From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/13/26 7:40 PM, Dude wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   right cause having a lot of skin in game requires me to act like a   
   psychopath, and i'm just not unfortunately   
      
   >   
   > The main flaw in your logic is you negate the principle that everyone   
   > should be equal under the law, including taxation on income.   
      
   rich people are vastly more "equal" under the law than the poor, give me   
   a break   
      
   >   
   > In fact, wealthy people give the most to charity and pay the majority of   
   > the US income tax.   
      
   wealthy people have the most, yes ...   
      
   >   
   > Arguments against increasing taxes on the rich center primarily on   
   > negative economic impacts, such as disincentivizing investment and   
      
   wrong   
      
   > innovation. And, the risk of capital flight, as pointed out by Wilson.   
      
   maybe   
      
   >   
   > Plus, the logistical difficulty of implementation would be practically   
   > impossible.   
      
   i refuse to let rich people just dictate what is possible dud   
      
   >  >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
      
   --   
   hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)