A week or so ago, I made a statement along the lines of "I don't understand the arguments *against* the credit theory of money"

@KevinCarson1 here does a fantastic job of fleshing those out, on @C4SS

https://c4ss.org/content/61050

Capitalism in Inches and Pounds: A Parable

The argument that capitalists are needed to provide workers with means of production, and profit is their reward for doing so, is nonsense. All capitalists have are paper or digital claims on the right to allocate means of production or material resources. All of the actual material resources β€” means of production and raw materials...

Center for a Stateless Society
@neonsnake @C4SS Just today I had an "ancap" who goes by the name Hogeye Bill (who, I found out when I checked his feed, also turned out to be an Epstein defender dismissing Virginia Giuffre as a gold-digger) show up in my replies at Bluesky attempting to argue against the piece. He was so immersed in Austrian "money theory of credit" and "advance theory of capital" assumptions that he didn't even realize, after supposedly reading the piece, that I *didn't* agree with him that the capitalist performs a "necessary function" of "saving and building capital," and that it naturally "compounds".

@KevinCarson1 @C4SS oooff at the Epstein thing.

It's one of those things that sort of intuitively makes "sense". You and I , after all, save money to afford stuff. Stands to reason that Pete The Peasant saved his money until he was able to purchase, like, half of Essex, right?

Which...fine?...I guess...until you know how it actually works.

If you still keep up the pretence of people squirreling away gold under the mattress after knowing how it works, then...hey, I've a bridge to sell you, I suppose.

@neonsnake @C4SS Shit, I read a college textbook on banking and finance that said banks "aggregated savings" to provide investment capital, and this was a fucking ECONOMIST pretending they don't just create money and credit.

@KevinCarson1 @neonsnake @C4SS

I just had a sudden memory of sitting in high school economics class thinking, "this...this just seems like a big scam..."

Took years to unlearn thinking I wasn't smart enough to understand economics.

@CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @neonsnake @C4SS

Not just a scam. Death cult.

@violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

I have vague memories of being a teen and my Dad* "explaining" to me that banks lend to their customers from the savings of other customers, and also invest savings into other companies.

I'll be totally honest, I still think I'm not smart enough to understand "that" side of economics. Like, everytime I feel I've got a handle on MMT, I read something that makes me completely doubt my understanding of it. I have an acquaintance who is *very* high up in one of the banks in the UK who has told me that no, banks don't create money out of nothing, and that everything has to balance every single day at 4.15pm.

I "believe" him, but I couldn't follow his arguments at all, and there's a chance that in fact they do create money out of nothing, but his way of thinking (liabilities vs assets or something) was at odds with my own - very limited - understanding.

I further believe that this is, in part, deliberate. I've got a vague thought that the whole thing is confusing to us mere lay-people, to keep us from just...going off and ignoring it altogether and doing our own thing.

(In a very, very, very small way, I'm involved with some LETs in my local area - which is literally just a spreadsheet we use to keep track of who owes who what lol)

*My Dad was a Certified Accountant; eventually at CFO level, which might make it even worse 😬

@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

I feel like it's important to mention that without guns, currencies are worthless and so is property.

@johnzajac @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

I've just had a kneejerk "hard disagree" reaction to this.

On reflection, I suspect it's because we might be approaching both currencies and property in different manners.

I believe that currency - the very strict sense of something that all relevant parties agree to - can be a useful tool for tracking obligations. I have no ties to *government-issued* currencies, however. Just a unit of measure, I don't massively care what it is, and I absolutely do not believe that it needs to be valuable "in and of itself"

Likewise with "property" - property has a lot of different definitions, but in the sense that my house and land is my own, and that it's of a "reasonable" enough size (ie. not stupidly large to the point that I'm excluding others from reasonable use), then the concept has value.

Is your view on both different to mine?

(I live in a country where "guns" are not a thing in the same sense as the US, so allow that as well, my conception might be a little different. Memory serves, you're US-based?)

@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

Yes, in the US.

In the context of contemporary manifestations of currency and property, it's the guarantee of the State - e.g. the guarantee that contracts/debts/deeds will be enforced through overwhelming violence, ostensibly according to law of some kind - that underwrites them.

I use "guns" broadly;

@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

police and prisons are the "guns" of the State. Militaries are "guns". In many countries, people are allowed to simply shoot you if you're "on their property".

"Murder?! What murder!?! They were on mah LAND!"

(which is wild, tbh)

@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

But I think while you and I probably agree on substance, there's a real distinction being explored here: if you aren't willing to enforce your ownership of your "property" with violence, then what does "property" even mean? That you have a right to be there? That others do not? That others do not have the right to supplant you?

You were "there first"? πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ It's hard.

As for currency, "units of exchange" and "currency" are different...

@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

...because currency is a unit of exchange, but not all units of exchange are currencies. Because the reason a currency has value is that it's backed by a treasury, which exists bc of a guarantee of violence

Which means that in practice, currencies are a unit of violence that we exchange, and their value is commensurate with the potential violence behind them

Which really puts a whole new spin on the idea of capital and capitalism, tbh

@johnzajac
you may find this paper extremely interesting

https://capitalaspower.com/2021/05/cherizola-from-commodities-to-assets/

one of the great papers in economic theory I believe

@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS

Suaste Cherizola, 'From Commodities to Assets' – Capital As Power

From Commodities to Assets Capital as Power and the Ontology of Finance JESÚS SUASTE CHERIZOLA May 2021 Abstract Assets are a crucial concept of the practice and mindset of the capitalist class. Critical analyses of capitalism, however, tend to admit that the exchange of commodities is the foundation of the analysis of capitalism. This article […]

Capital As Power
@johnzajac
apologies for multiple posts, my server is acting up and timing out on posts.
@neonsnake @violetmadder @CorvidCrone @KevinCarson1 @C4SS