[Thomson] Both the chicken and the egg are 'wealth', and regardless of which came first, initially a product of Creation's 'natural law'... ----------
The point is that it is a fallacy to say that either comes first. In a continuous process both eggs and chickens are being produced simultaneously. There is a sequence of events to individual loans. For the economy as a whole both loans and loan amortization are occurring simultaneously. It is the difference between "micro" economics and "macro" economics. >From the "macro" perspective it is a fallacy to say that either the granting of the loan or its amortization comes first. Similarly, labor displacement, which increases the profit of the individual entrepreneur who displaces labor. For the economy as a whole the rate of profit must fall because all entrepreneurs are displacing labor. Which means for the economy as a whole income to entrepreneurs is falling commensurately with the fall in wages. But the fall in financial income tracks what should be and is the increase to real wealth, immobilizing the consumption of that real wealth. -- [Thomson] 'Debt' was created by man, and is not 'wealth' ---------- It is a matter of contract. The ability to contract is one of the things that separate us from the animals--why we don't still hang from trees. Debt is a tool that helps us to create and consume wealth. -- [Thomson] The inclusion of time based interest payable regardless of the actual circumstances of the borrower trends towards a monopoly in all those businesses that draw upon it. ---------- The circumstances of the borrower determine if it is paid. If he cannot pay it is not paid. At some point the banker books a loss. Let's say you replace interest with a fee that is neither based on the term of the loan or the credit worthiness of the borrower, say, a fixed percentage of the loan, say, ten percent of the face amount-- paid over the term of loan, whatever that would be. You would pay $1000 on a $10,000 loan, for example. Would you rather pay that over one year, or 50 years? Whose choice would that be? And if you have no intention of repaying or have no prospect of repaying, should you pay the same rate as someone who intends to repay and has every reasonable prospect of having the capability to repay? Should you even get the loan? Who would make that determination? Let's say it's a flat fee regardless of the amount of the loan, for example, $1000. Why borrow just $10,000--why not borrow a million? And if the time factor is irrelevant, why not string out the repayment over a million years? ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
