• jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      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.

      • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        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

          • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            preventing people from being able to take large (few tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars) risks in hopes of refinulous profit (trillions in profits from not needing as many workers)

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              Risk has no bearing on value. Technological progression lowers the necessary working time to replace the means of subsistence for workers, which wages are regulated towards, meaning a greater ratio of the working day can be used on surplus value extraction. Ie, if machine A can create 100 widgets per hour per worker, and a worker needs 300 widgets per day worth of value to survive, then the working day of 8 hours has 5 hours surplus labor. If machine B ups that to 300 widgets per hour, then that becomes 1 hour of necessary labor and 7 surplus, increasing profit. Risk has no bearing, nor utility.

              All of this can be handled publicly, without a need for profit.

              • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 days ago

                risk is economically relevant, a 10% chance of $100 dollars or a 100% chance of $10 do not have the same use-value to everyone. Why not instead just force companies to pay asymptoticly more taxes for profit?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  Nothing needs to have the same use-value across all of society. What’s important is that use-values are produced, and sold for their exchange-value on average. There’s no reason to retain the profit motive or capitalism in general as a system. You should read the article I linked. Risk creates no value.

                  • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    I never said risk creates value, I mentioned that removal of risk creates value. profit is the only way I’m aware of that let’s me amass a horde of anything of value as such any system that doesn’t allow profit is a failure.