From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/12/26 4:18 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:   
   > *+->> consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the   
   >   
   > COnsumption is the most heavily weighted Keynesian econometric variable, true   
   >   
   > But if you want to grow an economy, you want folks to invest (not even save,   
   > but invest - ie if you are keeping money aside, you are not building   
   > factories)   
   >   
   > Consumption is not necessarily productive   
      
   spending for consuming is not keep money aside, it's literally investing   
   back into those who produced what ur consuming ... without any   
   expectation of further profiting off it later. cutting taxes on the rich   
   is actually birdbrained economics.   
      
   tax the fuck out of the rich, literally just give it to the poor, so   
   they drive the bus in ways that actually help people. the systems that   
   actually help them will have no problems surviving even when personal   
   profits are heavily taxed.   
      
   >   
   > In that regard, GDP, which measures constant transactional churning, is also   
   > not really productive. If you compare to physics, the Lagrangian Energy is   
   > really Wealth in price-quantity phase-space. GDP is like putting an odometer   
   > on everything that moves, living or not, and adding it all up.   
      
   i'm fully aware economic measures are mostly just story telling used to   
   keep sheeple buying into the system   
      
   we, for example, never did anyone any real service by taking women out   
   of the homemaking/child raising roles and putting them in the work force   
   instead. paying a nanny who doesn't have the same existential stake in   
   the child so mom can play whoever the fuck moron executive is cheating   
   the child regardless of how much the gdp went up with the change.   
      
   the goal of the economic system is not capture and package all our time   
   into transactional relationships. it's a real shit way to run a society,   
   and i'm still not entire sure we'll survive the act of doing so given   
   the drooling idiocracy that it promotes to the top that *still* hasn't   
   acknowledged just how deep a grave we're *still* digging in regards to   
   ecological mismanagement.   
      
   >   
   > Add to the fact that since the 1980s money supply is harder to measure   
   > (Wenninger 1987 Partland 1992) and now not even velocity is determinate, you   
   > can see that all this technology is changing economics. Yes, the quantity   
   > theory of money (by COpernicus not Fischer or Friedman) is still true, but we   
   > can't really measure it. Economics is also becoming more frictionless.  THe   
   > old rules will win out, but there are some details we are losing control of.   
   >   
      
   but actually we need to transcend currency based economics. optimizing   
   for random-ass number go up does not capture true value generation.   
      
   we just hope it does   
      
   --   
   hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)