Representational Monetary Identity

[Carlton Banks]

Hmmm, it:

-argues with just about everything anyone says
-contradicts it's own previous arguments in order to promote further arguments
-agrees with nothing but it's own self-validating statements
-is relentless in pursuit of arguments

My brain can't be working properly today, as I'm sure there's one-word expression for this type of online behaviour. What could it be?

[mirelo]

Hmmm, it:

-argues with just about everything anyone says
-contradicts it's own previous arguments in order to promote further arguments
-agrees with nothing but it's own self-validating statements
-is relentless in pursuit of arguments

My brain can't be working properly today, as I'm sure there's one-word expression for this type of online behaviour. What could it be?

Would it not be "personally-attacking-anyone-whose-actual-points-you-are-unable-to-invalidate"? There indeed should be a single word for that since it is one of the oldest behaviors, both on- and offline.

Just remembering my point at /index.php?topic=144650.msg2860192#msg2860192, the mistaking of money for wealth (for assets) and of debt for money are the same, and both result from representational monetary identity.

[kwilliams]

Wealth is claim on labor. Having assets or cash does not automatically make you wealthy (you are merely considered “rich”) – the ability to use these to consistently extract labor - does. Money is not a claim on wealth – far from it. Example: having a profitable business backed by a powerful lobby is wealth. Your money has no claim on such wealth unless it’s for sale. Even then only the “the assets” are sold (factory, office, bank account,etc). What is not sold are the political connections, family ties, ethno-cultural identity etc. These make a big difference in a bailout-driven business model.

There used to be times when wealth was simple to recognize. The claim on labor was direct (slavery, serfdom, etc). This is now replaced with a more indirect system, involving several layers of indirection between the claim and the owner. The results are nevertheless the same - you work for other people more than they do it for you. What you put in is less that what you get. That difference is the wealth.

As for money - you are right in general that both liabilities and assets can be used as money. However not every asset has to be tied to liability (example - a gold coin in your hand is an asset with no liability). The evilness of the banks is that with a stroke of a pen they can create both an asset and a liability and make money on both while maintaining their books perfectly balanced - as long as the paper they create is considered "money"

[mirelo]

Wealth is claim on labor.

Wealth is food, clothes, a house, a car. Money is not wealth, but rather a claim on it.

Having assets or cash does not automatically make you wealthy (you are merely considered “rich”) – the ability to use these to consistently extract labor - does.

Having assets is to own useful things, not for the sake of their utility, but rather for the sake of their monetary value. Then, it is the same as having money. So you are correct: this does not make you "wealthy" (you have no "wealth"), but only "rich" (you have money or something of monetary value, with which you can buy wealth).

However, being able to "extract labor" makes you a capital owner, not necessarily a wealthy person. Usually capital owners are also wealthy (they usually have good clothes, good cars, good houses, etc), but having capital is to have the means of producing new wealth and control over the workers needed to produce it. It is like having money since both can give you access to wealth that does not yet exist.

Money is not a claim on wealth – far from it.

Money being a claim on wealth simply means that it can buy useful products of labor (wealth).

Example: having a profitable business backed by a powerful lobby is wealth.

Again, that is being a capital owner. People can be wealthy without having capital, by working for money and buying the useful products of their own work and those of the work of other people.

Your money has no claim on this business unless it’s for sale. Even if it’s for sale, you only get “the assets” (factory, office, bank account,etc). What you don’t get: political connections, family ties, ethno-cultural belonging etc. In a bailout ridden environment that’s all the difference between success and failure.

You are confusing between wealth and capital. Wealth is any useful product of labor while capital is a social form of producing wealth (other such forms are servitude, slavery, etc). The "political connections, family ties, ethno-cultural belonging etc" belong to the social form of production - not to the wealth it produces.

Also - since direct claim on labor has been outlawed (slavery) - the system has to be indirect and involving a number of people. When your house, car, supermarket, office, school etc are owned by a small & well connected group – you have no choice but to surrender your labor to them, no matter how much money you have in their bank.

Both slavery and capital are claims on the workers themselves, and not on labor (this is one of Marx's mistakes). The difference is that slavery is an absolute, unlimited claim on workers while capital is a relative, limited one (limited in both time and form). Money can be a claim on capital by being a claim on workers along with the means they need for producing new wealth, or it can be just a claim on wealth directly.

[kwilliams]

Wealth is food, clothes, a house, a car. Money is not wealth, but rather a claim on it.

Yes, money is not wealth on that we agree. However I doubt that owning clothes, car & house truly represents wealth. Say a slave owns his machete & shack - is he wealthier that the one which does not (but has them just the same)? If your boss wants you there 8:00 AM sharp and for that you maintain a house near his factory & have to own a car - are these signs of your wealth? Again, (modern) money aint claim a thing. It used to be claim on gold but not anymore. Most people may volunteer to exchange their goods or services for your money but they don't have to.

However, being able to "extract labor" makes you a capital owner ...  having capital is to have the means of producing new wealth and control over the workers needed to produce it

You are absolutely right that capital is about control over workers. However the wealth is not the material outcome but rather the very process by which part of the output is directed towards certain people's needs. For example the daily output of an armaments factory does not represent wealth. But the process by which your can be consistently made to build bombs for the benefit of a tiny ME country & its supporters is wealth.

Money being a claim on wealth simply means that it can buy useful products of labor (wealth).

Ditto, consumer goods are not wealth. In fact many are waste.

People can be wealthy without having capital

Damn right. the Kennedy's, the Bush's, the Clinton's - they are all wealthy without owning much capital. So are countless top-level state bureaucrats who could direct the effort of millions to their own benefit. Hence they are wealthy.

..., by working for money and buying the useful products of their own work and those of the work of other people.

It's true that everyone works. And this is the genius of the system: I work for 8 hours and make $200. Some political pundit earns the same in 10 min explaining on CNN the brilliancy of certain BofA, whose chairman makes $25K/ day and which acts in the interest of an lobby of the top 2% of the us population. I don't agree but I have to pay my mortgage to that institution just the same (claim on labor). So does the pundit. The BofA chairman also works - he makes bets with our money on all kinds of things. When he's right - he gets a bonus. When he's wrong - he gets a bailout with my taxes. Now I have to work extra hard because the school got de-funded and I need to put my kids in a private one which is expensive. And I learn that the private school principal & the BofA chairman share the same culinary taste - what a coincidence!

[mirelo]

Wealth is food, clothes, a house, a car. Money is not wealth, but rather a claim on it.

Yes, money is not wealth on that we agree. However I doubt that owning clothes, car & house truly represents wealth. Say a slave owns his machete & shack - is he wealthier that the one which does not (but has them just the same)? If your boss wants you there 8:00 AM sharp and for that you maintain a house near his factory & have to own a car - are these signs of your wealth?

You do not simply sell yourself to your boss; you rent yourself to him. During the day of work, when he owns you, you cannot enjoy your wealth without his permission, so it does not belong to you without also belonging to him. After that, or when in vacation, you can freely enjoy your wealth, so it belongs to just you. In other words, your wealth only belongs to just you during the time you do not belong to your boss.

Again, (modern) money aint claim a thing. It used to be claim on gold but not anymore. Most people may volunteer to exchange their goods or services for your money but they don't have to.

Before 1971, dollars were legally a proxy representation of gold. You can say they were a "claim" on gold as long as you remember that both were money: gold was directly money while dollars were just indirectly so. However, although now money is purely debt, it still is a claim on wealth, just as it was before (when people talk about the collapse of the dollar, they are precisely talking about the day the dollar will no longer be a claim on wealth).

However, being able to "extract labor" makes you a capital owner ...  having capital is to have the means of producing new wealth and control over the workers needed to produce it

You are absolutely right that capital is about control over workers. However the wealth is not the material outcome but rather the very process by which part of the output is directed towards certain people's needs. For example the daily output of an armaments factory does not represent wealth. But the process by which your can be consistently made to build bombs for the benefit of a tiny ME country & its supporters is wealth.

Wealth is a useful product of labor. So the means of production (machines, commodity resources, etc), which are indirectly useful products of labor (they are useful in producing useful things), are also wealth. However, the process of production itself is not wealth: it remains the process by which the means of production become wealth.

Money being a claim on wealth simply means that it can buy useful products of labor (wealth).

Ditto, consumer goods are not wealth. In fact many are waste.

A consumer good may be useless to you, but if somebody else regards it as useful (even if you disagree), then it is a useful product of labor, which is the very definition of wealth.

People can be wealthy without having capital

Damn right. the Kennedy's, the Bush's, the Clinton's - they are all wealthy without owning much capital. So are countless top-level state bureaucrats who could direct the effort of millions to their own benefit. Hence they are wealthy.

Nobody has to be a Kennedy to be wealthy. Even if I am far less wealthy than the Kennedys were, I am still wealthy.

..., by working for money and buying the useful products of their own work and those of the work of other people.

It's true that everyone works. And this is the genius of the system: I work for 8 hours and make $200. Some political pundit earns the same in 10 min explaining on CNN the brilliancy of certain BofA, whose chairman makes $25K/ day and which acts in the interest of an lobby of the top 2% of the us population. I don't agree but I have to pay my mortgage to that institution just the same (claim on labor). So does the pundit. The BofA chairman also works - he makes bets with our money on all kinds of things. When he's right - he gets a bonus. When he's wrong - he gets a bailout with my taxes. Now I have to work extra hard because the school got de-funded and I need to put my kids in a private one which is expensive. And I learn that the private school principal & the BofA chairman share the same culinary taste - what a coincidence!

Now you talk about a "claim on labor" to mean a different thing: a claim on the money you earned with your labor. The fundamental problem with this system - of which the scenario you described is a late consequence - is that the public aspect of money has been long privatized: money has long become debt. For decades now, this has concentrated money (which is ultimately power) in the very few hands of the so-called 1%, and will continue to do so as long as money remains a form of debt.

[kwilliams]

I concede you may have a point. Looks like I have to re-examine my definitions on wealth & labor

[mirelo]

I concede you may have a point. Looks like I have to re-examine my definitions on wealth & labor

I am glad you came to that view.

However, your conceptions of wealth and labor are not where I see the fundamental problem. The dominant form of money today confuses it with its representation, which indeed corrupts the concepts of wealth and labor, but only after corrupting the general concept of money by turning it into debt and greed. Bitcoin solves that problem because it finally distinguishes money from its representation. I investigated that issue here: http://omniequivalence.com/representational-monetary-identity/.

[johnyj]

Money is not debt if you never borrow, gold for example is never created out of debt

Blending credit into the picture will confuse most of the people's logic thus disguise what really happened behind the scene, so far this practice has been successful in fooling majority of people

Credit is actually a very complex concept including several changes in ownership (ownership itself is even a more complicated concept), after several times back and forth changing of ownership, most of the people get lost

[mirelo]

Money is not debt if you never borrow, gold for example is never created out of debt

Sheer gold is only money when it represents that money, so even if we could create the metal (instead of mining it), it would not necessarily be money. For example, gold was not money for the Aztecs decimated by Cortes. Thus, despite money always being a social creation, the object representing it is not: unlike dollars and bitcoins, monetary gold is a form of money of which the representing object itself is not a social creation. Finally, we can borrow money without turning it into debt: for example, I could borrow bitcoins. Money can only become debt when mistaken by its representation.

Blending credit into the picture will confuse most of the people's logic thus disguise what really happened behind the scene, so far this practice has been successful in fooling majority of people

The confusion between debt and money already happens "behind the scene." However, what confuses people is a form of monetary representation: it makes them confuse itself with money. This is part of what makes the confusion between debt and money possible.

Credit is actually a very complex concept including several changes in ownership (ownership itself is even a more complicated concept), after several times back and forth changing of ownership, most of the people get lost

The problem is not credit, but rather its confusion with the money on which it depends, which in turn results from the confusion between that money and its representation (representational monetary identity).

[kwilliams]

So what is money if not it’s representation in paper or metal? I find the idea that there’s some pure form of money distinct from any material representation a bit superficial.

[mirelo]

So what is money if not it’s representation in paper or metal? I find the idea that there’s some pure form of money distinct from any material representation a bit superficial.

You are absolutely correct: as no monetary representation can exist without money, conversely money cannot exist without its representation - distinction is not independence.

Consequently, different forms of money are merely different monetary representations.

[mirelo]

The money I have in my (physical) wallet consists in paper notes, or bank notes. These notes have a monetary value, which belongs to me. However, the notes themselves do not belong to me (so I have no right to destroy them). They are public: they belong to society. While their monetary value is private: it belongs to me or else to whoever controls its representing notes.

It is precisely this monetary value - of the notes I have in my (physical) wallet - that constitutes money as distinct from its representation. It is just an abstraction - despite a social one - unlike the notes that represent it. Still, without this abstraction, its representing notes would have no monetary value.