at 13:40

    “David Z and KingofthePaupers
    You seem to dismiss the fact that Microsoft is a state-based monopoly created by intellectual property.
    By: David Gendron on September 16 2009

    David: indeed, MS is a state-based monopoly and it is unlikely that BG could accumulate anything close to $50B without that privilege.
    All other things being equal, I think it is an example to which most people could relate, it resonates well.
    That said, Bill Gates is also a reductio ad absurdum argument, as you note.
    By: David Z on September 16 2009

    “interest exists because the chips are in short supply (i.e., we live in a world of scarcity) . Suggesting that scarcity exists because of interest is putting the cart before the horse.”

    When the false scarcity is provoked by the State, I don’t think it’s a good example.
    By: David Gendron on September 16 2009

    I might not choose the word “provoked” since I see scarcity (at least in the physical realm) as an irreducible fact of reality.

    Jct: Scarcity of tomatoes I can understand. But scarcity of computer credits in an accounting system I can’t. Shortage of poker chips in a game, I can’t.

    “I would instead suggest that scarcity is exacerbated by the state. But yeah, other than that pedantry, I definitely agree.”

    Jct: Scarcity is of real goods. Scarcity of credits is called poverty, an installed shortage of credits.

  53. KingofthePaupers September 17, 2009 at 08:31

    “In a fair game, Bring 78 widgets to the cage to get 78 chips, bring 56 widgets to the cage, get 56 chips. What’s hard?”

    What’s hard for YOU to understand is that we’re not talking about a game, we’re talking about real life. In real life, an hour of work equals an hour of work.
    By: Francois Tremblay on September 16 2009

    Jct: What’s hard for you to understand is that you are talking about a game, a game of getting chips in real life. And how everyone borrows 10 and owes 11 in real life. And in real life, my hour of work equals more than an hour of your work because I can bring 78 widgets to the cage in an hour and you can only bring 56.

    See: Game Theory and economic behavior. Not realizing that life’s a game using chips to keep score makes it harder for you to realize that guys who get more score because they have positive score and others who get more negative score because they have negative score is a positive feedback taking from the poor to give to the rich.

  54. Francois Tremblay September 17, 2009 at 08:35

    “And how everyone borrows 10 and owes 11 in real life. And in real life, my hour of work equals more than an hour of your work because I can bring 78 widgets to the cage in an hour and you can only bring 56.”

    By “real life,” you apparently mean modern capitalism. So this is just a circular argument: the injustice of capitalism is right because that’s how it works right now under capitalism, therefore capitalism proves capitalism. That is a game, a child’s play of an argument.

    “See: Game Theory and economic behavior.:

    How utterly arrogant you are. See game theory?? I know about game theory, and none of it justifies the injustice of capitalism or STV.

    “Not realizing that life’s a game using chips to keep score makes it harder for you to realize that guys who get more score because they have positive score and others who get more negative score because they have negative score is a positive feedback taking from the poor to give to the rich.”

    Do you have a pet theory about this? A web site, maybe? Because you’re starting to sound like some kind of crackpot.

  55. KingofthePaupers September 17, 2009 at 08:59

    “Do you have a pet theory about this? A web site, maybe? Because you’re starting to sound like some kind of crackpot.”

    Jct: You mean you didn’t search? You put your mouth into operation before you got your brain in gear?

    Plus you’ve got me completely wrong!
    I’m known as the anti-poverty engineer because I helped engineer the first LETS anti-poverty software.

    How you involved capitalism in the functioning of the chips, circular capitalism too, I’m still waiting to have further explained.

    Do some homework before you inject your opinion into a banking systems engineering discussion.

  56. Db0 September 17, 2009 at 09:31

    I’m known as the anti-poverty engineer because I helped engineer the first LETS anti-poverty software.

    That’s an argument from expertise, a logical fallacy. Just because you engineered an anti-povertry software does not mean that you have the correct idea of how to fix injustice and inequality or even poverty. It might mean that your heart is in the right place but nothing else.

    This is in the same way that someone might be giving to religious charities without recognizing their part in perpetuation hierarchy and exploitation.

  57. KingofthePaupers September 17, 2009 at 09:51

    “Just because you engineered an anti-povertry software does not mean that you have the correct idea of how to fix injustice and inequality or even poverty.”

    Jct: Go do your homework. The UNILETS resolution gives everyone on the planet an interest-free credit card and bank account they can pay back in cash or in time. And that fixes inequality and injustice and especially poverty everywhere. No one’s too poor if their credit card is still good.

  58. Db0 September 17, 2009 at 10:00

    Wrong. Simply having a interest-free account is not enough to end poverty as you still have to repay the debt and the resources have already been hoarded by the capitalist class. Therefore you are still condemned to wage-slavery and all that follows from that.

    THis idea had promise in the times of Proudhon and Tucker but not anymore and even in the end of the later’s life he had recognized this.

    There’s other arguments I can bring against your solution but I won’t. I just wanted to point out that the solution is not as simple as you think, even though it’s in the right direction. Therefore pointing out your fallacy.

  59. KingofthePaupers September 17, 2009 at 18:48

    “Simply having a interest-free account is not enough to end poverty as you still have to repay the debt and the resources have already been hoarded by the capitalist class.”

    Jct: There is a new resource that you can use for collateral at the bank cage. Your human time. If the hoarding classes with all the physical resources want to barter that for my time, great.

    “Therefore you are still condemned to wage-slavery and all that follows from that.”

    Jct: The KingofthePaupers knows about debt slavery, and all that follows from that especially wage inequality. If someone’s getting something for nothing, someone else is getting nothing for something, I know. We are enslaved by the growth of debts we could easily handle without the growth, getting rid of the growth is the fair solution.

    “THis idea had promise in the times of Proudhon and Tucker but not anymore and even in the end of the later’s life he had recognized this.”

    Jct: They blew it by making everyone’s hour equal, like the Timedollars where a babysitter commands the same 1 Hour pay as the dentist. Not many dentists. But where they use paper Ithaca Hours, a dentist commands more Paper Hours than a babysitter. They have dentists in Ithaca.

    And we now have the internet to transfer our Hour IOUs around. In 1999, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with an IOU for a night back in Canada worth 5 Hours. Anyone can now too. If I get you somewhere to stay in my hometown in exchange for you finding me somewhere to stay in your hometown, I doubt you’ll stiff us. With the whole world watching your account scorecard!

    “There’s other arguments I can bring against your solution but I won’t.”

    Jct: I see interest-free time-based (human and e-phone) community currencies spreading aroung the world and recognize the death throes of the debt slavery system. I see Heaven happening. So I can’t imagine what other arguments there may be to the thesis that an interest-free currency system suffers no involuntary unemployment or inflation. Search for “bankmath”

    “I just wanted to point out that the solution is not as simple as you think,

    Jct: Sorry but intertrading time-based poker chips on the net is working and is as simple as it is.

    “even though it’s in the right direction.

    Jct: When in the right direction is the only time you must charge full speed ahead.

    “Therefore pointing out your fallacy.”

    Jct: I see no fallacy in holding that restricting the banks’ computers to a pure service charge and abolishing the interest charge a la UNILETS ends all money-shortage (poverty) problems as fast as everyone can open an account.

    Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and start looking into where it can carry you to.

  60. David Z September 17, 2009 at 19:02


    I think it’s pretty obvious when I charge interest on poker chips and make them inflate…Scarcity of tomatoes I can understand. But scarcity of computer credits in an accounting system I can’t. Shortage of poker chips in a game, I can’t.”

    I agree with both of these statements, so you’re preaching to the choir. What I find confusing, though, is why anyone might get the impression that I don’t agree with them.

  61. KingofthePaupers September 17, 2009 at 19:20

    Jct: I agree… why anyone might get the impression that I don’t agree with them..

    Jct: I was replying to other people’s comments too.

  62. Db0 September 18, 2009 at 01:20

    King removing just one part of usury (interest) but keeping two others (profit and rent) is simply not enough. You are at this point dreaming that your solution is a magical bullet because you wish to give yourself the credit of the poverty ending expertise.

  63. KingofthePaupers September 18, 2009 at 03:23

    “removing just one part of usury (interest) but keeping two others (profit and rent) is simply not enough.”

    Jct: Usury creates the deathgamble, profit and rent do not. When I pay rent, I get housing. When I pay profit, I get excellence. When I pay usury, I get nothing.
    The prophets condemned usury, not rent. I can find a dozen prohibitions on usury but none on rent.
    Why do you think rent and profit are so bad?

  64. Db0 September 18, 2009 at 03:36

    Usury involves all three things, rent, profit and interest. All of them are bad because they allow someone to earn revenue without working, simply by exploiting his higher monetary power over others.

    Interest displays the higher power those who accumulate money have over the rest.
    Rent displays the higher power those who accumulate land have over the rest.
    Profit displays the higher power those who accumulate capital have over the rest.

    All three are equally bad in that they sustain exploitation and inequality and by extension poverty (among others)

  65. KingofthePaupers September 18, 2009 at 10:35

    “Usury involves all three things, rent, profit and interest.”

    Jct: Sorry but you’re not going to alter the meaning of usury to include things that do not cause death-gamble.
    I don’t mind renting the land from the guy who cleared it. I don’t mind renting the house from the guy who built it. I do mind renting money from the guys who created it, less from those who earned it.

  66. Db0 September 18, 2009 at 10:43

    Both Profit and Rent are Usury in the sense that they are not fair. But nevermind the definition of the word. It is unimportant.

    Fact is that you will not end poverty by removing interest while keeping Rent and Profit.

    I don’t mind renting the land from the guy who cleared it.

    You should. Even if we assume that the owner is the one who cleared it (quite a jump there) it does not give him the right to claim permanent ownership that is not based on his own use. He may sell it to you for an appropriate cost equal to the labour he exerted to clear it, but renting it is an unfair practice and only possible due to coercion (ie state protection).

    >I don’t mind renting the house from the guy who built

    Similar as above, even if we assume that he’s the one that built it (biiiig assumption), it does not grant him the right to rent it, only to sell it.

    >I do mind renting money from the guys who created it, less from those who earned it.

    What if those who created it are those who earned it? if you are ok with giving free money for rent, then why are you opposed to renting money?

  67. KingofthePaupers September 18, 2009 at 16:09

    DbO: Both Profit and Rent are Usury in the sense that they are not
    fair.

    Jct: Greed isn’t fair but it isn’t usury. Unequal pay for equal
    work isn’t right but it isn’t usury.

    DbO: But nevermind the definition of the word. It is unimportant.

    Jct: To a banking systems engineer trying to teach the truth
    about a lied-about system, it doesn’t help to be vague.

    DbO: Fact is that you will not end poverty by removing interest
    while keeping Rent and Profit.

    Jct: If you define poverty as shortage of tokens, yes it will.
    Define poverty as greed and inequality, maybe not.

    “I don’t mind renting the land from the guy who cleared it.

    DbO: You should. Even if we assume that the owner is the one who
    cleared it (quite a jump there) it does not give him the right to
    claim permanent ownership that is not based on his own use. He
    may sell it to you for an appropriate cost equal to the labour he
    exerted to clear it, but renting it is an unfair practice and
    only possible due to coercion (ie state protection).

    “I don’t mind renting the house from the guy who built

    DbO: Similar as above, even if we assume that he’s the one that
    built it (biiiig assumption), it does not grant him the right to
    rent it, only to sell it.

    Jct: I disagree that his selling his property is okay but his
    renting his property is not.

    “I do mind renting money from the guys who created it, less from
    those who earned it.

    DbO: What if those who created it are those who earned it?

    Jct: You can’t do both. Either you are borrowing someone’s
    savings of old chips or you are borrowing new credits. Those
    lending it either earned it or created it but not both.

    DbO: if you are ok with giving free money for rent, then why are
    you opposed to renting money?

    Jct: Paying rent to use someone’s scarce resource is fine. Paying
    interest to use my own credit because the credit system has been
    appropriated by thieves is not.

  68. Db0 September 18, 2009 at 17:23

    If you define poverty as shortage of tokens, yes it will.

    No it won’t. Inequality combined with free markets naturally leads to a hoarding of tokens as those who have accumulate them refuse to part with them without interest. As such, since we are already in a position of extreme inequality, providing interest-free credit will not be enough reverse poverty since instead of providing the hoarded money as credit, those who hold them will invest them in land and capital and get their usury “sideways”.

    Jct: I disagree that his selling his property is okay but his renting his property is not.

    You need to argue this.

    You can’t do both. Either you are borrowing someone’s savings of old chips or you are borrowing new credits. Those lending it either earned it or created it but not both.

    I’m not certain I understand you. If I save my money and rent it out, why exactly is this wrong when renting land and capital isn’t?

    Paying rent to use someone’s scarce resource is fine. Paying interest to use my own credit because the credit system has been appropriated by thieves is not.

    First of all, land and capital has been appropriated by thieves just as much as money. Furthermore money is scarce as well, so why exactly is renting it not ok?

  69. KingofthePaupers September 19, 2009 at 16:50

    Author: Db0
    Comment:
    “Jct: If you define poverty as shortage of tokens, yes it will.”

    Db0: No it won’t. Inequality combined with free markets naturally leads to a hoarding of tokens as those who have accumulate them refuse to part with them without interest.

    JCT: So don’t part with them without interest. Why should I borrow from them when I can get my chips from the cage myself? Why do I need their chips when I can buy in for my own? How can you keep forgetting the premise here, that we are using an interest-free bank so we don’t need to pay interest to borrow their chips. Why represent our wealth with their chips for a fee
    when we can represent our own wealth with our chips for free?

    Db0: As such, since we are already in a position of extreme inequality, providing interest-free credit will not be enough reverse poverty since instead of providing the hoarded money as credit, those who hold them will invest them in land and capital and get their usury “sideways”.

    Jct: If you want to change the dictionary definition of “usury” to include rent, then I’m sure I can’t convince.

    “Jct: I disagree that his selling his property is okay but his renting his property is not.”

    Db0: You need to argue this.

    Jct: You’re the one who said it’s okay for an owner to sell you his house but not to rent it to you. I think you need to argue this since you’re the one who says one’s but not the other is okay.

    “Jct: You can’t do both. Either you are borrowing someone’s savings of old chips or you are borrowing new credits. Those lending it either earned it or created it but not both.”

    Db0: I’m not certain I understand you.

    Jct: Of course you don’t understand the truth, you’ve been lied to. You can either borrow chips some has saved or chips that are newly created. But not both. Economics teaches you can do both which is why, they also, do not notice that it can’t be both. Go see how banks create money and you’ll be able to trace the flows from the tap to the drain with pipes.

    Db0: If I save my money and rent it out, why exactly is this wrong when renting land and capital isn’t?

    Jct: Because money is something that is not naturally in short supply like land and capital. It’s something that is kept in unnaturally short supply. Why would I pledge my stuff to borrow your saved chips when I can pledge my stuff at nother cage to borrow new chips? The only reason I have to come to private lenders is because my human time is not recognized as collateral for credit like a piece of yellow rock is at a regular bank.
    Because I can’t get chips from the regular bank opens up the way for private loansharking. I just can’t imagine hearing you defending oansharking.

    “Jct: Paying rent to use someone’s scarce resource is fine. Paying interest to use my own credit because the credit system has been appropriated by thieves is not.”

    Db0: First of all, land and capital has been appropriated by thieves just as much as money.

    JCT: No, the people who cleared the land, who built the house, have a right to value if they part with their value. But the men who have appropriated the power to issue chips upon my credit, they are the men I oppose. I focus on the same guys Jesus beat up in the temple, you want to unfocus onto everyone who rents their stuff.

    Db0: Furthermore money is scarce as well, so why exactly is renting it not ok?

    JCT: It’s only scarce because everyone has to bring back to the pumphouse more liquidity than they took into the financial pool. Mort-gage. Death-gamble. Musical chairs with money. Someone must always fail. P/(P+I) survive, I/(P+I) get foreclosed resulting in the same money chasing less goods, Shift B inflation, untaught in Economics and discovered by John the Banking Systems Engineer.
    All these concepts are at my youtube channel. Find “Shift B inflation to see the untaught part of how interest really works.

  70. Db0 September 20, 2009 at 06:12

    How can you keep forgetting the premise here, that we are using an interest-free bank so we don’t need to pay interest to borrow their chips. Why represent our wealth with their chips for a fee
    when we can represent our own wealth with our chips for free?

    Even an interest free bank does not have unlimited credit, they have even less when they will not charge interest. Furthermore in the current system, it’s a disincentive for people to put their money in an interest free bank if they’re not going to get an increase in it.

    The only way such an act might be actually preferred in fact is via Mutual Aid principles, a very anarchistic perspective that would also be for abolition of rent and profit as well.

    So either you get the abolition of all 3, or the failure of the interest free banks to abolish poverty.

    Jct: If you want to change the dictionary definition of “usury” to include rent, then I’m sure I can’t convince.

    Red Herring. You have sidestepped my argument. If those who hoard their money cannot use them to get interest, they will not give them as credit but invest them in capital and land.

    Jct: You’re the one who said it’s okay for an owner to sell you his house but not to rent it to you. I think you need to argue this since you’re the one who says one’s but not the other is okay.

    1) It follows from common sense. One cannot be both the owner of a house and be realizing its exchange value at the same time. Rent is simply a social construct which allows someone to have his pie and eat it too and such a social construct can only work via coercion in the environment.

    As such, the burden of proof is on you to explain why rent is a logical principle when common sense says that only selling should be an option.

    2) It allows someone to earn income without working which is a very unfair principle when it’s allowed only for the rich.

    You can either borrow chips some has saved or chips that are newly created. But not both.

    Ignoring your rhetorics, I don’t see why this applies. If I have saved money, then nothing is preventing me from charging interest for it. If I’m allowed to create money, then nothing is preventing me from charging interest to it.

    when I can pledge my stuff at nother cage to borrow new chips?

    Because as a poor person you don’t have stuff to pledge? Because I don’t have future work to pledge?

    Because I can’t get chips from the regular bank opens up the way for private loansharking. I just can’t imagine hearing you defending oansharking.

    I’m not. I’m playing devil’s advocate to show you why it’s inconsistent to be against interest while not against rent and profit.

    JCT: No, the people who cleared the land, who built the house, have a right to value if they part with their value.

    Again you miss the part that those who own the land and capital are not those who did the work for it.

    Furthermore, as you said, they rightly have a right to the exchange value of the land or capital. However rent is not this. It is them realizing the exchange value without parting with the use value.

    By your own reasoning rent and profit are unfair.

    It’s only scarce because everyone has to bring back to the pumphouse more liquidity than they took into the financial pool.

    No, it’s also scarce because those who build stuff retain less than the exchange value they create. It’s also scarce because workers must give away part of their money to landlords.

    Please cut the rhetorics.

    If you’re interested in to learn why Anarchist say that Mutual Banking is not enough, you should read this.

  71. KingofthePaupers September 21, 2009 at 10:28

    “Jct: How can you keep forgetting the premise here, that we are using an interest-free bank so we don’t need to pay interest to borrow their chips. Why represent our wealth with their chips for a fee when we can represent our own wealth with our chips for free?”

    Db0: Even an interest free bank does not have unlimited credit,

    JCT: When was the last time you saw an interest-free casino bank run out of chips. They have an unlimited supply.

    Db0: they have even less when they will not charge interest.

    Jct: If you think banks work like piggy banks….

    Db0: Furthermore in the current system, it’s a disincentive for people to put their money in an interest free bank if they’re not going to get an increase in it.

    Jct: Casino banks issue new chips, piggy banks lend old ones.

    Db0: The only way such an act might be actually preferred in fact is via Mutual Aid principles, a very anarchistic perspective that would also be for abolition of rent and profit as well.

    Jct: Rent and profit are splashing funds in the financial pool, usury is an imbalance in the pumphouse. Everybody borrowed 10 litres of liquidity to use in the economic pool and everyone has bring back 11 litres to the pumphouse creating the death-gamble mort-gage.

    Db0: So either you get the abolition of all 3, or the failure of the interest free banks to abolish poverty.

    Jct: We both agree on the abolition of the unfair interest imbalance in the pumphouse. We disagree on where you want me to extend my focus to unfair splashing of monies in the pool. Fix the imbalance in the pumphouse and there’s little incentive to do any unfair splashing in the pool when there is no more death-gamble and everyone gets to eat and survive.

    “Jct: If you want to change the dictionary definition of “usury” to include rent, then I’m sure I can’t convince.

    Db0: Red Herring. You have sidestepped my argument. If those who hoard their money cannot use them to get interest, they will not give them as credit but invest them in capital and land.

    Jct: I don’t care what they buy with their money when they can’t loanshark it out anymore. As long as they don’t impede my access to my credit, I don’t care what they use their credits for.

    “Jct: You’re the one who said it’s okay for an owner to sell you his house but not to rent it to you. I think you need to argue this since you’re the one who says one’s but not the other is okay.”

    Db0: 1) It follows from common sense. One cannot be both the owner of a house and be realizing its exchange value at the same time. Rent is simply a social construct which allows someone to have his pie and eat it too and such a social construct can only work via coercion in the environment. As such, the burden of proof is on you to explain why rent is a logical principle when common sense says that only selling should be an option.

    Jct: First, the burden of proof is not on me to explain why I should also work on unfair splashing in the pool. I’m happy busy working on the unfair imbalance in the pumphouse and it’s up to you to convince me that the unfair splashings in the pool also warrant my attention. Surely we can keep working on correcting the malfunction in the pumphouse even though I don’t want to spend time with you trying to correct the unfair flows and shortages in the pool?
    Besides, getting rid of interest gets rid of most rent when everyone can buy on their interest-free credit cards. No one rents a home when they have credit to buy one. And with the house as collateral and only depreciation to cover, renting would be silly. As for renting scarce yachts, scarce machines, scarce equipment, I see no problem with rent to cover depreciation and maintenance, do you? So renting land or housing won’t happen when everyone can afford to buy because there’s no interest on debt to double or triple the eventual bill. So rent, I hope, has been eliminated as a bone of contention. I don’t need to short circuit it because short circuiting the pumphouse imbalance takes care of the shortages in the pool.

    Db0: 2) It allows someone to earn income without working which is a very unfair principle when it’s allowed only for the rich.

    Jct: I’m against unearned income. If you get something for nothing, someone else is getting nothing for something. And that’s stealing, no matter the government agency overseeing it.

    “Jct: You can either borrow chips someone has saved or chips that are newly created. But not both.”

    Db0: Ignoring your rhetorics,

    JCT: You’re talking to the world’s only Professor of Banking Systems Engineering about the Banking Systems Engineering blueprint. Not rhetoric.

    Db0: I don’t see why this applies. If I have saved money, then nothing is preventing me from charging interest for it.

    Jct: Sure, nothing is preventing you from charging interest for it. As long as others can go to the interest-free bank, you can keep trying to find someone to pay you interest as long as you want.

    Db0: If I’m allowed to create money, then nothing is preventing me from charging interest to it.

    Jct: I won’t tell you why you shouldn’t be allowed to create money and charge interest lending it out until you tell me why you should be allowed to create money and charge interest on it.

    “Jct: when I can pledge my stuff at another cage to borrow new chips?”

    Db0: Because as a poor person you don’t have stuff to pledge?

    Jct: As a pauper, I still have my time to pledge.

    Db0: Because I don’t have future work to pledge?

    Jct: You may not think much of the value of your future work but I think highly of the value of my future work.

    “Jct: Because I can’t get chips from the regular bank opens up the way for private loansharking. I just can’t imagine hearing you defending loansharking.

    Db0: I’m not. I’m playing devil’s advocate to show you why it’s inconsistent to be against interest while not against rent and profit.

    Jct: You’ve failed to show me why our attention should be extended to splashing in the pool, especially when I’ve shown you how the rent worry is short-circuited by a fix in the pumphouse. Similarly, the profit worry will be short-circuited by turning off the interest positive feedback on debt too.

    “Jct: No, the people who cleared the land, who built the house, have a right to value if they part with their value.

    Db0: Again you miss the part that those who own the land and capital are not those who did the work for it.

    Jct: They received value from whomever bought it down the line.

    Db0: Furthermore, as you said, they rightly have a right to the exchange value of the land or capital. However rent is not this. It is them realizing the exchange value without parting with the use value. By your own reasoning rent and profit are unfair.

    Jct: This does not convince me to expand my focus from the pumphouse to the splashing in the pool, especially when the rent worry is short-circuited…

    “Jct: It’s only scarce because everyone has to bring back to the pumphouse more liquidity than they took into the financial pool.”

    Db0: No, it’s also scarce because…

    Jct: So you mean “Yes because of the flaw in the pumphouse but it’s also scarce because…

    Db0: those who build stuff retain less than the exchange value they create.

    Jct: And the demand for interest plays a part in that… so short-circuiting the interest short-circuits this worry.

    Db0: It’s also scarce because workers must give away part of their money to landlords.

    Jct: Splashing in the pool…

    Db0: Please cut the rhetorics.

    Jct: http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm isn’t rhetorics.

    Db0: If you’re interested in to learn why Anarchist say that Mutual Banking is not enough, you should read this.
    By: Db0 on September 20 2009

    Jct: Why should I be interested if you haven’t been able to use any of it to convince me here. You think I might stumble onto something that will convince me in the 54-page treatise by people who don’t distinguish between malfunction in the pumphouse and resultant unfair splashing in the pool? You cut and paste if you want to make a point.

  72. Db0 September 21, 2009 at 14:24

    JCT: You’re talking to the world’s only Professor of Banking Systems Engineering about the Banking Systems Engineering blueprint. Not rhetoric

    Ok, I think this is my cue to exit. You’re a nutter. Go rant about your pumps and pools to the other crazies.

  73. KingofthePaupers September 21, 2009 at 18:22

    Jct: I guess I should have continued professing to you without letting you know of my expertise.

  74. Arguing against STV. « Check Your Premises February 12, 2010 at 05:43

    […] the equivocation that STV supporters use when they equate economic value with moral value. Go to my earlier entry for more on that […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: