Thanks for that.
But I'm still not seeing it:
When you get a paycheck, your employer is simply transferring a certain amount of claims on future labor (money) that it owes you - ...claims on future labor. This is vaguely Marxian (or Ricardian?): equation of money to labor. But what about "use value?" A guy can labor for years and receive nothing unless society deems the result valuable. (As an artist I know about this.)
Debt is also claims on future labor. Money is just what we use to trade those claims around with, because it is convenient.
Debt is a claim on the borrower's future labor, or on the lenders?: I guy gets a loan to buy a house, now he has a claim on the carpenter's labor. But the bank has an IOU, a claim on the borrower's future labor. But the only thing gained is the interest paid for the temporary assignment of this claim to borrower.
In other words, debt = money and money = debt.
This seems too abstract to me. I think of one as the opposite of the other
We've heard about the huge contraction in debt that our economy is experiencing from enormous numbers of loans going into default.
But wouldn't that mean there are more claims on future labor than there is labor? In other words, that now a unit of actual labor > a unit of claim on labor (money)? It now takes more of these claim tickets to purchase labor? Isn't this the very definition of inflation?
This squares better with the idea that inflation redistributes money (capital, wealth) from the owner of those credits to the debtor.
Exactly. Labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Debt is a claim on the borrower's future labor, or on the lenders?: I guy gets a loan to buy a house, now he has a claim on the carpenter's labor. But the bank has an IOU, a claim on the borrower's future labor. But the only thing gained is the interest paid for the temporary assignment of this claim to borrower.
The bank gave the loan borrower a certain number of "claims on future labor". In turn, the bank owns claims on future labor of the borrower.
The difference is that the bank didn't have to do any work itself in order to obtain the claims on future labor of the borrower. The borrower does have to do work to pay off its claims.
This seems too abstract to me. I think of one as the opposite of the other
We're taught to do that. We think just in terms of numbers, but we don't think in terms of "vectors" - what those numbers really mean. We just accept their "scalar" value.
It's like the difference between speed and velocity. Speed tells you how fast you're going. Velocity tells you how fast, and in what direction.
Money is never created without the same amount of debt having been created first. Never.
But wouldn't that mean there are more claims on future labor than there is labor? In other words, that now a unit of actual labor > a unit of claim on labor (money)? It now takes more of these claim tickets to purchase labor? Isn't this the very definition of inflation?
Yes! You get it! And yes, that is EXACTLY what inflation is. That's why the international bankers have to crash credit every so many decades in order to steal the underlying capital, while at the same time greatly reducing the claims on future labor. It's the only way to keep the scheme going. Otherwise, we would eventually enter hyper-inflation and the gig would be up.
This squares better with the idea that inflation redistributes money (capital, wealth) from the owner of those credits to the debtor.
It does. That is why inflation is always kept in check at a "reasonable" level. Understand, inflation is an inherent part of the cycle - and it's what our Federal government feeds on (not the Fed, the Federal government).
It is through inflation that us workerbees are encouraged to "make our money work for us" by creating new wealth. The bankers then pull the "credit rug" out from under the consumer every 80 years or so and steal a big chunk of the wealth that was created.
It sounds like you understand this pretty well. Keep pondering on it.