> This is because they don't understand that it does not run in reverse. It is not symmetrical. They underestimate the pain of a deflationary shock, where everyone (namely your employer) gets an incentive to not participate in the economy and then stops participating in the economy (namely by employing you).
If you think of inflation as money supply growth, or growth relative to gold, the economy has barely grown since 1971 when Bretton Woods was ended. However, the economy did grow in gold terms in the period beforehand. Why would that be? Is your theory from a textbook truly applicable or just a way of enforcing the current economic norms that heavily benefit nation states? If you force all assets to go up, you bleed your asset holders via tax as well. They don't want people to believe in ideas that could break their hegemony.
> Capitalism does not guarantee competition (quite the opposite, strong property rights are the nexus of anticompetitive opportunity) which does not remove all profit over the long term
This is a different conversation, regulatory versus monetary. It also weakens your r > g business book pseudoscience argument. I studied economics and finance enough, I don't need some cheap armchair economist slag.
> tax the rich
Nice, if I didn't need any more proof that this is just another diatribe based on another faddish idea about how to fix the economy. Wait, did I say that earlier? Something about how ideas can be used to control the bounds of policy, the Overton window.
I haven't read the source but for one, there wasn't really even a US dollar until 1935. When banks failed, and they did unlike now when they artificially don't, you lost everything. There was no FDIC. All of those mechanisms are artificial and serve to make the banking industry large and profitable.
Not to mention currency debasement, another aspect of the modern world that makes finance uniquely profitable and, really, white collar work existent in any major form at all. It's ingenious. Since capitalism is naturally deflationary, as competition removes all profit over the long term, let's interfere and make it so workers make less money every working day. Hence, in order to make even the same amount of money each year, one has to either rise in the hierarchy, or argue for raises, which is inherently risky.
Basically, before 1935, it was hard to accumulate that much wealth. It wasn't generally backed by any nation state guarantee. Real estate has always been a great store of wealth, but it has physical limitations. The world since 1935 is now a world of nation state wealth guarantees. The only reason this amount of wealth is allowed to occur, is because of it. We took a strange path since 2008, when the banks were not allowed to fail. Everything eventually comes to pass.
Yes, it's just a shiny piece of metal. However, it is a pure element and there is a limited amount of it, unlike pretty much anything else except maybe silver.
This is the origin of the entire white collar world and all of its odd bedfellows, and it will die in our lifetime. All of our jobs will go with it, unfortunately.
Basically the modern web uses orchestration, for pretty much everything. Usually Kubernetes is doing that. Theoretically protocols like RAFT are formally verifiable, but their implementations in orchestration tools like etcd have not been, and I would go so far as to say that that is an impossible task. Therefore, the entire exercise is kind of silly.
It's really fundamentally unimportant what you specifically believe. What is important is what people your age in the aggregate believe. This is an undeniable truth. It's therefore silly to engage in a conversation about you and your beliefs specifically. I recommend trying to understand Plato's ideas first.
Without some kind of coherent post-Marxist revolutionary understanding of what communism is, this is just pure delusion. Most people don't have the ability to synthesize grand ideas for the direction of society, no offense.
There's like dozens of people in the world that can do these things, and they need to want to use their intellect for such a thing. Unfortunately, communism is just philosophically derelict, until another great thinker comes along.
Okay here's a secret that you probably won't hear other than in some books that are hard to find.
The youth desire a strong executive. They don't yet understand why it can be a bad thing, because they have little experience with people having power over them that aren't their parents or teachers.
The middle aged desire a strong legislative branch, the most fair branch of government. They have enough life experience to understand why. They are not quite old enough to be set in their ways just yet.
The elderly desire a strong judicial branch. Judges are almost always old, and biased towards the opinions of the elderly, left or right.
There is nothing wrong with a strong executive. It is just completely at odds with those who still control the vast majority of the money and power, and of course, mainstream media: the Boomers. JFK, Great Society, these are marked by a desire for a strong executive. Ironic, of course.
A strong executive can stop them, and the Boomers have never been told 'no' in their entire lives. Really truly, everybody was young in the 1960's. They warped society to their will, just like the people in every baby boom in history. You misinterpret their tantrum as something substantive.
Burning American flags is free speech? It's definitely an interpretation... and one that many legal scholars disagree with, similar to Roe v Wade. Not that repealing Roe v Wade was a good thing, but it didn't have a solid legal foundation.
It's not all about getting your way... well maybe the better way to say it is that the left got their way, for sixty years. And some of those wins from that period for the left were built on shaky ground. There has to be give and take in any healthy political system.
We are all Americans. I however don't want to be constantly re-told why our great, if flawed, history makes WASP Americans out to be the bad guys at every turn.
If you think of inflation as money supply growth, or growth relative to gold, the economy has barely grown since 1971 when Bretton Woods was ended. However, the economy did grow in gold terms in the period beforehand. Why would that be? Is your theory from a textbook truly applicable or just a way of enforcing the current economic norms that heavily benefit nation states? If you force all assets to go up, you bleed your asset holders via tax as well. They don't want people to believe in ideas that could break their hegemony.
> Capitalism does not guarantee competition (quite the opposite, strong property rights are the nexus of anticompetitive opportunity) which does not remove all profit over the long term
This is a different conversation, regulatory versus monetary. It also weakens your r > g business book pseudoscience argument. I studied economics and finance enough, I don't need some cheap armchair economist slag.
> tax the rich
Nice, if I didn't need any more proof that this is just another diatribe based on another faddish idea about how to fix the economy. Wait, did I say that earlier? Something about how ideas can be used to control the bounds of policy, the Overton window.