tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post7601816021796320462..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: Usury: Wealth Without Work and Why it MattersJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-90462531744829424592008-10-21T12:49:00.000-05:002008-10-21T12:49:00.000-05:00On use of money vs tally sticks:"Once we grasp mon...On use of money vs tally sticks:<BR/><BR/>"Once we grasp money as an accounting system, we understand immediately why any medium will do, why tally sticks work as well (if not better) than gold coins: the tally stick can be created whenever a new product is created, and marked whenever it is sold, over whatever period of time it takes to pay for the product."<BR/><BR/>That already exists in terms of the account kept by companies who sell on credit. The advantage of coins and bills is that they are a very <B>decentralised</B> accounting system. A beggar can get a coin by someone else's generosity and then use it as freely as anyone else who would have had that coin. Not to mention that coins are practical with automata. They are also much less sensitive to technical disturbance than sophisticated means like computer chips.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-92184060339976152142008-10-01T11:17:00.000-05:002008-10-01T11:17:00.000-05:00"To put it in concrete terms, if I lend a farmer a..."To put it in concrete terms, if I lend a farmer a supply of seed corn to plant a crop, I have a claim on some portion of that crop. Likewise, if I lend him the money to buy the seed corn, I have exactly the same claim; the money merely “stands for” the actual seed corn, and the claim is identical. In such a case, there is no case of usury. But suppose there is no crop. Suppose that wind and weather combine to cause a crop failure. What claim do I have? None that I can see. Like the farmer, I took a risk and like the farmer I take a loss; the failure of the crop dissolves all claims. To demand a payment would be to take a share of what did not happen. I may demand he return the property he borrowed, if that is possible, but I cannot demand he share of a profit that doesn't exist."<BR/><BR/>If you have not agreed beforehand to demand less than the sum lent if he gets no crop - why should you get more if he gets one?<BR/><BR/>Either your claim follows his luck or lack of luck, or not. If you can (in the terms of the contract) claim back all of it even if he gets no crop, you can (in good justice) claim no more if he gets one. A loan claim is different from a shareholder's claim. "Loans for someone who takes a risk, sharing his risk" is an old concept for shareholding - only implying that there were no dividends until the share was bought back.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-81152379858567138302008-10-01T11:10:00.000-05:002008-10-01T11:10:00.000-05:00ps:"the cobbler receives a number of shoes proport...ps:<BR/><BR/>"the cobbler receives a number of shoes proportional to his contribution to the production process, while the carpenter receives a certain number of tables and chairs."<BR/><BR/>This of course refers to when they have produced before they sell. In that moment each (except paid workers or slaves) has got exactly as much of his products as he has produced. In old Athens, cobblers and carpenters were not paid workers, but independent artisans.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-71612928228139472712008-10-01T11:05:00.000-05:002008-10-01T11:05:00.000-05:00the exact number of shoes per house may be difficu...the exact number of shoes per house may be difficult to assess<BR/><BR/>however:<BR/>- how long does it last/how soon must it be replaced?<BR/>- how many persons can use it at the same time?<BR/><BR/>consumibles like food and drink are accordingly cheapest, since they are needed each day - add money to them<BR/><BR/>things which are worn out in one year (shoes, trousers) and worn by one person should be cheaper than things used for many years and by more than one in same instant (tandem bikes, cars, vans, houses)<BR/><BR/>things used in production (from pencils on the short-lasting and personal to fields on the collective and longlasting end) are usually needed by specialists and therefore of greater value than things like the ones named used only for oneself and therefore by everyone<BR/><BR/>fortunately there is often a rough equilibrium between the work needed to produce a thing and the value as sketched above: but things produced indecidedly smaller quantities (like Russian caviare) or with greater difficulty/geographic rarity (salt) are dearer than things otherwise like it, which is why both work hours (marxist theory) and supply and demand (liberal theory) have a semblance to truth and are at least partially trueHans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-5377964330223592008-09-26T22:59:00.000-05:002008-09-26T22:59:00.000-05:00Why isn't Paulson getting down on one knee before ...Why isn't Paulson getting down on one knee before <EM>you</EM>? That's what we need!Athanasiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11857043218277004727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-9996054872953189442008-09-25T18:18:00.000-05:002008-09-25T18:18:00.000-05:00God bless you, Mr. Médaille. Would to God that the...God bless you, Mr. Médaille. Would to God that the understanding of these matters might sink into some minds and the course our country is taking be corrected. The enormous injustices caused by the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking outweigh everything; yet all the so-called "social justice" organizations and activists seem to studiously avoid weighing these realities and acting upon them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-26403248420412457182008-09-24T22:30:00.000-05:002008-09-24T22:30:00.000-05:00Sept7, You have put your finger on the entire prob...Sept7, You have put your finger on the entire problem with Austrian "economics." I put the word in quotes because Austrianism cannot be economics. Econ is a <I>practical</I> science, a science of material relationships, while the Austrians treat it as a <I>speculative</I> science, a science of formal relationships. Speculative sciences deal with formal relations only, with statements in the form of "If A > B, and B > C, than A > C." <BR/><BR/>Their whole "science" is based on a basic mistake about science, and all the difficulties flow from this basic misunderstanding. <BR/><BR/>Question, "Can autonomous self-interest really describe a women in labor?"<BR/><BR/>Sarsfield, thank-you. If I were giving this talk to the idiots on Wall Street, either they wouldn't be idiots or they wouldn't be on Wall St.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-46166387859777406462008-09-24T20:32:00.000-05:002008-09-24T20:32:00.000-05:00Quote: "unconditionally valid for all beings endow...Quote: "unconditionally valid for all beings endowed with the logical structure of the human mind.”3<BR/><BR/>This quote alone prove Mises doesn't know a thing about the classical conception of science. Science isn't based on logic, a priori assumptions, and even empirical observations but by going beyond the logic paradoxes of observed reality and finding a new conception of a greater reality. True Science is about using logical paradoxes as a tool not logic. That's how we know Atomic Theory for example. <BR/><BR/>As for the logical structure of human mind many of the assumptions of Mises and the 18th century Liberals are being testing by Cognitive neuroscience and shown that our brain cannot in fact work on the apriori assumptions of Praxeology but instead the social "frame" exists prior to the individualist "frame." <BR/><BR/>That means one cannot physically conceive of one's self interest without a prior social empathy circuit being fired and creating the frame in which self interest is measured. <BR/><BR/>I.e. humans cannot physically behave in terms of autonomous self interest and be functional human beings for example stroke victim often lose their ability to empathize and communicate and as result they are unable to make good decisions for themselves. They have all their logic and self awareness parts of the brain working but they can't function without the emotional and empathic parts functioning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com