sure, however ownership still has a place in that public/borrowed goods typically have usage restrictions that make sense for the health of the device but limit its utility. such as using an SUV/truck to do yardwork or repurposing a bike as an elliptical.
The overall wealth in society. Usury produces absolutely nothing of value, and purely exists as a legal means to serve as a drain on resources. Landlords are such an egregious example of usury that they have been near universally hated for as long as they’ve existed, even by liberals.
Theoretically loans are just a form of gambling on individuals repaying the principle (or on making more off whatever you needed the loan for than the cost + interest) and the interest is just an obtuse way of giving the house an edge. Therefore similar to gambling I believe it provides entertainment value, which is rarely calculated accurately.
No, when I speak of value, I don’t mean some abstract level of personal enjoyment or utility that is unique from person to person. I mean value as represented by raw materials and an average hour of labor in an industry. Trying to abstract away usury as “entertainment” is such a silly justification for a parasitic system that purely exists for individuals to leach off the labor of others.
it provides short term capital to purchase tools to make more goods, such as a loan to get a tractor so you can harvest/plant hundreds of times more crops as you would by hand. the interest is (in theory) covering the risk of default. also entertainment is the justification for child actors and artists existing.
You’re again confusing use-value with value proper. Loans have utility, but no value. Usury is a drain on resources. “Risk” has absolutely nothing to do with value except for the fact that values are normalized around their social averages. Entertainment is entirely different from loans, and further is just like any other commodity, the value of which is regulated around the socially necessary labor time and raw materials that goes into its creation and not some abstract utility.
that theory seems fundamentally flawed as it would only work in the long term and makes no accommodations for the short term with technological innovation we live in now
sure, however ownership still has a place in that public/borrowed goods typically have usage restrictions that make sense for the health of the device but limit its utility. such as using an SUV/truck to do yardwork or repurposing a bike as an elliptical.
Sure, renting vs owning is fully accomodated by public and personal ownership. Private usury is a drain on social wealth.
tf is “social wealth”?
The overall wealth in society. Usury produces absolutely nothing of value, and purely exists as a legal means to serve as a drain on resources. Landlords are such an egregious example of usury that they have been near universally hated for as long as they’ve existed, even by liberals.
Theoretically loans are just a form of gambling on individuals repaying the principle (or on making more off whatever you needed the loan for than the cost + interest) and the interest is just an obtuse way of giving the house an edge. Therefore similar to gambling I believe it provides entertainment value, which is rarely calculated accurately.
No, when I speak of value, I don’t mean some abstract level of personal enjoyment or utility that is unique from person to person. I mean value as represented by raw materials and an average hour of labor in an industry. Trying to abstract away usury as “entertainment” is such a silly justification for a parasitic system that purely exists for individuals to leach off the labor of others.
it provides short term capital to purchase tools to make more goods, such as a loan to get a tractor so you can harvest/plant hundreds of times more crops as you would by hand. the interest is (in theory) covering the risk of default. also entertainment is the justification for child actors and artists existing.
You’re again confusing use-value with value proper. Loans have utility, but no value. Usury is a drain on resources. “Risk” has absolutely nothing to do with value except for the fact that values are normalized around their social averages. Entertainment is entirely different from loans, and further is just like any other commodity, the value of which is regulated around the socially necessary labor time and raw materials that goes into its creation and not some abstract utility.
Here’s a good basic summary of what I’m talking about.
that theory seems fundamentally flawed as it would only work in the long term and makes no accommodations for the short term with technological innovation we live in now