Should debt exist?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think the existance of debt has done more harm than good. My question is: should the concept of debt [debit cards as opposed to credit cards] be abolished before money follows the same path?

[rouchambeau]

I don't see how you could abolish one while keeping the other.

[Le Libérer]

Ancient Isreal had a law in place they called Jubilee, it went something like this:

Ancient Israelites had a law, written which stipulated that every fifty years the people were to
(1) release all debts,
(2) set the slaves free,
(3) let the lands lie fallow, and (
4) lands were to be returned to their original (and rightful) owners: all the farm lands that farmers had been forced to sell due to debt.

It would put a stop from the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer.

That had to rock. It makes sense tho, a total renewal of the economic system.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:53 pm
My question is: should the concept of debt [debit cards as opposed to credit cards] be abolished before money follows the same path?
I dont understand the question, unless it means only have debit cards, not credit cards cos debit cards dont involve taking out debt.

Well If you are talking about capitalist society, and confining yourself to consumer spending, the fact is that debt is essential to budgeting because income tends to come in 12 or 24 equal portions and expenditure does not. Expenditure is lumpy over the year (e.g. annual holiday) and sometimes applies over longer periods (computer, car, house). You can require people to save up in advance, but why ?

[rouchambeau]

It would put a stop from the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer.

That had to rock. It makes sense tho, a total renewal of the economic system.
Yeah, it's alright. But it doesn't eliminate property relations.

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:42 am

It would put a stop from the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer.

That had to rock. It makes sense tho, a total renewal of the economic system.
Yeah, it's alright. But it doesn't eliminate property relations.
) lands were to be returned to their original (and rightful) owners: all the farm lands that farmers had been forced to sell due to debt.

That sounds like it would eliminate property issues to me.

[Red_Pride]

Debt is the modern slavery, I want to stay out of it if possible.

I really don't want to owe more than I can pay off. >_>

[rouchambeau]

lands were to be returned to their original (and rightful) owners: all the farm lands that farmers had been forced to sell due to debt.

That sounds like it would eliminate property issues to me.
How can someone rightfully own property? That is, how can someone have the right to deprive others of something they need (which is what property really boils down to)?

I said property relations, not issues. One cannot get rid of problems like exchange, privation, and commodification if one does not eliminate the institution of property. For example, if I own something that you want and you own something that I want, then we both have the "right" to deprive each other of the things wanted. That's bad.

[Le Libérer]

I agree with you, property is theft, and I was speaking of a very primitive econmic system. it was a simple solution to renew a simple system.