critique of loon theories around banking/money creation/the federal reserve

[frogwoman]

No capitalist qua capitalist is directly engaged in production. So by your own definition, they're all usurers.

And so you are hoist by your own petard.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Usury is lending people money at interest, capitalism is paying people wages after they've done the work. Employers don't lend workers money at interest ffs! They pay them part of the surplus value they've produced and keep the majority for themselves.

Capitalism is not usury.

 

[SpineyNorman]

No capitalist qua capitalist is directly engaged in production. So by your own definition, they're all usurers.

And so you are hoist by your own petard.

Yes they are - they're employing their capital productively.

I can see I'm going to have to type really slowly if I'm to get you to understand this. We'll start with the really easy part - even you should be able to get it if you really concentrate:

Do you understand that there is a difference between lending money for interest and purchasing wage labour and means of production to produce a new commodity for sale at a profit?

I'm off to bed now but I suggest you read this for homework prof.

 

[JimW]

Missed your edit - don't know about the Han, will have to check, but as I've said there was certainly criticism of usury in the sense of excessive interest in later periods, but absolutely no theoretical or theological objection to interest per se in the orthodoxy AFAIK. There were various millenarian peasant movements that were proto-communist etc but they weren't dealing in minor quibbles about fiscal practice, usually it was kill the rich and share the land.

 

[frogwoman]

Until the seventeenth century it is.

If you know different, you can be famous.

No it isn't. Why was it tolerated by so many feudal monarchs if it was "universally opposed" why did people do it if it was universally opposed?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Since usury has existed as long as people have traded, do you believe that capitalism has also existed as long as people have traded Phil?

 

[JimW]

And doing it right involves lending them money at interest? Seriously?

No, they had little to say about the subject because it wasn't an issue; I'm saying that since the word Mencius uses later came to mean profit in a more financial sense, that passage turns up as "scripture" in (much) later discussions.
This is the thanks I get for trying to humour your obsessions, shared by precisely zero early Chinese thinkers

 

[frogwoman]

why did people first start taking part in usury phil? what were the reasons? did they always choose to out of their own free will?

 

[phildwyer]

The capitalist doesn't pay the worker his wages until after the work is done, so how can it possibly be interest?

That's why it's fucking interest.

If you think about it.

 

[frogwoman]

No it's not!

 

[phildwyer]

No it's not!

Yes it is, because of the time value of money, which means that money is more valuable in the future than the present, so that paying the worker after he has done his work is extracting interest from him.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes it is, because of the time value of money, which means that paying the worker after he has done his work is extracting interest from him.

Don't be silly.

Look, I'm not going to continue with this because doing so may give the false impression that there's actually a debate to be had. There isn't.

Since you've clearly never read Marx (nor, I must assume, any serious work of political economy - nobody claims that profit and interest are the same thing) I suggest you read Capital, I've even provided you with a link. Then, assuming you're capable of understanding it (I'm not optimistic on that score prof) we can maybe have a discussion.

 

[phildwyer]

No, they had little to say about the subject because it wasn't an issue; I'm saying that since the word Mencius uses later came to mean profit in a more financial sense, that passage turns up as "scripture" in (much) later discussions.
This is the thanks I get for trying to humour your obsessions, shared by precisely zero early Chinese thinkers

Just saying, if they had a law against it in the second century BC, then obviously (a) it obviously was an issue, contrary to what you say, and (b) they obviously didn't really like it very much. Obviously.

Though they may have ignored or limited it, having concluded that prohibition encourages any vice.

I think that's what you mean.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I agree that, ultimately, both usury and profit that comes directly from capitalist production are similar in that they're both cases of capitalists extracting a surplus from, or exploiting, workers. But there is an important distinction - what matters here is how that surplus is extracted.

So I suggest you go away and read some political economy, preferably Marx, then come back when you're not a complete and utter economic illiterate.

 

[ymu]

No it doesn't, you're quoting Wikipedia, get a grip.

Why do you continually out yourself as a troll so dedicated to the cause that you are prepared to make yourself look amazingly stupid in the process? I've chosen the example above because it requires no technical knowledge to grasp the desperation of your trolling.

There is a problem with citing wikipedia on controversial topics or matters of opinion, but none whatsoever with using it as a resource for technical information where it is properly referenced to authoritative sources. The wiki article is fully referenced, as was obvious from the extract from it that frogwoman posted.

If you want to criticise her choice of source, you need to show how the referencing is partial or incomplete. You can't just say "oh, you quoted wiki, therefore you need to get a grip".

 

[phildwyer]

nobody claims that profit and interest are the same thing

Neither do I.

 

[JimW]

Just saying, if they had a law against it in the second century BC, then obviously (a) it obviously was an issue, contrary to what you say, and (b) they obviously didn't really like it very much. Obviously.

Though they may have ignored or limited it, having concluded that prohibition encourages any vice.

I think that's what you mean.

Says the reverse of course. Googling about seems to have Patricia Ebrey, who did the economy bits for the Cambridge History of China (only got the post ming vols myself) saying that the Han state itself provided loans to farmers, which are referred to as "low-cost", i.e. there is some cost - consistent with being against usury but not against interest, and it's the state that's charging it.

 

[phildwyer]

If you want to criticise her choice of source, you need to show how the referencing is partial or incomplete.

If you'll read the thread you'll see that I do so fully and completely.

In future, you will doubtless find it more convenient to refrain from commenting until you have at least familiarized yourself with the basics of our discussion.

 

[phildwyer]

Says the reverse of course. Googling about seems to have Patricia Ebrey, who did the economy bits for the Cambridge History of China (only got the post ming vols myself) saying that the Han state itself provided loans to farmers, which are referred to as "low-cost", i.e. there is some cost - consistent with being against usury but not against interest, and it's the state that's charging it.

Well I'm looking at The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School, by Huan-chang Ch'en, Vol. 2, p.581n1, and he reckons there was an anti-usury law in 116 BC.

Are you denying this?

 

[JimW]

Well I'm looking at The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School, by Huan-chang Ch'en, Vol. 2
By Huan-chang Chʻen

Good for you. And you've found it agreeing with me but are understandably ashamed to say so. Fair play for trying, though.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Neither do I.

You just did though. I capitalism and usury are the same thing profit and interest must be the same thing. You're an idiot prof.

Now go away and read capital before I'm forced to give you lines.

 

[phildwyer]

Says the reverse of course. Googling about seems to have Patricia Ebrey, who did the economy bits for the Cambridge History of China (only got the post ming vols myself) saying that the Han state itself provided loans to farmers, which are referred to as "low-cost", i.e. there is some cost - consistent with being against usury but not against interest

... and also consistent with the proposition that usury and interest are identical, regrettable inevitabilities, like drugs or prostitution, which the government might as well tax and control, since they can't be eliminated by prohibition.

I suspect that was the true Confucian attitude too.

 

[phildwyer]

You just did though.

No I didn't, twit.

I said one was a species of the other.

Learn to read, twit.

 

[JimW]

... and also consistent with the proposition that usury and interest are identical, regrettable inevitabilities, like drugs or prostitution, which the government might as well tax and control, since they can't be eliminated.

I suspect that was the true Confucian attitude too.

Really not - they were all about order and good governance. The opposition to usury would be pragmatic because it was excessively burdensome on the peasantry and thus liable to create disharmony in the state, not from any theoretical/theological objection to interest in and of itself. I'd be less surprised if it turned out some Confucian hack hadn't advised the emperor they had to be loans at interest not cash gifts or no-interest as you didn't want welfare dependency, which would be more their speed.

 

[SpineyNorman]

No I didn't, twit.

I said one was a species of the other.

Learn to read, twit.

Yes you did, moron.

But now you're agreeing that the two concepts do not mean the same thing we're at least getting somewhere - you're learning - well done prof

Which is a species of which? Is interest a species of profit or is profit a species of interest? If the former, why did you disagree with me in the first place? If the latter you're a moron.

 

[phildwyer]

I agree that, ultimately, both usury and profit that comes directly from capitalist production are similar in that they're both cases of capitalists extracting a surplus from, or exploiting, workers. But there is an important distinction - what matters here is how that surplus is extracted.

How is that any different from what I'm saying?

You're not actually reading my posts are you?

 

[phildwyer]

No you didn't, moron. Which is a species of which? Is interest a species of profit or is profit a species of interest? If the former, why did you disagree with me in the first place? If the latter you're a moron.

The latter.

Do you know what moron means in Welsh? That's you that is.

 

[SpineyNorman]

How is that any different from what I'm saying?

You're not actually reading my posts are you?

Yes I am - it's different from what you're saying because one of them is usury and the other is not. Simple as that.

 

[SpineyNorman]

The latter.

Do you know what moron means in Welsh? That's you that is.

You're calling me a carrot

You're a moron - the English definition.

 

[phildwyer]

Really not - they were all about order and good governance. The opposition to usury would be pragmatic because it was excessively burdensome on the peasantry and thus liable to create disharmony in the state, not from any theoretical/theological objection to interest in and of itself.

I don't think Confucianism acknowledges that distinction.

I'd be less surprised if it turned out some Confucian hack hadn't advised the emperor they had to be loans at interest not cash gifts or no-interest as you didn't want welfare dependency, which would be more their speed.

So it was loans at interest to the poor that were fine and dandy now?

Got to say, this is sounding pretty weird.

 

[phildwyer]

You're calling me a carrot

You called yourself a carrot.

Most probably because you are a fucking carrot.