by lowering money demand to be almost nothing

In order to tax the super rich, who have already proven they know how to manage money at least relatively well, a ridiculously high tax, we'd need a way to ensure that the government would use this money in a better way than said rich person.

@Aero no taxation, we would simply impose wealth constraint

anything gained after a certain point is subject to nationalization, and the number is calculated relative to the economic conditions to scale

What do you mean by "lowering money demand"

While i may be inclined to agree with slightly lowering the demand for money, it still leaves the economic growth of the hypothetical country astray.

when you create deflation in an economy with a production based currency, the more you produce the more the living standards rise, because currency is valued at the rate at which we produce things in aggregate, therefore production will then lower money demand and create deflation (increase in purchasing power of money)

so the prices of goods become cheaper, and the barriers to luxury items and in general good living will be lower

@halfthink these are all hypotheticals. i think of it as basically just making people need money less to survive.

@Aero why do you say so?

So, do you mean reduce the quantity of money?

Also the biggest problem is that when you go the deflation route, your competing againts the whole world

no, deflation in such a society would be caused by increasing production rate, because the value of the money would be based on the aggregate marginal production function

As it makes international trade hard

or the first derivative of the aggregate production function, thereby currency acts as a kind of fractional derivative relative to production

and we distribute means of production without actually imposing on private property, which is what "National Socialism" was about

deflation is another conversation entirely. we'll need to talk about it when the global birth to death rates start inversing.

that can be done with propaganda

i don't really agree with the propaganda route

So, if you want a stable quantity of money and no tax, then why have the state involved with money at all? Why not have free banking?

less propaganda = better the way i see it.

it can be positive if it's based on truth

You need alot of what ifs aen

@halfthink free banking leads to pareto principle, without constraints monopolies form and therefore plutocracy

Thats another problem i have with nat socs

no, this has already somewhat been done even in the Schact economic system

You have a communist understanding of economics dude.

Germany had higher relative wages to the plutocracies of UK, France, USA, had higher production rate, had no interest loans, had higher living standard, and proportionally their GDP was highest in the world until the war started

I have a bachelors in economics lol. I already explained in detail why capitalism is a failure, but I don't like communism either.

Bachelor in economics is not very credible, dude.

referring to my point about lowering the demand for money leading economic growth astray: Greed is probably the single greatest driver for aggregate prosperity in the long run. making money less desirable will dis-incentivize quite a few people from making progress unless there is another reward system in place.

I got a call. be back in 15 minutes.

not an argument

If you agree with what you learned, you are basically a commie.

lol wut

He means most commies come out of school

@Aero as I said you only do it at the upper echelons for individuals not necessarily for corporations

Well my faction killed like what? 20 million communists? Pretty sure I'm not a commie lol

pfft 20 million

dis-incentivizing money would go across the board though, no? how would you do it otherwise?

The communists killed twice as many

@Aero incrementally, the money demand effect would happen over time, and we would replace with new system of incentive like in ancient world based on money