I don't think capital naturally accrues capital. Look at any country that experimented with "land reform", i.e. taking land from capitalists and distributing it to the workers. I'll save you the wikipedia read. Production collapses, less is sold, less is earned, people become poorer. Capital is destroyed.

▲

estearum a day ago | parent | next [-]

I would describe seizure and redistribution of land to be an exogenous shock, wouldn't you?

▲

missedthecue a day ago | parent [-]

At some point (after decades) the shock ought to wear off, but production levels don't return.

▲

estearum 19 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not true? The US dispossessed Native Americans of their land and dramatically increased agricultural production. The UK went through massive land ownership changes as a result of the Black Death and dramatically increased production after the fact. China went through massive land dispossesion and produces more than it ever has. Same with the Netherlands.

What examples do you have in mind?

	▲	missedthecue 15 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Expropriation. Peruvian land reform in 1969 or Cuban land reform in the late 50s are examples I'm well acquainted with.
	▲	thayne 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The French revolution.

▲

nairboon a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't think capital naturally accrues capital.

It depends on the monetary system. Those monetary systems that mostly accompanied capitalism have a feature that leads to this capital accumulation effect: interest/debt.

Financial capital is kept in banks, which deposit it at their central bank. There it naturally accrues more capital due to interest. (Except in exceptional circumstances like the Swiss negative interest period)

▲

missedthecue a day ago | parent | next [-]

But still, lots of lenders go bust. Lots of loans end up non-performing. Interest isn't a free money loophole, it's profit in exchange for risk.

Presently, the safety of bank deposits are in most countries guaranteed by the government, but before this they weren't risk free either. That's why bank runs happened. People panicked to get their capital out before it was gone.

	▲	nairboon a day ago \| parent [-]
		In the private market: yes the interest is a compensation for the risk taken by the lender. However certain institutions like banks have access to so called "risk free" lending. They can (must) deposit capital at the central bank and get paid interest. In the US this would be the "interest on reserve balances" or through reverse repo transactions, where the FED pays the interest. From the point of view of the bank (inside a financial system) this is risk free profit.

▲

Jensson 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It depends on the monetary system

No it doesn't, regardless of which monetary system you can invest resources to make more resources. Communists also does this, tribes also does this, everyone does this, having more lets you invest to get even more.