[mikema63]

I read that, aparently, proudhoun didn't want to abolish rent and intrest by dictate but leave them as voluntary choices that he expected to die out when people had the alternative of mutualism. Is this true?

If it is then it's quite a nice touch for me.

Wikipedia is a little undescriptive on how it's supposed to work, any good reading?

What different strategies does it use?

I'll have more later, I'm sure, as I read more.

[Red Barn]

Here you go:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... honCW.html

[mikema63]

Thanks for, err, everything.

[Red Barn]

Yes, it is a lot.

Scroll down a bit and you'll see a bunch of letters to Bastiat, all of them about interest and rent.

[mikema63]

Will do.

Something I read just searching google

A character in Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction gave a description of socialism that might have come from a mutualist:

...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!

Well if this is true then at the very least I like the idea.

It does make me wonder how mutualismI tend to vote.

[SolarCross]

A newish variant of mutualism is participatory economics or parecon for short.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pd60nYW577U

http://www.zcommunications.org/topics/parecon/

[mikema63]

His writing style is a struggle red.

Any IRL examples to look at?

Alright, I'm going to have to put stuff up for confirmation.

Proudhon didn't like lending I get that, but is he also saying he's against specialization of labor?

Is he against commodities of exchange as well? (non fiat, "organically" chosen money)

1. Is it true that, though the loaning of capital, when viewed objectively, is a service which has its value, and which consequently should be paid for, this loaning, when viewed subjectively, does not involve an actual sacrifice on the part of the capitalist; and consequently that it does not establish the right to set a price on it?

What responses there for the idea that subjective time preference does justify interest?

[mikema63]

Went through a thread on revleft about mutualism.

What on earth, those people are nuts, mutualism was to capitalist for them and they ban them.

The nightmare (as it must have been since there are no other forums) made me very uncomfortable and dirty, its like lookin crazy in the face.

[Paradigm]

Proudhon didn't like lending I get that, but is he also saying he's against specialization of labor?

Not to my knowledge.

Is he against commodities of exchange as well? (non fiat, "organically" chosen money)

I don't think so. It's more a matter of the fact that such exchange doesn't really appear in non-state societies. It sometimes happens when people who are used to using money find themselves without it, such as in prisons. But such systems of exchange are much less efficient than credit systems, and Proudhon's idea of mutual credit offers a system of credit that follows the pattern of mutual aid and doesn't involve exploitation.

What responses there for the idea that subjective time preference does justify interest?

This would be a good place to start.

[mikema63]

Suppose we knew the price of food would double next year. Then a pound of food now trades for half a pound of food one year from now. Translation: a negative 50% interest rate!

That pound of food is worth 100% more in the future if saved making the example somewhat...ineffective.

[Paradigm]

That pound of food is worth 100% more in the future if saved making the example somewhat...ineffective.

Except that food rots and spoils, making it significantly less valuable. Likewise, machines break down, metal rusts, and other items have storage costs. Entropy is the rule when it comes to savings. Money is the exception to this precisely because it is non-physical.

[mikema63]

Certainly but that doesn't mean if you were able to save it that it would earn you negative interest, it really doesn't make any sense.

The only thing here I see is that it's perish ability makes the pound of food more valuable eaten or sold now rather than saved to rot, but I do not see a negative interest.

[Paradigm]

Certainly but that doesn't mean if you were able to save it that it would earn you negative interest, it really doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does, actually. Even if you were to refrigerate it, you would have the added cost of refrigeration eating away at the value of food.

Here's a little allegory from Silvio Gesell, an economist strongly influenced by Proudhon.

[mikema63]

If crusoe is gaining value by lending stuff out, and also gets his stuff back in full...

Are we just not going to call the extra value interest and just call it a service?

[SolarCross]

Re: the robinson crusoe story - liked it a lot and it does show the advantage in lending surpluses of anything prone to entropy even without expecting more back than you lent. But I am not sure money is really different than wheat, buckskin or machines (entropic goods) because stored money still has to be guarded, risks being stolen, risks being lost, damaged or destroyed in fires and natural disasters, likely its market value will tend to drop with time due to inflation (if it is fiat currency).

[mikema63]

There's also the fact that the second guys labor that prevents the destruction of the things would also qualify as value added to it, and thus, intrest.

Doesn't matter in what form your adding value, your adding value.

As for money I fail to see how it's substantially different to pay money intrest rather than the labor as interest.

You take out a loan and then pay it back with the interest you gain by performing a service for some third party, you've still gotten the extra value as labor, but you got paid in money and use that money to pay the interest.

I was expecting to be told its unfair because the money lender didn't physically labor to get the money or some such, not that interest is bad when it's money but ok when it's services.

[SolarCross]

There's also the fact that the second guys labor that prevents the destruction of the things would also qualify as value added to it, and thus, intrest.

Doesn't matter in what form your adding value, your adding value.

As for money I fail to see how it's substantially different to pay money intrest rather than the labor as interest.

You take out a loan and then pay it back with the interest you gain by performing a service for some third party, you've still gotten the extra value as labor, but you got paid in money and use that money to pay the interest.

I was expecting to be told its unfair because the money lender didn't physically labor to get the money or some such, not that interest is bad when it's money but ok when it's services. :?:

But who is doing whom the service? The point of the story is that it is the borrower that is doing a service for the lender by borrowing. For the borrower to pay interest to the lender is like the drycleaner paying the customer and not the other way around.

[mikema63]

Well yes, that service is the interest.

If we abandon all other forms of interest as wrong then the only things people would lend would be stuff like this where the service is rendered by the other guy using it.

[SolarCross]

Well yes, that service is the interest.

If we abandon all other forms of interest as wrong then the only things people would lend would be stuff like this where the service is rendered by the other guy using it.

Fine by me. Have you heard of LETS ? Local exchange trading system. Basically it is a decentralised self-regulating fiat currency. The sum of the money in the system is zero. By spending more than you earn you are in effect taking out a 0% interest loan, by earning more than you spend you repay it.

http://www.letslinkuk.net/

[Paradigm]

If crusoe is gaining value by lending stuff out, and also gets his stuff back in full...

Are we just not going to call the extra value interest and just call it a service?

You seem to be confusing interest with upkeep, and all your subsequent points seem to be based on this confusion. If Crusoe got his stuff back without the labor, then it would have negative interest. On the other hand, the fact that labor has been applied so as to give them back good as new means that the loan is at zero interest. The story illustrates the virtues of a gift economy. It's better to give to others knowing that they'll look out for you than it is to hoard goods and try to take care of them by yourself. Mutual credit is basically just a gift economy with an accounting system.