Real money vs debt, and the value of bitcoin. (Mitchell-Innes credit theory)

[mirelo]

Owing labor is just owing the exchange value of the expected product of that labor. In today's labor market, this gets obscured by the standard labor-time interval. However, that interval merely standardizes the time required in producing a monetary value: once you consistently don't deliver in time, you get fired.

In feudal times, lords had an obligation to provide their own military service, and that of a set number of their serfs, when called upon by the King.
It wasn't until much later that they had the option of providing money instead, to buy themselves out of that service.
The debt of labour came first, the monetary equivalent much later.

You are mistaking the concrete form in which the King accepted its payment with the absence of its monetary expression (even if we both know the monetary value of your debt with me, I can choose not to accept its payment with money). If that monetary expression were absent, then this "owing" was not a debt (in the sense of owing the monetary value of something rather than just its concrete objectivity).

[1714950222]

1714950222

[murraypaul]

You are just defining yourself as being right.

[mirelo]

You are just defining yourself as being right.

You must be more specific.

[Zarathustra]

Organized violence (complicity of priests and militant chieftains - aka patriarchy and state) was established 10'000 years ago. That startet collectivism, market, money etc. and ended the anarchy, the self-sufficiency of mankind.

Money originates from the problems presented by direct exchange, as I already showed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=298681.msg3203857#msg3203857. Although a private group can partially control it, money originates from the market.

You are 'showing' science fiction. Visit the self-sufficient, stateless communities in the rainforest and ask about money.
No tax - no money (contract debt), which is a derivative of the tax (enforced debt), which is a derivative of the weapon.

[mirelo]

Organized violence (complicity of priests and militant chieftains - aka patriarchy and state) was established 10'000 years ago. That startet collectivism, market, money etc. and ended the anarchy, the self-sufficiency of mankind.

Money originates from the problems presented by direct exchange, as I already showed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=298681.msg3203857#msg3203857. Although a private group can partially control it, money originates from the market.

You are 'showing' science fiction. Visit the self-sufficient, stateless communities in the rainforest and ask about money.
No tax - no money (contract debt), which is a derivative of the tax (enforced debt), which is a derivative of the weapon.

The communities to which you refer hardly have any need for money. As I showed before (please read this: http://omniequivalence.com/money-as-multiequivalence/), money arises from a concrete need, namely to make possible for different owners of different commodities to exchange them no matter in which configuration (one situation in which money has historically arisen was in exchanges between different communities).

Although I understand your passionate revolt against present oppression, you must be careful to avoid generalizing your particular predicament to all historical times. Trying to solve the problems of society by eliminating money is like trying to solve your problems by shooting your own head (no doubt it would have some effectiveness, but I suspect this is not exactly what we want).

[johnyj]

People had the need to exchange different products, but to reach that goal, they must find something that everyone want and accept as payment medium, so grain has been used as money for some time. But grain can not hold value for a long time, finally it is fixed on gold. Fiat money's value mostly come from the government's power, but ironically the government is not the beneficiary of fiat money

[mirelo]

People had the need to exchange different products, but to reach that goal, they must find something that everyone want and accept as payment medium, so grain has been used as money for some time. But grain can not hold value for a long time, finally it is fixed on gold. Fiat money's value mostly come from the government's power, but ironically the government is not the beneficiary of fiat money

No, it is the beneficiary of inflation (the expression "fiat money" is not a good one given its myriad of different meanings).

[Zarathustra]

Organized violence (complicity of priests and militant chieftains - aka patriarchy and state) was established 10'000 years ago. That startet collectivism, market, money etc. and ended the anarchy, the self-sufficiency of mankind.

Money originates from the problems presented by direct exchange, as I already showed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=298681.msg3203857#msg3203857. Although a private group can partially control it, money originates from the market.

You are 'showing' science fiction. Visit the self-sufficient, stateless communities in the rainforest and ask about money.
No tax - no money (contract debt), which is a derivative of the tax (enforced debt), which is a derivative of the weapon.

The communities to which you refer hardly have any need for money. As I showed before (please read this: http://omniequivalence.com/money-as-multiequivalence/), money arises from a concrete need, namely to make possible for different owners of different commodities to exchange them no matter in which configuration (one situation in which money has historically arisen was in exchanges between different communities).

Yes, of course do the stateless communities not have any need for money. This need arises as soon as the communities are being confiscated by militarists and priests (aka the state mafia) and enforced to pay tax (protection money).

Patriarchy = state mafia, citizens (protection money paying slaves), business, markets, organized violence.
Anarchy = self-sufficiency of humans

[ronimacarroni]

Okay zarathustra, I'm going to play along.
Lets say there is no military or police to protect people's property, no foreign threat and everyone has a cow, a bull, a pair of chicken and seeds to start off their self sufficient lives.
What happens next.

[mirelo]

Organized violence (complicity of priests and militant chieftains - aka patriarchy and state) was established 10'000 years ago. That startet collectivism, market, money etc. and ended the anarchy, the self-sufficiency of mankind.

Money originates from the problems presented by direct exchange, as I already showed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=298681.msg3203857#msg3203857. Although a private group can partially control it, money originates from the market.

You are 'showing' science fiction. Visit the self-sufficient, stateless communities in the rainforest and ask about money.
No tax - no money (contract debt), which is a derivative of the tax (enforced debt), which is a derivative of the weapon.

The communities to which you refer hardly have any need for money. As I showed before (please read this: http://omniequivalence.com/money-as-multiequivalence/), money arises from a concrete need, namely to make possible for different owners of different commodities to exchange them no matter in which configuration (one situation in which money has historically arisen was in exchanges between different communities).

Yes, of course do the stateless communities not have any need for money. This need arises as soon as the communities are being confiscated by militarists and priests (aka the state mafia) and enforced to pay tax (protection money).

Patriarchy = state mafia, citizens (protection money paying slaves), business, markets, organized violence.
Anarchy = self-sufficiency of humans

Please consider the following problem.

Let us imagine three owners A, B, and C of commodities x, y, and z, respectively, of whom A wants y, B wants z, and C wants x.

How would you make that exchange possible?

[Adrian-x]

People had the need to exchange different products, but to reach that goal, they must find something that everyone want and accept as payment medium, so grain has been used as money for some time. But grain can not hold value for a long time, finally it is fixed on gold. Fiat money's value mostly come from the government's power, but ironically the government is not the beneficiary of fiat money

To this point Adam Smith illustrates how wheat  corn is invested in labour to mine metals, over time the least corrosive being most valuable. This value then reflects stored labour and provides utility that increases productivity. These metals leverage ones ability to be both more productive and destructive. Plunder and stealing then create a chain reaction for a Mafia state to protect plunder and grow,  

While mirelo insight has been thorough and concise there is anthropological evidence to suggest that money doesn't logically evolve from barter. I think it may be a little premature to rule out that money is a meme that evolved as trust broke down and as Mafia state developed.

The one thing Bitcoin does is it removes the fiscal ability to steel it through violent force and having lots of it doesn't allow you to forge weapons, you need to engage in cooperative and mutually beneficial interaction to leverage the benefits. Not to mention participation is voluntary.

It is the first step in curing our collective insanity.  

[Adrian-x]

Let us imagine three owners A, B, and C of commodities x, y, and z, respectively, of whom A wants y, B wants z, and C wants x.

How would you make that exchange possible?
[/quote]

It isn't possible once a community grows parts a size where a social network of trust no longer functions.

This idea doesn't conflict with the regression theory of money, it just adds some specialized anthropological insight into when and how it started.

There was a paper also written by someone at the world bank (or the FED) who defined the need for money purely as a trust phenomenon, helped me understand the claim money doesn't evolve from barter. 

[pinnpe]

The thing with an debt based currency is you always loose, when people eventually get tired of loosing.....

There is a modern currency with real value, it's called "CrowdFunding" one can start her/his company and give supporters
premium products @ no extra cost. Crowdfunding is valuable because you create communities/companies/commodities
"Triple C, for the Rick Ross readers among us" anywho. This even goes beyond the borders of trust, because there is
LOVE, Love in the community (people can relate to eachother), Love in/for the company (because their customers/company
is there everything), Love for the commodity (If you create an extremely durable product (good example Dyson) even if it
eventually breaksdown, they will buy a new one of the exact same brand, because the product was so good.
Planned obsolescence is only an invitation to NEVER use your product again. In the past the use to make products that
could last FOREVER and now those products are returning.

For me personally Bitcoin is valuable because:
- Unlimited amounts of national/international transfers @ a low costs
- Inflation proof
- Solid crypto
- Decentralized/ on my computer/ I can back it up
(or trust in the ability to sell bitcoin at a certain price) Bitcoins can function without fiat currency, like community currencies
did for centuries, it's only when you pay tax that they play a role if a community choose to.
- YOU CAN BUY DRUGS WITHIT AND NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT BS ABOUT FIGHTING A DRUGWAR.

Some people jerk off to this everyday "Let 1 Bitcoins be worth 1 million dollar", I don't really care what the fiat price is, as
long as I can transfer it from A to B, without any BS I'm ok with it. Infact what would ABSOLUTELY make it more valuable
is if it is less volatile. Less volatility makes it like fiat currencies, which ordinary people and companies trust.

[Zarathustra]

Okay zarathustra, I'm going to play along.
Lets say there is no military or police to protect people's property, no foreign threat and everyone has a cow, a bull, a pair of chicken and seeds to start off their self sufficient lives.
What happens next.

As soon as some people started to enslave animals and to treat them as a property, they startet to enslave humans and treat them as a property as well. It is the same, and therefore the same problem: Submissive, violent and slavish moral. As long as a majority of the citizens and consumers accept this kind of 'human' being, as long they will have organised violence against themselves and against others.

[Zarathustra]

Please consider the following problem.

Let us imagine three owners A, B, and C of commodities x, y, and z, respectively, of whom A wants y, B wants z, and C wants x.

How would you make that exchange possible?

In a stateless community, you won't find 3 different owners of commodities.

[mirelo]

Please consider the following problem.

Let us imagine three owners A, B, and C of commodities x, y, and z, respectively, of whom A wants y, B wants z, and C wants x.

How would you make that exchange possible?

In a stateless community, you won't find 3 different owners of commodities.

Sorry, but in exactly which way the social division of labor and its corresponding notion of private property would depend on the state?

[mirelo]

Okay zarathustra, I'm going to play along.
Lets say there is no military or police to protect people's property, no foreign threat and everyone has a cow, a bull, a pair of chicken and seeds to start off their self sufficient lives.
What happens next.

As soon as some people started to enslave animals and to treat them as a property, they startet to enslave humans and treat them as a property as well. It is the same, and therefore the same problem: Submissive, violent and slavish moral. As long as a majority of the citizens and consumers accept this kind of 'human' being, as long they will have organised violence against themselves and against others.

You made no single mention to money (I guess this is not your subject after all).

[mirelo]

There was a paper also written by someone at the world bank (or the FED) who defined the need for money purely as a trust phenomenon, helped me understand the claim money doesn't evolve from barter. 

Money requires trust, not conversely. While exchange cannot evolve without money.

[johnyj]

People had the need to exchange different products, but to reach that goal, they must find something that everyone want and accept as payment medium, so grain has been used as money for some time. But grain can not hold value for a long time, finally it is fixed on gold. Fiat money's value mostly come from the government's power, but ironically the government is not the beneficiary of fiat money

No, it is the beneficiary of inflation (the expression "fiat money" is not a good one given its myriad of different meanings).

The government do not benefit since it just accumulated larger and larger debt, owed to the central bank. Back to the simple question: Who owns the FED? Who get the ownership of newly created money? (If the government own the FED, they won't have that debt. If FED do not have the ownership of the money, they can't use it to purchase anything)

People always scared about hyperinflation (which causes 10% loss of their work), but they don't care that someone taking the ownership of all the money(which means they lose 100% of their work), this is the most absurd thing I can think of

[mirelo]

People had the need to exchange different products, but to reach that goal, they must find something that everyone want and accept as payment medium, so grain has been used as money for some time. But grain can not hold value for a long time, finally it is fixed on gold. Fiat money's value mostly come from the government's power, but ironically the government is not the beneficiary of fiat money

No, it is the beneficiary of inflation (the expression "fiat money" is not a good one given its myriad of different meanings).

The government do not benefit since it just accumulated larger and larger debt, owed to the central bank.

That debt is money, so more debt means less valuable money. The government benefits because it spends the money before it can affect the social perception of the resulting, expanded money supply. This is how inflation transfers monetary value from the already existing money to the newly created one, hence from you to the FED-government partnership.

Back to the simple question: Who owns the FED?

Suppose the airway companies form a cartel, which the government enforce by law. Then, who owns that cartel?

Who get the ownership of newly created money? (If the government own the FED, they won't have that debt. If FED do not have the ownership of the money, they can't use it to purchase anything)

People always scared about hyperinflation (which causes 10% loss of their work), but they don't care that someone taking the ownership of all the money(which means they lose 100% of their work), this is the most absurd thing I can think of

The FED creates money by loaning it to the government. A citizen of the USA holding that money then holds a debt that citizen's government has with the FED, hence partially a debt that same citizen has with the FED (at the same time, the expansion of such a debt makes money less and less valuable, so citizens are less and less able to pay their growing debt with the FED).