As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Arrogant Rich People: Taxation, Income Disparity, and the Shrinking Middle Class

1246741

Posts

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    A hand out is something that is freely given: food stamps, subsidies, earned income tax credit.

    A tax cut can't meet that definition, since a tax cut is specifically just not taking. The person receiving the tax cut isn't given anything, they just to keep more of the money they earn.

    I fucking just said this. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day with either idea you end up at the same place. Ergo there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two.

    And besides, if a tax cut is freely given, does that not also make it a handout?

    If I just GAVE you a tax cut for free, then I have HANDED OUT a tax cut to you.


    Because you are not handing me a tangible object, in fact you aren't handing me anything - you just aren't taking as much.

    Ironically, as we are arguing about money, which is a product of a service economy which operates on intangible goods, you are unable to see the duality present in the argument.

    No, i can see it, we just have agreed as a society that money backed by the government is the method in which we trade. And $ is the abstract form in which we measure work, goods and services.

    You are making the argument that any wealth that is money is not that person's at all and all $ amounts are owned by the respective government.

    Which is...true? wealth that is money exists as a measure of governmental worth.

    The whole point of monies is that a government says that you are worth THIS many dollars/pesos/etc and you can then use that worth to acquire the goods you need.

    ITT people don't know what money is.

    Arch on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Got distracted there for a moment.

    Quarters, rent, etc, etc -- it all boils down to who owns the money in the first place and has an inherent right to its control. Though the government and its various protections may support, encourage and allow the free trade of monies, it does not create the value a dollar represents. A person does though the buying and selling of labor and goods.
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    It's also myopic to say the "free market" creates it. The free market would not and could not exist without government laws and infrastructure, which themselves have value.

    Qingu on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Whether a tax break is the government giving you money or taking less money is the absolute dumbest semantic argument I've seen on the forum in..... well, hours. Maybe even days.

    I have been trying to get this point across with all my posts but didn't want to outright say it.

    THIS IS STUPID SEMANTICS IF THEY END UP WITH THE SAME RESULT

    and arguably, they don't.

    Arch on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Got distracted there for a moment.

    Quarters, rent, etc, etc -- it all boils down to who owns the money in the first place and has an inherent right to its control. Though the government and its various protections may support, encourage and allow the free trade of monies, it does not create the value a dollar represents. A person does though the buying and selling of labor and goods.
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    It's also myopic to say the "free market" creates it. The free market would not and could not exist without government laws and infrastructure, which themselves have value.

    How much is Somalian currency worth these days....

    nexuscrawler on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    That you consider it anything but is amazing to me.

    A quarter has no intrinsic value outside of the value created that enabled it. It's a fancy piece of metal otherwise. Money is only as good as the promise of the value it represents.

    mrdobalina on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    That you consider it anything but is amazing to me.

    A quarter has no intrinsic value outside of the value created that enabled it. It's a fancy piece of metal otherwise. Money is only as good as the promise of the value it represents.

    Who promises the value???

    If your answer is "people" then BZZZT wrong

    if your answer is "the market" partial credit

    if your answer is "the government" then DING DING DING

    Arch on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    That you consider it anything but is amazing to me.

    A quarter has no intrinsic value outside of the value created that enabled it. It's a fancy piece of metal otherwise. Money is only as good as the promise of the value it represents.

    A promise of value enforced by the federal government.

    No government, no enforcement, no money.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »

    Which is...true? wealth that is money exists as a measure of governmental worth.

    The whole point of monies is that a government says that you are worth THIS many dollars/pesos/etc and you can then use that worth to acquire the goods you need.

    ITT people don't know what money is.

    No, the government says "this is the item we will accept in order to exchange goods and services in the markets provided by our society".

    In rare cases it can say "a gallon of milk is $2", but the worth of money is not found in a table in a government handbook.

    mrdobalina on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    ALSO in the vein of international exchange, without a government backing your dollar AND ANOTHER GOVERNMENT ACCEPTING THE VALUE OF THAT DOLLAR it is nothing more than a piece of paper or a number on a computer screen

    Arch on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    That you consider it anything but is amazing to me.

    A quarter has no intrinsic value outside of the value created that enabled it. It's a fancy piece of metal otherwise. Money is only as good as the promise of the value it represents.

    Who promises the value???

    If your answer is "people" then BZZZT wrong

    if your answer is "the market" partial credit

    if your answer is "the government" then DING DING DING

    Wrong. Government provides a structure of protection, laws, etc that protect the promise, but the value is made by the labor and goods it represents.

    mrdobalina on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    That you consider it anything but is amazing to me.

    A quarter has no intrinsic value outside of the value created that enabled it. It's a fancy piece of metal otherwise. Money is only as good as the promise of the value it represents.

    Who promises the value???

    If your answer is "people" then BZZZT wrong

    if your answer is "the market" partial credit

    if your answer is "the government" then DING DING DING

    Wrong. Government provides a structure of protection, laws, etc that protect the promise, but the value is made by the labor and goods it represents.

    The value of the dollar is tied closely to the debtor status of our country as well.

    EDIT: Additionally, the value of the currency here in this country can be set by the government. It just happens that the government prefers to use market forces to do this.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »

    The whole point of monies is that a government says that you are worth THIS many dollars/pesos/etc and you can then use that worth to acquire the goods you need.

    My goodness this part is scary.

    mrdobalina on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    Which is...true? wealth that is money exists as a measure of governmental worth.

    The whole point of monies is that a government says that you are worth THIS many dollars/pesos/etc and you can then use that worth to acquire the goods you need.

    ITT people don't know what money is.

    No, the government says "this is the item we will accept in order to exchange goods and services in the markets provided by our society".

    In rare cases it can say "a gallon of milk is $2", but the worth of money is not found in a table in a government handbook.

    *whooooosh*

    That was the sound of me being floored by you saying exactly what i just said
    I said
    dollar= government saying you are worth this many dollars and can use those dollars to acquire goods

    you said
    dollar= government saying that this is an item that is worth goods this many goods and services

    which is the exact same thing, just said differently

    Arch on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    It is utterly myopic to say that "a person" creates the value that a quarter abstractly represents.

    That you consider it anything but is amazing to me.

    A quarter has no intrinsic value outside of the value created that enabled it. It's a fancy piece of metal otherwise. Money is only as good as the promise of the value it represents.
    We both agree on that point.

    We disagree that the value is objectively determined by the market. What we call the "market" is an emergent property of a complex array of behaviors and forces, many of which involve the government and taxation.

    Qingu on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Got distracted there for a moment.

    Quarters, rent, etc, etc -- it all boils down to who owns the money in the first place and has an inherent right to its control. Though the government and its various protections may support, encourage and allow the free trade of monies, it does not create the value a dollar represents. A person does though the buying and selling of labor and goods.

    This is where you went of in the wrong direction. Money is one of the services goverment provides. It determines what a quarter should look like and what its worth. THEY ALSO provides it legitimacy, nobody inside the US can demand that you pay them in Rubels, Yen or Euros. If you want to pay your debt in US dollars, they have to accept, they can't demand that you give them something else in barter if you don't want to.

    Also if you have a million dollars and I have one, you use this service almost a million times more than i do. You would also have a million reason for this service to continue. (while I only have one).

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    From what I recall, paper (and now electronic) money was an IOU for a set quantity of gold/silver; this isn't the case anymore, but it's a good way of understanding currency. It's just an IOU that is generally accepted in the place of barterable goods/materials.

    Emissary42 on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When I give 5 bucks to a homeless guy on the street, that's a handout.

    When the government decides to lower taxes, that's not a handout. When the store down the street from me has a sale, that's not a handout. When I negotiate better rent at my apartment complex, that's not a handout. When my insurance company gives me lower rates for being a good driver, that's not a handout.

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    The whole point of monies is that a government says that you are worth THIS many dollars/pesos/etc and you can then use that worth to acquire the goods you need.

    My goodness this part is scary.

    What's scary, frankly, is the lengths that the wealthy will go to in order to ensure that they're able to buy a fifth home while families have to choose between eating and paying their mortgage.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    From what I recall, paper (and now electronic) money was an IOU for a set quantity of gold/silver; this isn't the case anymore, but it's a good way of understanding currency. It's just an IOU that is generally accepted in the place of barterable goods/materials.
    It's more than that. It also represents liquidity.

    Qingu on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Got distracted there for a moment.

    Quarters, rent, etc, etc -- it all boils down to who owns the money in the first place and has an inherent right to its control. Though the government and its various protections may support, encourage and allow the free trade of monies, it does not create the value a dollar represents. A person does though the buying and selling of labor and goods.

    This is where you went of in the wrong direction. Money is one of the services goverment provides. It determines what a quarter should look like and what its worth. THEY ALSO provides it legitimacy, nobody inside the US can demand that you pay them in Rubels, Yen or Euros. If you want to pay your debt in US dollars, they have to accept, they can't demand that you give them something else in barter if you don't want to.

    Also if you have a million dollars and I have one, you use this service almost a million times more than i do. You would also have a million reason for this service to continue. (while I only have one).

    You're speaking of the government's role in the creation of the unit of exchange, not the value behind it.

    You're also speaking of the proportional value of the currencies, not the real value.

    mrdobalina on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When I give 5 bucks to a homeless guy on the street, that's a handout.

    When the government decides to lower taxes, that's not a handout. When the store down the street from me has a sale, that's not a handout. When I negotiate better rent at my apartment complex, that's not a handout. When my insurance company gives me lower rates for being a good driver, that's not a handout.

    Hair splitting semantics. Discounts are functionally equivalent to giving people money.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    Which is...true? wealth that is money exists as a measure of governmental worth.

    The whole point of monies is that a government says that you are worth THIS many dollars/pesos/etc and you can then use that worth to acquire the goods you need.

    ITT people don't know what money is.

    No, the government says "this is the item we will accept in order to exchange goods and services in the markets provided by our society".

    In rare cases it can say "a gallon of milk is $2", but the worth of money is not found in a table in a government handbook.

    *whooooosh*

    That was the sound of me being floored by you saying exactly what i just said
    I said
    dollar= government saying you are worth this many dollars and can use those dollars to acquire goods

    you said
    dollar= government saying that this is an item that is worth goods this many goods and services

    which is the exact same thing, just said differently

    I added "rare" to mine, because I didn't' want to be called out on those oddball cases where legislation sets price, as those are anomalies in the overall scheme of things.

    mrdobalina on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    From what I recall, paper (and now electronic) money was an IOU for a set quantity of gold/silver; this isn't the case anymore, but it's a good way of understanding currency. It's just an IOU that is generally accepted in the place of barterable goods/materials.

    which is exactly my fucking point.

    meaning that money is never "yours". Only a government can "own" money.

    Arch on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    without the government to back your currency is has NO VALUE

    nexuscrawler on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    Which is...true? wealth that is money exists as a measure of governmental worth.

    The whole point of monies is that a government says that you are worth THIS many dollars/pesos/etc and you can then use that worth to acquire the goods you need.

    ITT people don't know what money is.

    No, the government says "this is the item we will accept in order to exchange goods and services in the markets provided by our society".

    In rare cases it can say "a gallon of milk is $2", but the worth of money is not found in a table in a government handbook.

    *whooooosh*

    That was the sound of me being floored by you saying exactly what i just said
    I said
    dollar= government saying you are worth this many dollars and can use those dollars to acquire goods

    you said
    dollar= government saying that this is an item that is worth goods this many goods and services

    which is the exact same thing, just said differently

    I added "rare" to mine, because I didn't' want to be called out on those oddball cases where legislation sets price, as those are anomalies in the overall scheme of things.

    while good that you added your disclaimer, it fails to address either my horrible grammar in the second statement I made NOR the statements in general

    Arch on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    without the government to back your currency is has NO VALUE

    If you're directing that to me, I've addressed it already.

    mrdobalina on
  • fodderboyfodderboy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It's functionally equivalent. I don't see why you three can't grasp this concept.

    But they are functionally different.

    If the government hands me a check for a $100, or they can reduce my taxes by $100, the end result for me may be the same, but they are functionally different.

    It has to do with ownership. Money i make is mine, i view it as mine. If it wasn't mine, i wouldn't be able to have it taken away, which is what taxes does. Because you take less, is not GIVING me anything.

    fodderboy on
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    From what I recall, paper (and now electronic) money was an IOU for a set quantity of gold/silver; this isn't the case anymore, but it's a good way of understanding currency. It's just an IOU that is generally accepted in the place of barterable goods/materials.

    which is exactly my fucking point.

    meaning that money is never "yours". Only a government can "own" money.

    Although the IOU in this case was the government owing the holder of the paper/coin/electronic money a set amount of debt.

    Emissary42 on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    without the government to back your currency is has NO VALUE

    meaning it isn't really 'yours'

    I mean sure, the physical paper and metal coins may be yours, but the government mints have tried VERY HARD to make sure that they are not worth more in raw materials than they are "worth" in currency.

    Arch on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When I give 5 bucks to a homeless guy on the street, that's a handout.

    When the government decides to lower taxes, that's not a handout. When the store down the street from me has a sale, that's not a handout. When I negotiate better rent at my apartment complex, that's not a handout. When my insurance company gives me lower rates for being a good driver, that's not a handout.

    Hair splitting semantics. Discounts are functionally equivalent to giving people money.

    No, you picked that word very specifically, because it has a very specific negative connotation. You wanted to try to show how the rich themselves are no better than the poor people they despise. The semantics is the reason you used it, and it's the reason why it's not a valid comparison.

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    From what I recall, paper (and now electronic) money was an IOU for a set quantity of gold/silver; this isn't the case anymore, but it's a good way of understanding currency. It's just an IOU that is generally accepted in the place of barterable goods/materials.

    which is exactly my fucking point.

    meaning that money is never "yours". Only a government can "own" money.

    Do you see what your position signifies?

    If only the government can own money, and money is the representation of the value of your labor or produced goods, then the government is the rightful owner of the fruits of your labor.

    mrdobalina on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    How much is Somalian currency worth these days....

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When I give 5 bucks to a homeless guy on the street, that's a handout.

    When the government decides to lower taxes, that's not a handout. When the store down the street from me has a sale, that's not a handout. When I negotiate better rent at my apartment complex, that's not a handout. When my insurance company gives me lower rates for being a good driver, that's not a handout.

    You're applying inappropriate emotional language to a strictly economic transaction. One party has constructed a transaction in such a way that the other party receives $5. Your "handout" or "not a handout" is your own personal interpretation of the value provided for the money. Do you consider it a handout if you pay $5 for a sandwhich? No, obviously not.

    You owe me $100. You give me $100. Our debt is now settled. I give you $5.

    You owe me $100. You give me $95. I write off the final $5 of debt. Our debt is now settled.

    What's the difference between the two on an economic level?

    You're required to report debts voided as income to the IRS. A debt cancelled, in whole or in part, is money earned.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When I give 5 bucks to a homeless guy on the street, that's a handout.

    When the government decides to lower taxes, that's not a handout. When the store down the street from me has a sale, that's not a handout. When I negotiate better rent at my apartment complex, that's not a handout. When my insurance company gives me lower rates for being a good driver, that's not a handout.

    You're applying inappropriate emotional language to a strictly economic transaction. One party has constructed a transaction in such a way that the other party receives $5. Your "handout" or "not a handout" is your own personal interpretation of the value provided for the money. Do you consider it a handout if you pay $5 for a sandwhich? No, obviously not.

    You owe me $100. You give me $100. Our debt is now settled. I give you $5.

    You owe me $100. You give me $95. I write off the final $5 of debt. Our debt is now settled.

    What's the difference between the two on an economic level?

    You're required to report debts voided as income to the IRS. A debt cancelled, in whole or in part, is money earned.

    If it was a strictly economic transaction, then the term 'handout', an emotionally charged word, should not have been used. So, please address this to wwtmask.

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    It has to do with ownership. Money i make is mine, i view it as mine. If it wasn't mine, i wouldn't be able to have it taken away, which is what taxes does. Because you take less, is not GIVING me anything.
    This really summarizes the entire problem with yours and mrdobalina's worldview.

    You view money as this objective thing that you can own, and that taxes are taking what you own.

    This is nonsense. You do not earn money in a vacuum—economic activity depends on an array of underlying government infrastructures. You also do not own money in a vacuum. Your ownership and the concept of "property" would not exist without laws and enforcement provided by the government.

    You are operating within a mythological economic worldview where the "market" exists apart from the government in some pristine state. This is nonsense. I don't know how to put it any plainer, or why this is so difficult for so many people to understand.

    Qingu on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    From what I recall, paper (and now electronic) money was an IOU for a set quantity of gold/silver; this isn't the case anymore, but it's a good way of understanding currency. It's just an IOU that is generally accepted in the place of barterable goods/materials.

    which is exactly my fucking point.

    meaning that money is never "yours". Only a government can "own" money.

    Do you see what your position signifies?

    If only the government can own money, and money is the representation of the value of your labor or produced goods, then the government is the rightful owner of the fruits of your labor.

    and what I am saying is that you HAVE NO FRUITS unless you are actually, say, GROWING fruit.

    Intellectual property and most services can only "bear fruit" if there is a way to exchange them for some sort of desirable commodity.

    I KNOW what my position signifies.

    If you are not going to produce a tangible commodity, then you need an intangible representation of your labor. Also, what if you produce a good that not everyone wants to trade in? You again, need representation of your labor

    Government provides this representation, ergo they OWN it.

    Arch on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When I give 5 bucks to a homeless guy on the street, that's a handout.

    When the government decides to lower taxes, that's not a handout. When the store down the street from me has a sale, that's not a handout. When I negotiate better rent at my apartment complex, that's not a handout. When my insurance company gives me lower rates for being a good driver, that's not a handout.

    You're applying inappropriate emotional language to a strictly economic transaction. One party has constructed a transaction in such a way that the other party receives $5. Your "handout" or "not a handout" is your own personal interpretation of the value provided for the money. Do you consider it a handout if you pay $5 for a sandwhich? No, obviously not.

    You owe me $100. You give me $100. Our debt is now settled. I give you $5.

    You owe me $100. You give me $95. I write off the final $5 of debt. Our debt is now settled.

    What's the difference between the two on an economic level?

    You're required to report debts voided as income to the IRS. A debt cancelled, in whole or in part, is money earned.

    I also think there's a difference between lowering taxes and "accepting less taxes than what was owed", which is your example above.

    mrdobalina on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    It has to do with ownership. Money i make is mine, i view it as mine. If it wasn't mine, i wouldn't be able to have it taken away, which is what taxes does. Because you take less, is not GIVING me anything.

    It has nothing to do with ownership. It has to do with your emotional reaction to taxation.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    From what I recall, paper (and now electronic) money was an IOU for a set quantity of gold/silver; this isn't the case anymore, but it's a good way of understanding currency. It's just an IOU that is generally accepted in the place of barterable goods/materials.

    which is exactly my fucking point.

    meaning that money is never "yours". Only a government can "own" money.

    Do you see what your position signifies?

    If only the government can own money, and money is the representation of the value of your labor or produced goods, then the government is the rightful owner of the fruits of your labor.
    While I don't htink Arch is putting it as well as it could be put, this is a huge oversimplifcation.

    The concept of ownership and property, itself, does not exist without a system of law and enforcement—i.e. a government. If you don't have that, then you don't have ownership, you just have the biggest person taking what they want from people smaller.

    mrdobalina, do you believe the market depends on the government to exist in the first place?

    Qingu on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »

    If you are not going to produce a tangible commodity, then you need an intangible representation of your labor. Also, what if you produce a good that not everyone wants to trade in? You again, need representation of your labor

    Government provides this representation, ergo they OWN it.

    There's a leap to be taken to get from "government provides a means for exchange" to "government owns the items up for exchange".

    mrdobalina on
Sign In or Register to comment.