[p2p-research] Fwd: [ox-en] No more money trickery propaganda please

[Ryan Lanham]

I must say this has become incomprehensible to me.

Stefan, as I understand it, seems to want to abandon certain concepts of
property, but I'm not sure.  I really wish someone would try a position
paper for oekonux that expresses the core ideas in any language in
straightforward terms.  For now, I have no idea what you are talking about.
It appears to be nonsense to me, at least.  I want to be wrong about that,
but I cannot gather enough of the basic ideas for any of it to make sense.

Ryan Lanham



On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de> wrote:

> Hi Michel!
>
> Now I am really upset!
>
> 2 days ago Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > read the sentence again, use your brain,
>
> I find it ludicrous that *you* ask *me* to use my brain. Obviously you
> stated nonsense and now *I* shall use my brain? COME ON!!!
>
> > and use the full context of the
> > dialogue to understand that interests makes it indeed interesting to keep
> > your money in the  bank.
>
> If you give money to the bank then you do **NOT** keep it. This very
> sentence you wrote just makes no sense. It's nonsense again. And it's
> propaganda again because it is only said this way to invoke a feeling
> of injustice in simple-minded people. It hides facts to make a certain
> ideology look more logical and "just". It may not be your intention -
> and frankly I hope it is not your intention. But it is the intention
> of those you have this propaganda from.
>
> If you give your money to the bank in fact you may get your money back
> *under certain conditions* being part of a contract. If you are in bad
> luck you may even not get it back at all, however - as people learned
> during the latest financial crisis once again.
>
> If I *keep* my money there is no such risk. I just keep it.
>
> It is very easy to see that there is a major difference here. In fact
> it is the difference between a pre-capitalist fortune keeper - who
> really keeps her fortune - and a capitalist - who applies her fortune
> by giving it to others to make profit.
>
> > Explain to me how you would get interest under your
> > cushion, I would be very very curious.
>
> Sorry, it was *your* claim that keeping money raises interest. If this
> would be true then I can keep it under my cushion with the same
> effect. I'm just taking your statements serious.
>
> Taking statements serious is a simple necessity in a scientific
> approach. To think about what a statement actually means is a very
> simple test of an assumption against reality. It is basic scientific
> work - by which you are obviously shocked.
>
> > I'm trying to put the conflict behind,
>
> I have no conflict with you. To me all this feels very much like
> shadow boxing on your side.
>
> > but if you descend to such levels of
> > ridiculousness, it makes it very difficult.
>
> I'm really sorry Michel, but that it all but ridiculous. The question
> whether you can keep your money or need to give it to someone else -
> usually mediated by a bank but also in the form of shares - to get
> interest is the all-or-nothing question here.
>
> > Please, let's put that behind
> > thus.
>
> You are free to correct your statements so they make sense and - at
> best - match the observable reality. It would be far better than to
> leave the community just because someone says you are preaching
> nonsense.
>
> Frankly I'm curious how long it will take that you at least agree that
> you can *not keep* your money and get interest for it. In science that
> would be simply to recognize the observable reality and modify your
> basic assumption according to it. As you wrote above you are still not
> ready to modify your basic assumption - though you are now replacing
> your basic assumption with sentences which are inherently
> contradictory.
>
> With a scientific approach the next step would be to question what
> happens with the money you just gave to others. That would be the
> research step. And it would be easy because it is well-known that
> banks give money to capitalists in the form of credit. In turn the
> capitalists then apply it to labor force and machinery to produce
> products they can sell for a higher price than they had themselves for
> the input. The logical conclusion is that interest is a share of the
> profit of a capitalist. The amount of interest is directly coupled to
> the amount of expected profit and the risk involved to actually make
> this profit [1]_. In other words: What you are trying to accomplish
> with your [named above] stuff is what actually happens in capitalism
> all the time. It's in fact the very core of capitalism.
>
> .. [1] Of course in a fully expanded exchange system at the end of its
>       life cycle like contemporary capitalism it is a bit more
>       difficult. It's a interesting task to research that. But the
>       general principle stays.
>
> I, Christian and others explained all that over and over again and it
> is really not hard to understand. In fact it needs no theory at all.
> It's all observable reality. But you constantly ignore this. Feel
> free. But don't be shocked if others call this nonsense or - when
> combined with an attempt to evoke certain feelings in simple-minded
> persons - even propaganda.
>
>
>                                                Grüße
>
>                                                Stefan
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090518/2f3ebf82/attachment.html>