Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.buddha.short.fat.guy    |    Uhhh not sure, something about Buddhism    |    155,846 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 154,160 of 155,846    |
|    Dude to All    |
|    Re: would banning usury cause our econom    |
|    13 Jan 26 19:40:25    |
      From: punditster@gmail.com              On 1/12/2026 5:35 PM, dart200 wrote:       > 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.        >       That's easy for you to say, you've got no skin in the game.              The main flaw in your logic is you negate the principle that everyone       should be equal under the law, including taxation on income.              In fact, wealthy people give the most to charity and pay the majority of       the US income tax.              Arguments against increasing taxes on the rich center primarily on       negative economic impacts, such as disincentivizing investment and       innovation. And, the risk of capital flight, as pointed out by Wilson.              Plus, the logistical difficulty of implementation would be practically       impossible.        >              > 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       >       Return to the gold standard and stop printing money to pay the interest       on the national debt. Gold is real - you either have it, or you don't.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca