4 ms·
> We use money to allow that ownership to spread around in complex ways. Yes, we agree. My point is that "private ownership" is just another way of saying that
by dnomad 8y ago
> We use money to allow that ownership to spread around in complex ways.
Yes, we agree. My point is that "private ownership" is just another way of saying that people have accumulated sovereign debt. There's no reason the sovereign must issue these debts by the way, the sovereign could directly seize control of all assets and try to satisfy all wants itself, but these days everybody pretty much agrees the sovereign should issue debt and not try to do everything itself.
When it comes to growth, (the original question, "Where does the capital come from that flows in to savings?"), all of the debt in the system (particularly the private debts that are created when capitalists borrow and lend money) must be leveraged off existing stock of sovereign debt. If there was no sovereign debt there would literally be no money (in any form) to invest or borrow.
- quadrangle 8y agoyeah, agreed largely. I still think "private ownership" can mean more directly that the state protects the idea of particular people owning things, e.g. someone or some legal entity "owning" some land. And that could happen legally in a number of ways, not all involving currency or related debt instruments. The state could, in principle, seize the land, but as long as the state allows private entities to control it, it can be said to be "privately owned". As far as creating currency, as I understand it, it works out to be a lot more effective and efficient for the state to issue that debt-currency (and create demand for it through taxing it back) and thus create markets using it than to directly manage resources through a top-down bureaucracy. (To be simplistic admittedly)