Quote from: hugolp on July 18, 2011, 11:35:50 AM

Quote from: jtimon on July 18, 2011, 09:43:48 AM

With the example of the car, you're not only renouncing to its use for a while. The car will eventually crash after X miles/kilometers. Even a building has a limited lifetime. Money doesn't.

Yes, so? The issue is still the same, you are getting compensated by renouncing for its use for a while in both cases. Why do you think its ok in one case and not in the other.

Quote

It's just a symbol, an agreement, not a commodity.

Why this agreement can not be around a commodity?

In reality, money is a product.

That's exactly my point. Money is not a product.

Quote from: hugolp on July 18, 2011, 11:35:50 AM

Quote

The main difference is that more houses could be produced to lower the rental price, but "money cannot be produced". If it's produced, its production costs have nothing to do with its use as a value symbol, that's why money can be made of paper and bits.

Why do you want to build more houses? Do you realize that the role of money is to efficiently allocate resources, not build more of everything? If you decide to build more houses you are renouncing to build other stuff. Is that an adecuate decission? Interest rates coordinate that process and allow for an efficient allocation of resources satisfying the needs of the people. If you drop it to 0 the information is lost and nobody knows what type of products will be profitable or not.

Just enough houses to meet demand. Just enough houses to drop the capital yields to zero like profits do naturally.
With freicoin, for example, you would still have interest rates and information, but they would be around zero instead of around 3, 4, 5 or whatever you consider natural.

Quote from: hugolp on July 18, 2011, 11:35:50 AM

Quote

Why the costs of production of houses is not near the earns of its lifetime rentals? Because that's not enough for capital. Houses must be at least as profitable as money. Therefore we can't build that many houses because the financial market won't allow it.

We just had a housing bubble with an excess of builiding houses thanks to the government regulated financial system.

I don't want the government to regulate the financial system. Not only the interest rates have been lowered by monetizing debt and money creation (which leads to missallocation of capital) but also the risk of lending had been suppressed by the government.
The subprime mortgages would have existed even with a high interest rates, because many borrowers weren't concerned at all by the interest or their ability to pay the loan back.
I recommend a documentary called "overdose". But I'm not talking about money creation nor a public company taking the losses of unpaid loans.

Quote from: hugolp on July 18, 2011, 11:35:50 AM

Quote

Money, the highway of commerce should be free. We shouldn't pay a tribute to money with every trade we make.

Money should be free in the sense that you should be able to choose the mony you want.

I totally agree. It should be free in that sense too. No one is forcing their users to accept the Chiemgauer, for example.

Quote from: hugolp on July 18, 2011, 11:35:50 AM

Quote from: jtimon on July 18, 2011, 09:43:48 AM

Can you elaborate on this "discordination in the economy" and how it would lead to poverty?
You're ok with Ripple then?

Im ok with any voluntary system. The problem is, as stated above, that the ideas of Gessel would lead to discordination and poverty. The problem with Gessel is that he had no idea of capital structure and had this idea that the more the money circulates the richer everybody is, which is evidently false (if it is not evident to you, then comment).

Then I should ask if you think that Ripple would lead to economic problems due to its non scarcity or not.
Again, you haven't explained why, for example, freicoin would lead to "economic discordination" and poverty.
Why was good in Worgl during the great deppression and many neighboring villages wanted to copy the system (until the central bank prohibited it)?
Why is it working well in germany and other places?
The idea of Gesell wasn't the more money circulation the more wealth. His idea was "what goes to interest and capital yields doesn't go to wages and profits" and "Interest artificially limits capital accumulation".

Quote from: hugolp on July 18, 2011, 11:35:50 AM

Quote

With free money, you would still rent your money, but just at the risk premium, the basic interest would not exist.

Such a system is not posible economically but lets ignore that for now. The question is why interest is inhrently bad to you.

For a few reasons.
First, interest of money is the real source of all capital yields, which I think are the wrong thing with capitalism, and lead to inequalities that are not legitimate like profits and differences in wages are.
Second, it leads to short term financial thinking, which makes our society unsustainable.