• 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.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No I understand just fine. Unless you want to cite something, stop saying I don’t understand something when you clearly don’t understand.

            The risk is not artificial. That is one of the strangest things I have every heard. Small business is a large part of the economy.

            There are 33.2 million small businesses in America, which combined account for 99.9% of all U.S. businesses. Small businesses are credited with just under two-thirds (63%) of the new jobs created from 1995 to 2021. In 2021, a record breaking 5.4 million new business applications were filed in the U.S.

            You have some weird fascination with billionaires when the average company or employer is a small business that has nothing to do with billionaires.

            The average person takes out a loan, uses their cash, put their car or home as collateral to start a business. These are not billionaires, and they’re the heart of our economy. Yet you are babbling about billionaires which I am not nor are most people who run a company.

            https://www.uschamber.com/small-business/state-of-small-business-now

            • 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.

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

                  How did you prove that ownership of capital in terms of its valuation is not extremely heavily concentrated?

                  You only gave the statistics relating to the count of small business and jobs in them.

                  One business can be worth more than a thousand others.

                  I suggest you review statistics on wealth distribution in various countries. Learn how much wealth as a share of the total is owned by various cohorts, and investigate questions such as how many individuals own half the wealth.