|
Happy New Years to you, too, Tim, and everyone else on the
List.
(Tim Carpenter wrote:-) If people work for
themselves ‘for nothing’ then put an item on the market for a price, then we
have a separate situation where new channels for spending exists and have to
compete, and what we end up with right now is the creation of more debt to pay
for it.
(Joe asks:-) If you worked 'for nothing'
and put an item on the market for a price, and someone spends and gives you
your price, is it not true that all that has happened is that you now have
some 'money' equivalent to your 'price' and the buyer now has your
item? Far from there being a necessity to create 'more debt' to
pay for it, would you not, if anything, possibly just have increased the
purchasing power of each unit of money in existence? Is it not so
that if you have produced an item 'for nothing', it has no 'cost' (in
money that originated as a debt to a bank), and therefore no money
'cost' in respect of your item exists to be liquidated out of the price
you've received?
(Tim continues:-) National Dividend is eventually destroyed when
the asset is destroyed/rendered worthless (according to some
interpretations)
Debt is destroyed when it is repaid.
(Joe replies:-) Debt is destroyed when
repaid. The ND allows debt in its totality in the relevant
accounting cycle to be fully liquidated without engaging in some of
the financial perversions we presently have to go through to try to do
that. In your example no debt was incurred, so none need be
liquidated. You've simply transferred some goods, and perhaps, though
probably not noticeably, altered the ratio between goods in existence and
money in existence. There are now more goods. But the same
amount of money. Which might, but in most cases such as we're
considering here, probably won't allow each pound, or dollar,
or whatever, to buy more
(Tim continues:) If I work
for myself for free and create a product then the ND is increased to allow
people to buy it. The ND is then destroyed once the results of that labour are
no longer an asset.
(Joe replies:-) No. The purpose of the ND is
quite different.
(Tim continues:-) In both cases money is
created and then destroyed. The timing is different. The distribution is
different. The control is different.
(Joe replies:-) If you produced 'for nothing',
NO 'money' was ever created by a bank in respect of your
product. And no 'money' will be destroyed when, or if, you get your
price for it. Certainly not through your repayment to the
bank of that which you never borrowed.. Whether you get that price
or not depends on whether anyone is willing to exchange money they have got
from someone else for it. Money which most probably did originate
as 'debt' at sometime past, but really has nothing to do with the 'cost' of
your product, which is monetarily 'costless' even though it is no doubt an
'asset' to which you can attach a 'price value' expressed in
money.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
