Search Results
7/24/2025, 5:59:09 PM
7/21/2025, 6:21:23 PM
>>510974557
>good
I'm not saying their profits should or shouldn't shrink, either as a percentage of earnings or in terms of absolute purchasing power.
>because at some point those profits turn into rents and rents are bad
Profits are bad not just if or when they become onerous.
They're bad because they implicitly require perpetually accelerating money printing and/or cost cutting (or some mix of both) because the money for them doesn't actually exist and so they are mathematically impossible without cost cutting or printing. The latter which requires that fiat currency be legal tender or tolerated as legal tender.
>this is the main point of modern socialist economic theory started by marx
I think money itself has got to go. For several reasons:
1. It's a rationing system with an abstraction layer or extra step.
2. It causes real economic activity to not even start to occur or stop occurring if it previously did through the absence of money or insufficient availability of money or operating costs inflated by the debasement of the currency.
3. It enables parasitism by making socially acceptable and mathematically possible passive income and unearned consumption. It does this by making it legal to lend into existence, at interest, fictional units of legal tender which are nevertheless spendable despite being fictional. This is required in order to enable a for-financial-profit economy (capitalism) to be mathematically possible.
4. Through its perpetual devaluation of the legal tender in terms of purchasing power (which is itself a consequence and required to mathematically enable the for-financial-profit operated economy of capitalism) as a consequence of this mechanism, it punishes workers and savers and also causes an ever increasing pressure to cut costs.
5. The cost cutting can be by moving production abroad and becoming reliant on imports. Or through reducing the quality or the quantity of serving sizes or consumer goods or even buildings.
>good
I'm not saying their profits should or shouldn't shrink, either as a percentage of earnings or in terms of absolute purchasing power.
>because at some point those profits turn into rents and rents are bad
Profits are bad not just if or when they become onerous.
They're bad because they implicitly require perpetually accelerating money printing and/or cost cutting (or some mix of both) because the money for them doesn't actually exist and so they are mathematically impossible without cost cutting or printing. The latter which requires that fiat currency be legal tender or tolerated as legal tender.
>this is the main point of modern socialist economic theory started by marx
I think money itself has got to go. For several reasons:
1. It's a rationing system with an abstraction layer or extra step.
2. It causes real economic activity to not even start to occur or stop occurring if it previously did through the absence of money or insufficient availability of money or operating costs inflated by the debasement of the currency.
3. It enables parasitism by making socially acceptable and mathematically possible passive income and unearned consumption. It does this by making it legal to lend into existence, at interest, fictional units of legal tender which are nevertheless spendable despite being fictional. This is required in order to enable a for-financial-profit economy (capitalism) to be mathematically possible.
4. Through its perpetual devaluation of the legal tender in terms of purchasing power (which is itself a consequence and required to mathematically enable the for-financial-profit operated economy of capitalism) as a consequence of this mechanism, it punishes workers and savers and also causes an ever increasing pressure to cut costs.
5. The cost cutting can be by moving production abroad and becoming reliant on imports. Or through reducing the quality or the quantity of serving sizes or consumer goods or even buildings.
Page 1