Incorrect. That's not his premise. This is: "Most economic models use a vocabulary that focuses attention on a hypothetical world that does not well reflect today's reality."
Which you have done in your post here. "Debt virus fallacy" is a hollow strawman you point to when you need to draw attention away from the substantive portion of Michael's post, which is a treatment on your overuse or misuse of discursive language to shelter your theories from the criticism they need. Criticism is the act of interpretation, and hiding theories behind a discursive Aegis is irresponsible and immoral if those theories could help people presently in need. You can easily claim that if people aren't willing to learn the language of economics, banking, and finance than they have no place in an economics forum. In some ways you would be right to do so. You would also be right, however, to work consciously toward creating a more inclusive discourse for the audiences you wish to sway. What you know is completely worthless unless you are able to communicate it to others when they need it. For example, you write: "the aggregate debt is like some kind of gigantic recurring loan that is not being amortized" What is "amortized"? Since I'm a good little student I'll look it up. --pauses to look up word--. Alright, it means "repaid in installments". No longer cowed into silence by my lack of discursive control, I feel compelled to comment. . . . Alright . . . you assert Michael's implicit premise is that aggregate debt is like some kind of gigantic recurring loan that is not being paid back in installments, so that interest is being charged on interest? I don't think that Michael's implication of this is unwitting or incorrect. What he's saying is that it's true. Because it is. Many people are overwhelmed with debt (perhaps you're not, but many people are) to the point where they literally *are* paying interest on their interest, as well as on their principal. When you say things like "The reality is that there are many overlapping creditor-debtor relationships in the economy, each being amortized individually." you not only misrepresent the point of Michael's argument, (thus proving him correct), you also part ways with reality. Not all creditor-debtor relationships in the economy are being paid back, individually or otherwise. The reality is this: If our creditor-debtor relationships don't drastically change, those relationships are going to start getting amortized by militia squads and truckloads of ANFO. Don't scoff--it happened in Russia. Before that it happened in France, and before that it happened here in the U.S. It could happen again. Muddying the waters by falling back on mysterious terms is about as reprehensible to me as when the CEO of my country regards a war upon a nation over half of whose population is under the age of 15 "in the highest moral traditions of our country". We have a responsibility that extends beyond the scope of this discussion group to use the "dialect of the tribe" as it were. Common understanding, not Technocratic heirarchy. Common banks, not hegemonic government heirachy. The democratic power of a commonly enlightened people. I would like to see a published, common glossary of terms like the one used above that we all agree on for use in this discussion forum. I'm tired of quibbling over the meaning of terms like "credit", "debt", "income", "profits", "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right", "aggregate", etc. If the language of this discussion cannot be normalized, all our efforts here are hopelessly flawed and without meaning. --Alex R. P.S. The "debt-virus" theory doesn't hold up under close scrutiny for a closed micro-model of responsible and fair people. You can charge 50% interest if you want, and never have currency devaluation. It's a simple model and I'd be happy to draw it out for everyone. The problem with the "planet doom" model (a micro-model of earth's closed system) is that our world is fully staffed with scumbags who only care about themselves. Just because the economic system doesn't have any leaks doesn't mean that it is Just. Money and social power coalesce. Some people starve while others drink champaigne, and nothing is being done about it. That's reality. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] more on the "debt virus" fallacy > The "debt virus" fallacy expressed in Michael's paper > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/hudson_draft_paper.txt > may be refuted in this manner: > > We aggregate creditors and debtors. The debtors are > paying the creditors. So long as the debtors are > paying the interest to the creditors called for in > their contracts, the debt does not compound. > > The false premise to Michael's argument is this: He > assumes (implicitly, I'm sure he's not conscious of > it) that the aggregate debt is like some kind of > gigantic recurring loan that is not being amortized, > so that interest accrues to principal and interest is > being charged on interest. > > The reality is that there are many overlapping > creditor-debtor relationships in the economy, each > being amortized individually. > > For the economy as a whole, this translates into a > simple rate of interest continuously being paid by > the debtors to the creditors for financial services > rendered. ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
