From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 21:18:05 -0800, dart200   
    wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   On target.  Bullseye.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)