Message from @ToaWarrior1488
Discord ID: 800112685034242068
''…will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary…''
rothbard vindicated once again
FRB isn't usury in itself. FRB (Full Reserve Banking) actually causes deflationary monetary policy which leads into usury.
I believe in FRB (Fractional Reserve) with no interest
all that argues is that usury should be done by the state and not private business
:yes: but not by income tax
LVT is based indeed
LVT is the best feudalism
we love our feudalism
every citizen a feudal lord
Personally I have come to believe that interest – or, rather, too high a rate of interest – is the ‘villain of the piece’ in a more far-reaching sense than appears from the above. But to justify this belief would lead me into a longer story than would be appropriate in this place.
Keynes, ‘Saving and Usury’, 1932
well having too high an interest rate is obviously bad but I don't think you can have an economy without interest due to the time value of money
you mean time preference?
you can have time preference without interest
most people care about the expected return on capital (basically the profit businesses make)
not return on savings
well its an implication of time preference, but specifically the time value of money
Fuck Free Tradeeeeee
whats it say
Competitive advantage works up to a point but it doesn't scale to infinity like some people would like you to think
It doesn't work at all really
tl;dr wrong because full employment assumption, industry stripping, etc
@slavecaste What is the concept of "free trade" exactly?
The fact that we can trade globally without any tariffs and it'd be all good
So what is the problem with it?
Yes it does
In principle it works, specialisation and labour division increases efficiency
If there was no cost to transport or sell/buy goods (ie no tax, costs to enter market ect.) Then it would be fine
The reason it doesn't work is because of geopolitical concerns and unfactored costs
You can have that without free trade
There are way more reasons that it won't work that aren't even that
Because it doesn't work how theorized (wages fall, industries disappear, unemployment rises, etc)
Competitive advantage had nothing to do with free trade, I do not agree with the author combining the two. Unemployment may rise in the short term but will fall in the long term
And industries dissapering is not it "not working"
You would expect industries to dissaper
It only falls due to government stimulus, not free trade