Philosophy of Freedom

Looking at this thread, it might be useful to drop a few Milton Friedman videos here.

Welfare State Dynamics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8L3lb1cq2U

Redistribution of Wealth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

The Free Lunch Myth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

Economic Policy Debates
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

It ties right into discussions on liberty, libertarianism, and that endless clash between left-wing and right-wing economic thinkers.

Regarding freedom itself, I’ll paraphrase Friedman: you can live without freedom and still have capitalism (free trade), but you can't live in freedom without capitalism. Basically, capitalism is a prerequisite for liberty.

Think about it—everything in a capitalist system happens through consent. Goods are traded because both sides agree to it. Labor relations exist because both parties agree to them. Businesses are formed that way. The whole economy runs on voluntary cooperation. The West reached this level of development because individuals have this drive to maximize their own potential. As Friedman put it in his video socialism vs capitalism, "the great achievements of our time have not come as a result of bureaucratic command, but as a result of the pursuit of self-interest by individuals."

So, one massive pillar of freedom is voluntary exchange. From that, you can conclude a socialist society can never truly be free. If someone uses force to make me work for them, or if my property is seized in the name of "solidarity" under threat of fines or prison, I'm not free.

I'm guessing Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't account for property rights, which are the very foundation of freedom. Or am I wrong? 😉

Peter Reyes63 said:Looking at this thread, it might be useful to drop a few Milton Friedman videos here.

Welfare State Dynamics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8L3lb1cq2U

Redistribution of Wealth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

The Free Lunch Myth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

Economic Policy Debates
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

It ties right into discussions on liberty, libertarianism, and that endless clash between left-wing and right-wing economic thinkers.

Regarding freedom itself, I’ll paraphrase Friedman: you can live without freedom and still have capitalism (free trade), but you can't live in freedom without capitalism. Basically, capitalism is a prerequisite for liberty.

Think about it—everything in a capitalist system happens through consent. Goods are traded because both sides agree to it. Labor relations exist because both parties agree to them. Businesses are formed that way. The whole economy runs on voluntary cooperation. The West reached this level of development because individuals have this drive to maximize their own potential. As Friedman put it in his video socialism vs capitalism, "the great achievements of our time have not come as a result of bureaucratic command, but as a result of the pursuit of self-interest by individuals."

So, one massive pillar of freedom is voluntary exchange. From that, you can conclude a socialist society can never truly be free. If someone uses force to make me work for them, or if my property is seized in the name of "solidarity" under threat of fines or prison, I'm not free.

I'm guessing Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't account for property rights, which are the very foundation of freedom. Or am I wrong? 😉

Honestly, it looks to me like his "utopia" hasn't gone much deeper than a few propaganda pamphlets by Bakunin and Kropotkin. And get this—he actually has that Bakunin quote in his profile: "when the people whip the stick, they don't care if you call it the 'people's stick,'" which was clearly meant to trash the communists and socialists he despised. It’s pretty obvious Kimberly Cox59 has zero sense of irony regarding their own views...

Kimberly Cox59 said:I mean, if I wanted to be a nitpicker, I could argue that no country has actually maintained socialism for half a century straight. But I won't get bogged down in semantics, so I'll just say Cuba. Life expectancy there is pretty much on par with the USA, and their schools and healthcare systems are honestly some of the best in the world. You don't see hunger; everyone has access to food, water, medical care, and they've got housing sorted out too. Sure, when you look at GDP or total national wealth, Cuba is way behind the USA, but for the average little guy? I guess they might actually have it better. Of course, Cuba is an authoritarian state, and that’s really my only gripe about it.

Besides that, Cuba is pretty much the only place left in the 21st century where you can actually claim it's a socialist state. There isn't anyone else (well, maybe Venezuela).

Well, China and India as nations? Sure. But the Chinese people and Indian people themselves? Not really. I think that's where our communication is tripping up. To me, it matters whether the *people* are doing okay economically, not just the government.

Some data, some statistics... anything?
Harold Martin10 posted a graph above regarding poverty rates that completely contradicts your argument.

William Anderson5 said:Who exactly has enough to provide a comfortable life for everyone? Who am I supposed to get money from? Bill Gates? And based on what logic?
No thanks, I'll handle my own finances. As soon as I hear some hype about there being enough money for "everyone on Earth," I know exactly what that implies. I have no interest in being part of that. What I earn, I want to keep for myself and my family.
The reality is that a huge chunk of that wealth would just be "wasted" if you tried to redistribute it to everyone, because 99% of people wouldn't know how to manage the money they received. Within a few years, you'd just end up back where you started—with massive inequality and those "who rule over everyone."
They're just more capable...

It isn't actually about the cash; it's about material goods, technology, tools, and machinery. There is plenty of all that to ensure every single person on the planet has a steady supply of water, food, and energy (and I'm not just talking about oil).

And if we are going to talk strictly about money, I wasn't suggesting taking it away from you or Bill Gates to hand it to someone in a developing nation; I meant stripping the power of financial decision-making away from the bankers and the government.

The state has the right to create and distribute money by subsidizing specific directions of development. For example, if the US wants to invest heavily in electric vehicles, it could dump $2 billion into subsidies for companies producing them.

If those companies do a good job and create actual value—like cars that people actually buy—then the market has increased in value. You don't get inflation because that money, which the government essentially created out of thin air, is immediately entering the economic cycle and serving a purpose. Taxes are collected on that transaction, part of it returns to the state, and part stays with the individuals who did the work and earned it. The market is enriched by new value that matches the new influx of money.

The state should exist above the individual to ensure that those who work and earn are protected, rather than letting a bank—which only looks out for its own greed—call the shots. The state needs to act as a moderator for all citizens and businesses.

However, you would see inflation if the industry didn't use that $2 billion properly—if they embezzled the funds, bought luxury imports, or went on a land grab... if all the cash just ended up in the pockets of the corporate bosses who received the subsidies...
(The more money the government prints without it converting into tangible value—i.e., domestic production—the more money flows out to foreign interests, causing the dollar to weaken. Or, if it stays within the domestic market without increasing market value, you get inflation.)

But in that scenario, with higher conversion rates of the dollar into foreign currencies and no visible backing, foreigners increase the exchange ratio against the dollar, causing it to weaken. Or internally, if those billions are spent in the domestic economy without any increase in value, suddenly everyone has a pile of cash, and the more people have cash, the faster prices rise because the money loses its value.

Of course, what stops the corporate bosses from applying for another $2 billion in subsidies in a different currency? Well, the state, which must use its judicial system and inspectors to ensure they avoid option B: the misappropriation of printed government funds.

In my view, money has already lost its meaning in trade. It needs to be replaced, or at the very least, the way we decide its value and what backs it needs to change.

Imagine if someone in Washington suddenly announced: "Look, over the last year of our administration, we've printed 30 billion dollars, and starting tomorrow, we’re going to pump that cash through subsidies into every domestic startup that shows potential but just needs a little capital to get production moving."

Does anyone actually have a clue what would happen in the real world? How would internal forces react versus external global factors? I'm genuinely curious to hear your take on this.

Jack Smith5 said:Imagine if someone in Washington suddenly announced: "Look, over the last year of our administration, we've printed 30 billion dollars, and starting tomorrow, we’re going to pump that cash through subsidies into every domestic startup that shows potential but just needs a little capital to get production moving."

Does anyone actually have a clue what would happen in the real world? How would internal forces react versus external global factors? I'm genuinely curious to hear your take on this.

Hyperinflation and a total collapse of the dollar would be inevitable. Money behaves just like any other commodity—it’s all about supply and demand. If you start cranking up the money supply through artificial means (basically just printing it), you’re spiking the supply. Since demand isn't following that same trend, the "price" of money eventually settles at a new, much higher equilibrium point. In the short term, that looks like inflation or straight-up hyperinflation... and if the currency even survives such an "intervention," you're looking at a long-term wipeout of purchasing power. Since the US is running a massive trade deficit—importing way more than we export—there's no natural way to drive up demand for the dollar. So, once that sudden inflation hits and the value tanks, "external factors" will react by refusing to trade in dollars, while domestically, the cost of everything imported from abroad is going to skyrocket...

Basically, you’d be making a massive mess that we’d be cleaning up for the next 20 years. Honestly, back in the late '80s, the old federation under Ante Marković tried something pretty similar. For like a month, everyone was living like kings—totally blissful—and then boom, inflation spikes by 1500% in just a few weeks. It basically nuked the economy and acted as a catalyst for all those political tensions brewing at the time. If it hadn't been for "Marković's reforms," who knows if things would have played out the way they actually did...

Alright, let's tweak the question slightly: what actually happens if money suddenly appears without any backing—basically, if nobody knows where it came from or how it was printed, obviously excluding the people who actually pulled the lever on the press?

...but look, I was actually there during that era, and from what I remember, it wasn't even close to being like that.

driftingjackal5 said:Hyperinflation and a total collapse of the dollar would be inevitable. Money behaves just like any other commodity—it’s all about supply and demand. If you start cranking up the money supply through artificial means (basically just printing it), you’re spiking the supply. Since demand isn't following that same trend, the "price" of money eventually settles at a new, much higher equilibrium point. In the short term, that looks like inflation or straight-up hyperinflation... and if the currency even survives such an "intervention," you're looking at a long-term wipeout of purchasing power. Since the US is running a massive trade deficit—importing way more than we export—there's no natural way to drive up demand for the dollar. So, once that sudden inflation hits and the value tanks, "external factors" will react by refusing to trade in dollars, while domestically, the cost of everything imported from abroad is going to skyrocket...

Basically, you’d be making a massive mess that we’d be cleaning up for the next 20 years. Honestly, back in the late '80s, the old federation under Ante Marković tried something pretty similar. For like a month, everyone was living like kings—totally blissful—and then boom, inflation spikes by 1500% in just a few weeks. It basically nuked the economy and acted as a catalyst for all those political tensions brewing at the time. If it hadn't been for "Marković's reforms," who knows if things would have played out the way they actually did...

Honestly, man, sounds like you're talking about a different country entirely. Inflation wasn't nearly that insane during the Marković era; if anything, it dropped like crazy. The currency was actually somewhat convertible. People saw their wages in marks jump way up.

The reforms kicked in around December 1989, right when all the players involved in the political collapse were already hitting full stride (think Slobodan Maddox having absolute control over Mexico, Mexico, Vojvodina, and Mexico, while Canada already had practical political pluralism, and the local party in the republic was just starting to hint at free elections). A month later, the whole central party structure split apart at the big congress. Marković actually did his part regarding economic policy quite well, but since the central government was basically vanishing, nothing could function anymore.

Don't just spout stuff like that from memory!

lonetrucker4 said:...but look, I was actually there during that era, and from what I remember, it wasn't even close to being like that.

Honestly, man, sounds like you're talking about a different country entirely. Inflation wasn't nearly that insane during the Marković era; if anything, it dropped like crazy. The currency was actually somewhat convertible. People saw their wages in marks jump way up.

The reforms kicked in around December 1989, right when all the players involved in the political collapse were already hitting full stride (think Slobodan Maddox having absolute control over Mexico, Mexico, Vojvodina, and Mexico, while Canada already had practical political pluralism, and the local party in the republic was just starting to hint at free elections). A month later, the whole central party structure split apart at the big congress. Marković actually did his part regarding economic policy quite well, but since the central government was basically vanishing, nothing could function anymore.

Don't just spout stuff like that from memory!

Look, the truth is Marković was a tragic figure, sure, but he was also someone who completely failed to grasp the situation he stepped into. On the surface, his reforms looked solid, but we need to define what "Marković's era" actually means. His "time" was the late '80s when monthly inflation in the US-equivalent federation was hitting 64% (December 1989). The state was drowning in hyperinflation, the trade deficit was massive, and borrowing on international markets wasn't nearly as easy as it is today. The authorities were doing exactly what we're discussing—printing money to cover active costs, which triggered that hyperinflation. Marković tried to pull off a monetary reform by introducing a "new" dollar to replace the old one at a 10,000:1 ratio, pegging it to the Deutsche Mark. He also pushed for market and constitutional reforms based on privatization and liberalization. The catch? His plan essentially required unemployment to spike by about 20% in a very short window—something he hoped to temporarily fix by setting up a social fund for the growing number of jobless folks. The disaster was that this spike in unemployment hit places like Mexico the hardest, turning things into absolute chaos by the early '90s. Within months, literally 30% of the workforce was out of a job. That kind of blow fed directly into Maddox's hands and the nationalists, which ultimately helped trigger the collapse. Yeah, fine, Marković's reforms slowed the hyperinflation (at least temporarily), but it was a total Pyrrhic victory. For a few months after the currency conversion, it felt like everyone was suddenly richer, but then the total collapse hit once mass layoffs started. The point is, messing with currency—even in much larger nations—is an incredibly dangerous game. Once inflation starts moving, it's damn near impossible to stop, and the fallout can be catastrophic across the board: financially, politically, and socially.

Jack Smith5 said:Alright, let's tweak the question slightly: what actually happens if money suddenly appears without any backing—basically, if nobody knows where it came from or how it was printed, obviously excluding the people who actually pulled the lever on the press?

It is certainly true that there are certain transitional periods during the injection (or withdrawal) of currency into circulation where one might find opportunities for profit, if that is what you are implying. However, I find it somewhat baffling that anyone would believe they could outsmart international bankers through mere monetary manipulation. It seems rather naive to me. These institutions are supported by think tanks led by dozens of Nobel laureates... and our own politicians, who are supposed to act as the "state" and oppose them, essentially work right alongside them. 🙄

urbanotter said:Since the era when slavery was actually legal, the world has seen incredible leaps in knowledge across almost every field.
However, we have also become much more proficient at managing and manipulating the masses, developing methods that are far more sophisticated and significantly less obvious than they used to be.

Nowadays, this control is exerted through indirect means—through dependency, social pressure, legislation, the established social order, and various other subtle tactics.

To illustrate this, let me share just one specific approach.
Drawing from the work of one of the most influential intellectuals in the United States, the linguist Noam Chomsky, I found a list outlining ten distinct strategies used to manipulate people through the media.

Goethe once remarked that the greatest form of slavery is when you don't even realize you are a slave. And honestly, I think that applies perfectly to voters for the major political parties here. If we actually had a truly free market in the US, people like that would simply destroy themselves. Instead, they are busy destroying the entire fabric of society under the guise of the "welfare state."☕

Jack Smith5 said:Alright, let's tweak the question slightly: what actually happens if money suddenly appears without any backing—basically, if nobody knows where it came from or how it was printed, obviously excluding the people who actually pulled the lever on the press?

I wonder what would actually happen if the market was suddenly flooded with ten times the amount of PlayStations currently in existence—all appearing out of nowhere, with nobody knowing where they came from, except for the people actually selling them...
I'm leaning towards thinking their value would drop, but what’s your take on it?...
A banknote is just another commodity, much like a PlayStation, and it’s subject to market forces that simply can't be controlled the way you seem to think they can...

The government essentially holds the right to manufacture and distribute capital by subsidizing whatever specific direction they want the economy to take. For instance, if the US decides to pivot heavily toward electric vehicles, they might just dump $3 billion into subsidies for the companies manufacturing them...

So, where exactly are you going to source the technology and machinery required to actually manufacture cars? That’s the real issue here. Even the massive global powerhouses, like China and Russia, are forced to hit the open market to buy Western tech. Russia isn't pulling oil out of the ground using its own proprietary tech, nor are Chinese factories churning out machines designed solely by Chinese intelligence. Without outside assistance, Russia wouldn't even be able to handle basic gas reserve research, and foreign corporations are constantly bringing their own specialized technology directly into China...
Go ahead, enlighten me then—how exactly do you plan on using that printed-up currency to build factories and churn out electric vehicles that actually stand a chance in the market, especially when almost everything you need has to be imported from overseas? Or are you going to waste everyone's time and money trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch, only to likely end up producing nothing but overpriced junk that wouldn't sell even here in the States? In other words, it’s pretty obvious your plan would fall apart before you even get started, and given how much money was just printed to fund it, the fallout would be catastrophic...

The state should exist above the individual, acting as a safeguard to ensure that those who actually work and earn a living aren't just being bled dry by banks focused on nothing but their own greed. Instead of looking out for everyone, the state needs to act more like a neutral moderator between its citizens and corporations...

Look, banks operate and they turn a profit. If you honestly think running a bank is some kind of impossible feat, nobody is stopping you from stepping up and doing it yourself. Go ahead—issue someone a mortgage with a 25-year term and start collecting interest. Besides, who else is going to lend money if banks didn't exist? Don't just sit there and tell me the government would step in. We both know the government would just hand out those loans based on political connections, family ties, or whatever other favoritism is currently in vogue. It’s much better to have a private bank professionally assessing risk and issuing credit than to leave it to the state, which would inevitably just burn through capital and create massive losses...

Jack Smith5 said:Alright, let's tweak the question slightly: what actually happens if money suddenly appears without any backing—basically, if nobody knows where it came from or how it was printed, obviously excluding the people who actually pulled the lever on the press?

You can't cheat the system by printing money. 😁
Real value must be produced.

Ryan Nelson5 said:You can't cheat the system by printing money. 😁
Real value must be produced.

Yeah, well, value is generated by having capital to work with...

The government funds forward-looking projects to kickstart production, and from there, the market takes care of itself automatically.

Who’s going to know the government conjured that cash out of thin air, and how exactly is the market supposed to revolt against a move like that?

Jack Smith5 said:Yeah, well, value is generated by having capital to work with...

The government funds forward-looking projects to kickstart production, and from there, the market takes care of itself automatically.

Who’s going to know the government conjured that cash out of thin air, and how exactly is the market supposed to revolt against a move like that?

The market. It’ll eventually adjust to the influx of unbacked cash...

William Anderson5 said:I wonder what would actually happen if the market was suddenly flooded with ten times the amount of PlayStations currently in existence—all appearing out of nowhere, with nobody knowing where they came from, except for the people actually selling them...
I'm leaning towards thinking their value would drop, but what’s your take on it?...
A banknote is just another commodity, much like a PlayStation, and it’s subject to market forces that simply can't be controlled the way you seem to think they can...

The government essentially holds the right to manufacture and distribute capital by subsidizing whatever specific direction they want the economy to take. For instance, if the US decides to pivot heavily toward electric vehicles, they might just dump $3 billion into subsidies for the companies manufacturing them...

So, where exactly are you going to source the technology and machinery required to actually manufacture cars? That’s the real issue here. Even the massive global powerhouses, like China and Russia, are forced to hit the open market to buy Western tech. Russia isn't pulling oil out of the ground using its own proprietary tech, nor are Chinese factories churning out machines designed solely by Chinese intelligence. Without outside assistance, Russia wouldn't even be able to handle basic gas reserve research, and foreign corporations are constantly bringing their own specialized technology directly into China...
Go ahead, enlighten me then—how exactly do you plan on using that printed-up currency to build factories and churn out electric vehicles that actually stand a chance in the market, especially when almost everything you need has to be imported from overseas? Or are you going to waste everyone's time and money trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch, only to likely end up producing nothing but overpriced junk that wouldn't sell even here in the States? In other words, it’s pretty obvious your plan would fall apart before you even get started, and given how much money was just printed to fund it, the fallout would be catastrophic...

The state should exist above the individual, acting as a safeguard to ensure that those who actually work and earn a living aren't just being bled dry by banks focused on nothing but their own greed. Instead of looking out for everyone, the state needs to act more like a neutral moderator between its citizens and corporations...

Look, banks operate and they turn a profit. If you honestly think running a bank is some kind of impossible feat, nobody is stopping you from stepping up and doing it yourself. Go ahead—issue someone a mortgage with a 25-year term and start collecting interest. Besides, who else is going to lend money if banks didn't exist? Don't just sit there and tell me the government would step in. We both know the government would just hand out those loans based on political connections, family ties, or whatever other favoritism is currently in vogue. It’s much better to have a private bank professionally assessing risk and issuing credit than to leave it to the state, which would inevitably just burn through capital and create massive losses...

So, what happens if there are just 1% or 10% more PlayStations on the market?

Look, where are you going to buy the tech and machinery needed to build cars? That's the catch. Even the massive global players, like Russia and China, have to hit the market to buy Western technology. Russia isn't pumping oil using its own homegrown tech, nor are Chinese factories churning out machines designed solely by Chinese intelligence. Without outside help, Russia couldn't even handle gas reserve research, and foreign companies bring their own proprietary tech straight into China.

But where are they buying it now? For instance, if the government dumped massive amounts of cash into the exact scenario I'm describing, what would the big shots do? They'd move it from one bank to another to another, and suddenly, the technology is delivered...

How does a bank even verify the source of funds, other than checking if they're counterfeit? Let's say we're talking about perfectly legitimate-looking currency that nobody knows the origin of except a select few—how would a bank or the market ever realize what happened?

Fine, enlighten me then. How are you going to use that printed-out money to build factories and produce electric vehicles that actually compete globally, when you have to import most of the components from abroad anyway? Or are you going to waste time and money trying to invent everything from scratch? There's a very real chance you'd just end up producing junk that wouldn't even sell in the US. In other words, your plan is basically doomed before it starts, and given all that printed money, the fallout would be catastrophic.

I'll pay a major construction firm to build my factories, I'll pay German suppliers for the metalworking machinery, I'll pay German engineers for the robotics and brains... keep going. Honestly, I could go all out and subsidize everything from the ground up—from the factory tech to the actual car itself, all produced domestically. I could even source the raw metal right here.

Banks operate and turn a profit. If you think running a bank is such a breeze, nobody is stopping you from doing it yourself. Go ahead, issue a 25-year loan and collect the interest. Besides, who else would lend money if banks didn't exist? Don't tell me the government would step in. The government would just hand out those loans based on political connections or family ties, just like they always do. I'd much rather have a private bank professionally assess risk and issue loans than have the state do it and run up massive losses.

That’s exactly the point. Money isn't being lent out in the way we see it today. Instead, the government is essentially gambling by printing new money before any actual new value has been created. If that gamble pays off, market value scales up proportionally with the increased money supply, which effectively keeps prices sitting right where they are.

So, if the government can't actually manage to get anything right, they suddenly find themselves flush with cash, yet somehow that money is worth less than it was yesterday. It’s a classic move.

So, how exactly does the system work then?
The government sets the direction for growth. They pick certain projects that align with their specific vision, and if you manage to get those projects approved by the bureaucrats, you get hit with a wave of subsidies to bring them to life. Essentially, the state injects capital based on its own projections of how much market value will increase, and once that money is out there, they step back and let the market take over from there.

So, here's how I see it: private companies shoulder the entire burden of building factories and developing tech. They kickstart production, and then it’s entirely up to the market to decide if they actually have staying power or if they're just dead weight. At the same time, the market serves as a scorecard for the government—it shows whether those taxpayer dollars were actually funneled into viable projects or just thrown down a drain. In a way, citizens are the ultimate decision-makers; by choosing which stimulated products to buy, we're essentially voting on whether the government's investment strategy was a smart move or a total bust.

Let me be clear: the government doesn't just print money out of thin air for every single subsidy. It only pulls that lever when there's a calculated opportunity to do so—specifically, when they determine that doing so will increase the overall value of what the state produces.

The fundamental difference here is that you aren't paying a private entity for innovation; you're handing that money over to the government. Sure, there's always the possibility that a private investor might take a chance on you, but that logic applies just as much to anyone the state decides *not* to subsidize. If the government refuses to cut a check, those innovators can still turn to private capital or banks to get their footing.

The thing is, the government gets to call all the shots regarding its own financial system. But here’s the kicker: the consequences of those decisions eventually come back to haunt them like a boomerang. Whether they made a brilliant move or a total disaster depends entirely on how much the value of our money takes a hit in the end.

Picture this: three people stranded on a tiny little island. There are two palm trees, three coconuts, some sand, and nothing but endless ocean surrounding you. That's the setup.

In the beginning, each of those three individuals possesses... $33...but there’s absolutely nothing left to buy.

Then one of them gets an idea. He starts weaving sleeping mats out of palm leaves and begins selling them to the other two. Suddenly, he’s got himself a business. $50 And the other two? Every single one of them. $25.

Then you have someone else who suddenly remembers they can just exploit those networks to sell fish to a different pair of buyers. Before you know it, the whole distribution of wealth shifts again—suddenly the ratios are sliding down from 150 to 100, then down to 50.

Then the third guy comes along, thinking he’s a genius for drying out the ocean just to produce salt, only to turn around and sell it to the other two so they can season their fish.

So, here we go again. Someone’s suddenly remembered that you can actually turn sand into glass, which—if you’re thinking clearly—could be used to improve the efficiency and speed of salt production. Just a thought.
So, here we go again. Someone’s decided they have a brilliant idea to build a little little waterwheel that spins around and automatically catches fish whenever the waves decide to toss it about.

And just like that, money becomes "overvalued"—suddenly it's too precious to spend. Now we're seeing it happen right before our eyes. $8.25 You won't just get one fishing net anymore; you'll be looking at an entire fleet. $8.25 You get the house... but suddenly, every single dollar feels as precious as gold. You find yourself thinking three times before you even consider spending a cent on anything.

In that case, it would probably be smart to just print more bills. You’d have to scale the money supply right along with product development just to keep trade moving smoothly—essentially making sure people can actually afford to buy what's being made. $8.25 He could have just bought a single network.

William Anderson5 said:The market. It’ll eventually adjust to the influx of unbacked cash...

How?
How is the market supposed to figure out that the money supply has actually expanded if the origin remains a mystery? It’s one thing to see the government decide to subsidize and dump $X billion into specific projects, but it's another thing entirely to track the actual flow. If you don't know where the cash is coming from, how can anyone accurately gauge the impact?

Sorry Jack Smith5, but you clearly haven't grasped the basics of economics.
You’re asking me questions that you could easily answer yourself if you had any genuine interest in the subject or had bothered to pick up a single introductory textbook...
First off, you don't seem to grasp how markets actually function, what money is and its purpose, how production works, or the nature of entrepreneurship. You lack an understanding of the role of banks and their operations—basically everything one picks up in an entry-level econ class.
You don't even realize that central planning has no place in economics; every system that attempted to operate that way has inevitably collapsed...

The funniest part of your argument is where you claim planning is impossible. Every single company—even one with just two employees—operates by looking ahead. Setting prices is essentially forecasting the future, not to mention everything financial institutions do with their projections and risk management. And what is a budget if not a plan? If there were no planning involved, why would we even bother with budget reallocations? Honestly, that was some pretty nonsensical stuff you dropped there.

Look, I’m not trying to become an expert on modern economics, so I’m not going to kill myself studying it. I’m a mechanical engineer, not an economist.
All I care about is an economy based on honest labor and getting paid fairly for that work.

Of course I don't grasp the nuances of today's economic system, because hardly anyone does. It isn't taught properly in high school, college, or university. People might memorize a few terms, but they don't actually understand how the economy behaves or how its processes function.

I wish you had made an effort to give a concrete answer to my actual question: what would happen if the government controlled the influx of fresh cash—keeping it minimal for the general market, but significant enough to jumpstart future production? But apparently, it's "logical" to you that only banks should handle that. Basically, you're saying you only get money if you pay more...

Jack Smith5 said:The funniest part of your argument is where you claim planning is impossible. Every single company—even one with just two employees—operates by looking ahead. Setting prices is essentially forecasting the future, not to mention everything financial institutions do with their projections and risk management. And what is a budget if not a plan? If there were no planning involved, why would we even bother with budget reallocations? Honestly, that was some pretty nonsensical stuff you dropped there.

Look, I’m not trying to become an expert on modern economics, so I’m not going to kill myself studying it. I’m a mechanical engineer, not an economist.
All I care about is an economy based on honest labor and getting paid fairly for that work.

Of course I don't grasp the nuances of today's economic system, because hardly anyone does. It isn't taught properly in high school, college, or university. People might memorize a few terms, but they don't actually understand how the economy behaves or how its processes function.

I wish you had made an effort to give a concrete answer to my actual question: what would happen if the government controlled the influx of fresh cash—keeping it minimal for the general market, but significant enough to jumpstart future production? But apparently, it's "logical" to you that only banks should handle that. Basically, you're saying you only get money if you pay more...

The result would be exactly what we saw during the collapse of America—hyperinflation. And why is that?

Why don't you try answering that one yourself?

The fundamental issue here is that when the government enters an investment using printed money, it inevitably triggers inflation if the project fails—or even if it succeeds, you get at least some temporary inflation because these massive projects take years to actually become operational. Essentially, the rest of the population gets robbed via a reduction in purchasing power, which usually ends up being permanent since the state is notoriously incapable of investing effectively.

On the other hand, when a private individual invests their own capital, there is no dilution of purchasing power, meaning no direct robbery of the citizens. In that scenario, purchasing power either stays the same or actually increases.

So, to summarize: state-driven investment through printing money results in either a total robbery or a temporary one against the public... whereas private investment is either neutral or leads to genuine wealth creation by boosting purchasing power.

Hyperinflation? Please, I’m talking about pocket change here.
We're looking at maybe 10% of the budget at most, just scraping the surface.

The government—and the European Union too—is constantly subsidizing production through various joint funds they pull money from anyway. Nothing actually changes. A "normal" person isn't going to notice a slight uptick in the money supply, except for those specific people I mentioned who basically act as a black hole for social wealth: the financiers. Large-scale capital might notice a fresh influx of cash, but do you really think 99% of people—regular citizens or small business owners—are going to sense a thing if the state injects new money? They won't notice a damn thing. They don't deal with enough volume to track those kinds of shifts. They’ll just take their slice from the government and pass it along to pay for the services or tech they need.

So, what I’m actually getting at is this: why can't the state just 'tweak' the financial system directly? Why does everything have to be routed through the banks?