Quote from: Rassah on July 20, 2011, 02:42:45 PM

Quote from: jtimon on July 20, 2011, 07:03:03 AM

Quote from: Rassah on July 19, 2011, 04:51:57 PM

Is that like "rental car provides the service, rental car agency that maintains the fleet or cars take the profit?"

No. The rental car agency has produced or bought the car. The money owner has bought the money, but nobody (but the state?) can produce the money on its own.
Even if the state produces it, we could still reject it.
If you're thinking about gold-money, you can mine gold, but you need the whole society to treat it as money.

But why does it matter who printed the money, if it's just a tool of exchange for work I produce, and I am the one who decides how to use it and what interest to charge on lending it?

You were arguing that the capitalist somehow deserves to profit forever from owning money, an invention he didn't made.
If you prefer, consider the whole community the owners and the money holder just a tenant. But in this case, the tenant is not charged and he rents the property for profit.

Quote from: Rassah on July 20, 2011, 02:42:45 PM

Quote from: jtimon on July 20, 2011, 07:03:03 AM

Yes. Liquidity is very important, that's what I said. With free money you still have liquidity, but nobody profits from it.

Every time you say "free money" it makes me cringe. You mean specifically "free to borrow" money, right? I still don't know how that could work, since those who have will always charge rent to whose who don't...

No, is free as in freedom (freigeld in german). It may or may not be free to borrow. I didn't invent the term nor made the translation to English.
But I think he means free for trade:
"If the mediator of exchange, the capitalist, is deprived of the power of interrupting the exchange of wares for the purpose of exacting basic interest - as is achieved by Free-Money - money must give its services free of cost and the wares can be exchanged as in barter, without the payment of interest."
I guess he would consider Ripple and LETS free money too.

Quote from: Rassah on July 20, 2011, 02:42:45 PM

Quote from: jtimon on July 20, 2011, 07:03:03 AM

Quote from: Rassah on July 19, 2011, 04:51:57 PM

What is YOUR definition and explanation of it?

Is it important that is my definition or Gesell's ?
Liquidity premium = basic interest:
1) A component of the gross interest, when you subtract the inflation and risk premiums.
2) The mother of all capital yields. The yield of money.
3) What merchants can take from the wares.
4) What workers have to sacrifice to exchange their products for what they need/want.

And this is the part that I just don't get. Money itself yields nothing, unless it's put to work producing goods or services. Merchants take what they feel they deserve for providing services such as manufacture, storage, and transportation.

No, merchants take their cost plus interest, just because they can.
As proof, merchants that borrow the money they need can pay the interest to their lender and still compete with merchants who own their own money.
"If a commodity is to be burdened with basic interest it must of course be capable of bearing this burden, that is, it must meet with market conditions permitting the payment of its cost price, plus basic interest, out of its selling price"

Quote from: Rassah on July 19, 2011, 04:51:57 PM

Workers only sacrifice if they buy on credit, and only what their banks believe is their risk premium. Workers only sacrifice if they buy on credit, and only what their banks believe is their risk premium.

No. The basic interest is discounted from their wages.
From the same short text:
"Wares collect basic interest from the consumer, not for the producer but for the possessor of money (medium of exchange), somewhat as a postman collects the price of a cash-on-delivery parcel."

Quote from: Rassah on July 19, 2011, 04:51:57 PM

If you take the gross interest, and subtract assumed inflation rate and the risk premium, the only thing left would be profit, which in our vastly large, liquid, and competitive currency market, is pretty much 0. That's profit on just currency lending alone. But most profit comes from either sale of services or goods. Paper itself doesn't give a profit other than through someone else's work, and that someone else is free to chose where they get their paper in an extremely competitive and saturated market. So I just can't wrap my head around this claim. Where is this hidden, and seemingly impossible, profit coming from? Is it a relic of when banks were few, information wasn't easily exchanged, and banks could get away with charging you way more for the loan than your risk called for?

So the liquidity premium/basic interest doesn't exist? It's only profit that tends to zero by competition, inflation and risk premiums for money?
Do you at least agree that it would cause (if it existed) the undesirable effects I'm describing?