Mercantilism

[palani]

mercantile (adj.)
1640s, from French mercantile (17c.), from Italian mercantile, from Medieval Latin mercantile, from Latin mercantem (nominative mercans) "a merchant," also "trading," present participle of mercari "to trade," from merx (see market (n.)). Mercantile system first appears in Adam Smith (1776).


USE, civil law. A right of receiving so much of the natural profits of a thing as is necessary to daily sustenance; it differs from usufruct, which is a right not only to use but to enjoy. 1 Browne's Civ. Law, 184; Lecons Elem. du Dr. Civ. Rom. Sec. 414, 416.


USUFRUCT, civil law. The right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing. 2. The obligation of not altering the substance of the thing, however, takes place only in the case of a complete usufruct. 3. Usufructs are of two kinds; perfect and imperfect. Perfect usufruct, which is of things which the usufructuary can enjoy without altering their substance, though their substance may be diminished or deteriorated naturally by time or by the use to which they are applied; as a house, a piece of land, animals, furniture and other movable effects. Imperfect or quasi usufruct, which is of things which would be useless to the usufructuary if be did not consume and expend them, or change the substance of them, as money, grain, liquors. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 525, et seq.

So here is a concept one might consider. Mercantilism is that system of trading which exists between the extremes of a USE on one boundary and a USUFRUCT on the other. The mercantile system is intended to draw profit from inventory owned by someone else. Those who purchase (in their perception) the USE do not intend profit as the outcome.

The concepts of uses and usufructs came about in response to high taxes required of the crown to fight their many wars and conquests. Today there is little or no private property in existence and paper money effects no change of ownership (and never did) any more than an IOU effects a change of ownership.

[singular_me]

there is this audio recording of **5000 years of debt** on utube, and the author has many interviews too available

yes he went that far back to prove that debt came before money, when bartering was not satisfying both sides evenly.. ((you do not want to trade your cow for 50 chickens, so I have this other offer... "how about working for me so many hours then" ))

The authors seems to say that money was created to resolve debt issues in the first place, then quickly some noticed that debt enslaves. I only listened to one of the interviews so far but as always duality works both ways too.

basically I do not think monetarism can survive without debt because then we'd a flat economy realistically speaking and a flat economy isnt an incentive to be ahead of the game. As long as they are some/many are ready to go into deep red ink, the boom and busts will continue. The flaws are inherent to the premise

[palani]

Or is it simply hysteria which produces what is to-day termed "the profiteer?" It is probable that the modern profiteer is the same person whom we formerly called "the grafter, the extortioner, the robber, the gouger." ["Legal Aid Review," April 1920]

[singular_me]

EDIT: he is a controlled opposition without a doubt but that shouldnt discredit his research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEb4Bda_06c



correction: the tile is : DEBT: THE FIRST 5000 YEARS

An anthropological history of the idea and origins of debt. It claims debt is a concept that predates cash and bartering, and has always been linked to sin. The debtor is in an inferior moral position to the creditor, and so debt offers a subtle and manipulative way for the powerful to exploit the weak. Watch Macat’s short video for a great introduction to David Graber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years, one of the most important critiques of economics ever written.

============

the problem isnt money but money is the tool making people want to spend more from than they actually earn? It is a mind issue first..... also how do we prevent any big financial structures from speculating on the birth rate and emotions/opinions?