That completely ignores the coercive law of competition.

"Accumulate! Accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets."

- Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1

JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> completely ignores the coercive law of competition

Not a forcing function unless you’re levered. Competition can’t push your return on a productive asset below zero (by definition), just lower by increasing the value of said asset while reducing the cash flows from it.

	▲	tankenmate 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		`Not a forcing function unless you’re levered`; but every one is levered, you aren't born with all the housing, food, and water you'll need for the rest of your life. Everyone is born with a net negative of the necessities of life, the difference though is that a very small minority are bequeathed this by well heeled ancestors. But for the overwhelming majority there is a life long struggle to afford to live a suitable life.

▲

lanfeust6 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Out-competing yields rewards for effort, that doesn't make it necessary. All that's necessary is maintaining. Many small businesses coast by for 30 years with no aspiration to do more.

Japan has had stagnant GDP growth for decades. Growth is not "necessary" as socialist like to project, it's just better. Productivity/innovation increases through growth have drastically improved our quality of life. Meanwhile socialists treat the world as zero-sum, as though everyone started out with a pile of cash which gets divvied up. Redistribution can be good, but you first need to generate the wealth.