I’m sorry do you have any understanding of how the economy works at scale?
A fundamental part of it is that money has to move. Lots of money that sits is really, really bad.
That’s where investment comes in. Big projects come in (beit R&D, or production, or expansion) and they cost more to start than there is in cash reserves. You could consider a loan an investment as well. And that would be the same, making the bankers the investors (this also applies to mortgages and any other consumer loan).
They must, otherwise companies taking on multi-million dollar projects would have to have more multi-millions sitting dormant in cash reserves. And at the scale of global economies, that is a bad thing.
Pour it into your products and services. Not buying your competition. Research, develop, PAY YOUR FUCKING EMPLOYEES.
You know what moves money around the economy better than handing one asshole 10 million from the wallet of another asshole? Giving your employees enough money to live on, enough money so that they are secure and happy to work, have kids, have a life. Regular people spend their money.
Private equity is just dragons hoarding wealth in the form of businesses rather than literal coin.
Private equity is shit. But credit is a vital part of the economy, and creditors are investors no matter how you look at it.
So without investors you rely on banks. Do you think more power to banks is the solution to all of our problems? Because I sure as hell don’t.
Without investors or creditors, the alternative is being able to self-finance everything. That means sitting on money until a large project can be paid for up front and in full. That means even larger amounts of money staying idle.
But performing those projects is vital to the motion of the economy. Spending $50 mil to build a new factory, for example, means lots of work for tradespeople and everywhere in the supply chain for all materials.
You all bemoan the super wealthy. Do you think the world would be a better place if Musk had 230B stuffed in a mattress doing nothing? Because that’s the world you’re describing.
Private equity is a bullshit industry that shouldn’t exist. You have my agreement there. Companies that exist solely for the purpose of buying and selling control of companies, or artificially inflating the value of commodities are evil, full stop, 0 disagreement. But barring private investment means centralizing power in banks. Even co-ops, I think, at large scale would be dangerous. Everyday people are far too risk averse to gamble their livelihood on long-term investments in their business.
I think the world would be a better place if Elon didn’t have any money at all.
Because most of his wealth was generated off the back of government subsidy, daddy’s genocide emeralds, stepping on the faces of actual innovators, and grift.
How do you expect companys, however they are named and structured in your utopia, to finance large expensive projects that will not generate a return (even assuming a currency-free, post scarcity world, I would think big things still need to happen, and there has to be a benefit to doing them) for a significant period of time?
I’d really like to know what your proposed alternative is.
In a post-scarcity world, the financing of large, expensive projects does not rely on the traditional capitalist structure that prioritizes profit above all else. Instead, such projects would be driven by societal needs, scientific advancement, and the overall betterment of humanity. The collective resources of society, managed through democratic means and supported by advanced technology, would be allocated to these projects.
A cooperative approach, leveraging public funding and shared resources, ensures that the benefits of these projects are distributed equitably. This system prioritizes long-term sustainability and communal welfare over short-term profits, making it feasible to undertake significant endeavors without the constraints of capitalist profit motives.
Your question presupposes that only a profit-driven model can manage large-scale projects, but history shows that many significant advancements, such as space exploration and public infrastructure, have been achieved through public funding and collective effort. In a post-scarcity world, this approach would be even more refined and efficient, driven by a united vision of progress and equality rather than the narrow interests of profit-seeking entities.
I’m sorry do you have any understanding of how the economy works at scale?
A fundamental part of it is that money has to move. Lots of money that sits is really, really bad.
That’s where investment comes in. Big projects come in (beit R&D, or production, or expansion) and they cost more to start than there is in cash reserves. You could consider a loan an investment as well. And that would be the same, making the bankers the investors (this also applies to mortgages and any other consumer loan).
They must, otherwise companies taking on multi-million dollar projects would have to have more multi-millions sitting dormant in cash reserves. And at the scale of global economies, that is a bad thing.
Pour it into your products and services. Not buying your competition. Research, develop, PAY YOUR FUCKING EMPLOYEES.
You know what moves money around the economy better than handing one asshole 10 million from the wallet of another asshole? Giving your employees enough money to live on, enough money so that they are secure and happy to work, have kids, have a life. Regular people spend their money.
Private equity is just dragons hoarding wealth in the form of businesses rather than literal coin.
Boot lick harder.
Private equity is shit. But credit is a vital part of the economy, and creditors are investors no matter how you look at it.
So without investors you rely on banks. Do you think more power to banks is the solution to all of our problems? Because I sure as hell don’t.
Without investors or creditors, the alternative is being able to self-finance everything. That means sitting on money until a large project can be paid for up front and in full. That means even larger amounts of money staying idle.
But performing those projects is vital to the motion of the economy. Spending $50 mil to build a new factory, for example, means lots of work for tradespeople and everywhere in the supply chain for all materials.
You all bemoan the super wealthy. Do you think the world would be a better place if Musk had 230B stuffed in a mattress doing nothing? Because that’s the world you’re describing.
Private equity is a bullshit industry that shouldn’t exist. You have my agreement there. Companies that exist solely for the purpose of buying and selling control of companies, or artificially inflating the value of commodities are evil, full stop, 0 disagreement. But barring private investment means centralizing power in banks. Even co-ops, I think, at large scale would be dangerous. Everyday people are far too risk averse to gamble their livelihood on long-term investments in their business.
I think the world would be a better place if Elon didn’t have any money at all.
Because most of his wealth was generated off the back of government subsidy, daddy’s genocide emeralds, stepping on the faces of actual innovators, and grift.
Bootlick. Harder.
How do you expect companys, however they are named and structured in your utopia, to finance large expensive projects that will not generate a return (even assuming a currency-free, post scarcity world, I would think big things still need to happen, and there has to be a benefit to doing them) for a significant period of time?
I’d really like to know what your proposed alternative is.
In a post-scarcity world, the financing of large, expensive projects does not rely on the traditional capitalist structure that prioritizes profit above all else. Instead, such projects would be driven by societal needs, scientific advancement, and the overall betterment of humanity. The collective resources of society, managed through democratic means and supported by advanced technology, would be allocated to these projects.
A cooperative approach, leveraging public funding and shared resources, ensures that the benefits of these projects are distributed equitably. This system prioritizes long-term sustainability and communal welfare over short-term profits, making it feasible to undertake significant endeavors without the constraints of capitalist profit motives.
Your question presupposes that only a profit-driven model can manage large-scale projects, but history shows that many significant advancements, such as space exploration and public infrastructure, have been achieved through public funding and collective effort. In a post-scarcity world, this approach would be even more refined and efficient, driven by a united vision of progress and equality rather than the narrow interests of profit-seeking entities.
Bootlick harder.