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.
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.
How is that done? Can you do it without crashing debt at the same time? Isn't the upshot that other debtors have much of their debt erased? A jubilee of this sort can't be exclusive, can it?
That is why inflation is always kept in check at a "reasonable" level...
I can see that, keeping the erosion of the value (of work) to a steady stream. But this is a geyser. But didn't you say the deflation, not inflation was imminent? (Or did I misread?)
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...
And they'll do this by calling in loans, devaluing stocks, and screwing bond holders? And that's why some fear the collapse of IRA's and the like?
You're saying that the banks are doing this, not the government. But I don't see banks getting into real estate or industry--too much work I would think.
I was thinking of a another scenario: Inflation and attendant devaluation of dollar is expected. Banks trade dollars for foreign currency, then hold that currency until inflation is full tilt. Then, they convert foreign currency back into more dollars and payoff a chunk of debt, default loans, bad investments, etc. An economist friend assured me that this would be nigh impossible, given Fed oversight and legal constraints. But I'm not so sure; what did they do with stim money? He also told me they were concerned about deflation, not inflation.
Still paradoxical, to my mind.