<s_dubrovich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:35034943-67d0-459b-8e3f-ac170a203b1a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Oct 13, 7:15 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > ... the monies
> > I've been payed for work ...
>
> Those monies represent a debt owed to you for the services you've
> provided.
Then, shouldn't the payor of the monies, i.e., the debtor indebted to me
for
my services, attempt to cancel their debt to me by providing goods or
services to me in exchange for the fulfillment of their debt "contract,"
i.e, the monies payed to me which represent their debt? If they don't
fulfill their debt "contract," then they remain in debt to me.
> That debt to you is cancelled when you exchange those monies for the
> goods and services you bargain for in the market place.
According to you, the monies I possess are a representation of that
specific
debtor's debt owed to me, not some other debtor. So, why does someone
else
in the market place get to cancel the debtor's debt "contract" to me?
And,
at my "expense" also? I.e., why it is I who must negotiate for goods and
services in the general market with a third party in exchange for the debt
owed to me by a primary party?
> ... exchange those monies for the
> goods and services you bargain for in the market place.
Even if the "debt," as monies, is transferable to others in a market place
for objects of comparable value to the debt owed, it still remains that
the
debt is unpayable to whomever possesses it and uncollectable by that third
party from the originating party since that party is anonymous.
Therefore,
the debt is worthless as debt. No one can collect it from the issuer.
I.e., it's only real value should be as a convenient medium of exchange.
The best one can do with the debt is to quickly exchange it in a market
place for other tangible goods to ensure they don't possess the worthless
debt.
However, in reality, "debt," as monies, has more value than just it's
medium
of exchange value. This intangible value means that monies are acting as
a
form of power or wealth creation. Services are never worth as much as
paid
for them. And, it's _extremely_ rare for a tangible object to be worth as
much or more than what was paid for it at a future date even in strong
market conditions. I.e., the monies are worth more than the vast majority
of goods and services obtainable through exchange. Until recently, it's
also been rare for many individuals to acquire large quantities of the
monies. Given that the monies should be functioning purely as a medium of
exchange and be a worthless form of debt otherwise, it should be
relatively
easy to acquire large amounts of it. I.e., those with lots of it should
have a strong incentive to dispossess it by devaluation in exchange for
tangible objects which should according to your theory hold more value.
But, even given the supposed pressure to devalue, it isn't easy to acquire
much of it. I.e., the monies aren't acting as debt.
Rod Pemberton
|
