Re: Venture Communism
From: Quirk (quirk_at_syntac.net)
Date: 08/13/04
- Next message: Lantern: "Re: Seigniorage, Who, What, Why"
- Previous message: Quirk: "Re: what's wrong with eastern germans?"
- In reply to: Gary Forbis: "Re: Venture Communism"
- Next in thread: polar bear: "Re: Venture Communism"
- Reply: polar bear: "Re: Venture Communism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 13 Aug 2004 12:42:01 -0700
> > Perhaps enough utility to justify the service charges they collect,
> > but certainly not enough utility to justify the total Rent on the
> > economy collected via the entire Privatised Fractional Reserve and
> > Interest system.
> If it weren't so monopolistic or the regulators were more altruistic
> the rent would go down. I don't know how to calculate the value
> of a well regulated money supply.
Interesting, do you have a theory as to how it could be less
monopolistic?
I cant think of any scheme that doesn't involve commodity money, i.e.
the Gold Standard, that would be less monopolistic and yet not prone
to huge bank collapses and inflationary pressure.
I would be very interested in such a scheme though, as it would fit
into Venture Communism perfectly.
> As you said there are other financial instruments.
Although most of them represent some other kind of capital or
commidity (shares, futures) or debt (bonds).
Money is neither a certificate of ownership in some other asset, nor
is it a certificate of debt, it is legal tender, this seems to me to
be fairly unique.
> > > I classify all loans and money and bank balances as financial capital.
> >
> > Ok, since any of these can be used to pay Taxes, this all follows the
> > State Theory, but what about less liquid "Financial Capital?" Isn't
> > more usefull to distinguish between a share certificate, equity in a
> > house, and a dollar bill?
>
> I don't see any difference except in liquidity. Ownership is just
> financial capital.
But isn't liquidity a //major difference// since liquid money competes
for factors of production, and the other intruments must be made
liquid first. Thus the money supply is the supply of liquid money.
Am I missunderstanding something?
> The interesting thing about corporate bonds and share certificates
> is these financial instruments aren't issued by the federal reserve.
> This seems to be a substantial evidence the rent paid to the Federal
> Reserve system is in fact justified, given the monopolistic nature
> of the FRS. As I said earlier, I don't know if the stability in the
> value of the liquid financial capital justifies the monopoly.
But wouldn"t the money be just as stable if the FRS was a mutualized
or publicly owned institution, rather than a private organisation.
Wouldn't the same be true of the Banks?
- Next message: Lantern: "Re: Seigniorage, Who, What, Why"
- Previous message: Quirk: "Re: what's wrong with eastern germans?"
- In reply to: Gary Forbis: "Re: Venture Communism"
- Next in thread: polar bear: "Re: Venture Communism"
- Reply: polar bear: "Re: Venture Communism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
