That is a response a user on this sub gave to me.

So is poverty necessary?

Without the threat of nothing to eat and nowhere to sleep, realistically the best means of motivating work and, therefore, keep the economic system going?

Without the threat of poverty would the working class stop working, leading to economic collapse?

So this is a question that’s always bugged me, how does money printer go per actually lead tire prices. And to give you my question, here’s an example. Let’s say I built a hammer and then I put that hammer on a shelf for three years and finally sold it, and that time the money printer went for and now all of a sudden, instead of selling it for $10 I’m charging 15 for that same hammer even though I’ve done no work other than storing the hammer. Where is that connection point between work that’s been done and the resources and now all of a sudden That item is worth more. I have a personal theory about how when the government print off money that money is then automatically stolen by government employees, and then hired out to people who then take resources out of the economy where it should’ve been as well as workers. Leading to higher prices, but at the same time I still don’t have that connection point. People always tell me that it’s because there’s more money and monies in a commodity. However, you show me the person who says I have enough money and I don’t need anymore. Would someone be able to explain or show me a resource that properly explains how the money supply actually affects pricing. Please no Commies, I already have a hard enough time, dealing with people who can’t even grasp the concept of a free market, much let’s try to explain to me how money works.

I remember from 2016-2020 every conservative wanted to be libertarian. Libertarians were the most dominant "3rd position" at the time. Disillusioned progressives identified as classical liberals, There was a huge reaction to cancel culture, and sjws, (this has kinda stayed in the form of "anti-woke") Reddit was predominantly libertarian, (Honestly was better than it is now) A lot of the online right were socially liberal atheists, I was even a libertarian.

The Democrats have been flirting with tankies and communists openly since 2014 but I feel like the reaction to the "Alt-Right" the Republican party had is mostly gone, and now they pander more to them than libertarians. In general religious authoritarians aren't really shy about being religious authoritarians anymore either. It feels like the term "lolbert" is how most people view libertarians now.

This book compiled a wealth of evidence that privatization has worked very well in underdeveloped countries, providing data from several regions in south America, Africa, and South Asia. Free market led to water supply being extended to all, along with efficient networks. All features which were lacking under socialism.

An exception is Cochabamba when privatization lead to social uproar, but was due to rationing and other network failures prior to privatization. Another exception is Manila, where privatization has been met with binding regulations, such as the Philippine constitutional law stipulating that foreigners may not own more than 40% of Philippine utilities.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this book. What did he get right? What did he get wrong?

I hope those that comment have actually read the book. "I've never read it, but I just know it's wrong," is a pretty poor argument.

Doing a little research on the banking system of Nazi Germany, I ran across the following article (1 page of publication information, 22 pages of reading).

Read this and tell us which monetary and financial policies are actually fascist.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9477/c9477.pdf

Oh, and "Abolish the fed!"

On one hand, without fractional reserve banking, it will exacerbate economic growth. But on the other hand, it prevents catastrophes lending disasters like 2008 housing crisis where a lot of that capital was lent from depository reserves of everyday people. If we believe that fractional reserve banking be permitted, should all banks also be subject to Dodd Frank?

Would you just wait it out?

Trump has now signed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Meanwhile, Canada and Mexico have retaliated with tariffs of their own. I assume most people in this subreddit are anti-tariff no matter if you like Trump or not. I find that tariffs don't make a lot of sense. I'm wondering what the most likely immediate outcomes of the tariffs might be, and how we can protect ourselves as individuals against the effects. To save money, or possibly to even make money. Does anyone wanna chime in?

Never mind if philanthropists actually do good and change people's lives for the better, undercutting government is unforgivable.

Totalitarians don't actually care about helping the poor. They just aren't happy unless they are putting a gun to your head.

Apparently, the people involved with Habitat for Humanity should be stood up against a wall for crimes against The State.

First, I'm not a fan of the clown in the office.

The majority of Reddit is saying the tariffs are hurting the everyday people in the US, NOT the countries producing and exporting the goods to the USA.

If that's true, why Canada & Mexico decided to hurt THEIR OWN people and implemented tariffs on goods imported from the USA? Aren't their governments any better than Trump?

Will I get at least one honest reply?

How would things like spaceflight be possible in a free market without government assistance? I'm imagining projects that no individual or company would have the time or resources to finish but if finished would unlock vast amounts of value e.g. spaceflight, fusion, research etc. Projects like this are beneficial to humanity and provide value beyond their original costs, but if it takes 100 years or $20 trillion to complete, then how would the free market ever hope to accomplish these feats?

What if the money supply expanded and contracted in direct proportion to population changes? Instead of relying on debt-driven inflation, we could maintain a stable per capita supply of money, ensuring that wages and savings retain their value over time.

This could allow for natural price deflation from productivity and efficiency increases—meaning goods and services get cheaper and effectively expand real world wealth.

Would this create a stable and fair economy, or are there pitfalls I’m not seeing?

Been seeing a few post about inflation, money supply, and comparing trump to Biden. So I'm curious what people think the fed/gov should have done?

i have seen some libertarians argue for it, and i am wondering why

Why is it always capitalism’s fault that communists are a failure and never the 20 years spent in the modern education camps that gave them no skills or abilities to add value to society.