• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you chose to use your house as collateral in order for the opportunity to enrich yourself, then no one owes you any gratitude. You are not a hero. You acted in your own interests, not for helping others.

    If workers provided labor, and you only paid them wages, then you profited from their labor, and prevented them from advancing by realizing the full value of their labor.

    The only reason your house was at risk was because the bank hoards capital, using lending as a device to augment its own wealth.

    If capital were shared by everyone, then all the problems you describe would not occur. No one would lose houses or cars, no one would be a tens of millions of times richer than anyone else, and everyone would be paid fully for their labor, without distinction of owner versus worker.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You are not understanding.

        The risk is artificial.

        Those who have the most wealth, the most capital, are not facing risk, compared to everyone else. Someone who has $10 billion in assets and loses $2 billions has not lost in the same way as a poor person who loses a car. The billionaire is completely insulated from the precarity faced by most of the population, because the billionaire privately controls the vast wealth of society. The losses suffered by the billionaire owe to the instability of the business and the business cycle, not to the trials of life.

        Those who are most wealthy face the least risk, and in fact impose the genuine risk on everyone else.

        If control over capital were shared, then no one would be precarious, nor need to use a home as collateral for a loan.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are being incredibly dishonest.

            You mentioned Elon Musk.

            I simply observed that most of the capital is owned by a tiny cohort of society. Small businesses, especially businesses worth approximately the same as a house, comprise a relatively small valuation of capital (which is not the same as the number of businesses, or the number of jobs).

            There is no reason why economic activity needs to be tied to someone risking becoming homeless. Such a relationship is a consequence of the system, the way that wealth is hoarded by the few and made available to the rest only under conditions that serve the private interest of the wealthy. A different system would not need to carry the same feature.