• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months 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
          9 months 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.