If the latter is true, the solution may be to correct or even punish the ones
who are hoarding.

Is the basis of available credit premised on an individual or commercial
interest taking on credit and supplying goods and services and in turn
providing employment?

When we look deeper into the creditor’s enterprise, we see their
product is money. Where did they get the money? Isn’t this the product
of a prior successful enterprise?

The butcher, baker or candlestick maker can take credit and expand but
only if there are enough customers. There can’t be enough customers if
there aren’t enough jobs or wages are too low. The expansions of the
proprietors can’t supply enough jobs to in themselves to provide
enough new customers. Something new has to be introduced such as a
shoe manufacturer. The new enterprise produces new jobs and for the
existing enterprises, new customers.

So we can see credit for simple expansion is futile. It is the new
enterprise that allows for any true growth. Available credit is only a
solution if it produces a new venture.

On a larger scale, this small town now consisting of three enterprises
and a new venture can’t expand unless there are enough new ventures.
Available credit is again useless to the town in the same manner as it
was useless for the first three enterprises without customers.

It should be clear that real growth is the product of something new
being introduced. The article seems only to address a downside of a
credit monopoly and suggests breaking the monopoly as a correction to
the larger issue of growth.

When we look deeper into the creditor’s enterprise, we see their
product is money. Where did they get the money? Isn’t this the product
of a prior successful enterprise? And why would an individual be
accumulating so much wealth?

It’s at this point many economists and Alan Greenspan included would
have us believe the problem is human nature in the form of greed. I
would argue against this notion. Every human being does not share this
hoarding complex.

I would argue greed is not as common as many experts
would have us believe.

If I’m correct, the problem arises from the few
who do share this hoarding complex. Someone with an overabundance of
wealth tends to become another creditor rather than risk their wealth
in a new venture with too much risk associated with it. At a certain
level their caution in investing is understandable but at another
level, it’s also a sign of their hoarding mentality.

Is it simply a quant or naïve notion to believe that too much wealth
is a detriment to society is the need for continued growth just a
function of too much wealth resulting from a hoarding complex?

If the
latter is true, the solution may be to correct or even punish the ones
who are hoarding. This is not an indictment against the free market as
would often be alleged, but an indictment of personal ethics. This is
less an argument for socialism than it is for sound human values.

Moderator wrote:

The butcher, baker or candlestick maker can take credit and expand but
only if there are enough customers. There can’t be enough customers if
there aren’t enough jobs or wages are too low. The expansions of the
proprietors can’t supply enough jobs to in themselves to provide
enough new customers. Something new has to be introduced such as a
shoe manufacturer. The new enterprise produces new jobs and for the
existing enterprises, new customers.

Economic entropy is analogous to that of architectural. Buildings
take a long time to build up, but a very short interval to bring
crashing to the earth when the right structural members are broken.


So we can see credit for simple expansion is futile. It is the new
enterprise that allows for any true growth. Available credit is only a
solution if it produces a new venture.

Not so. Given the current standards of operations for many
companies, credit is also crucial for short term bridging of cash
shortages. One very common example is meeting payroll. Many companies
will find themselves without sufficient cash reserves on hand to meet
payroll and therefore avail themselves of short term loans. This is not
a sound way of running a business, IMO, particularly when this practice
is done on a regular and frequent basis. But in this regard I am old
fashioned and apparently not very hip.

On a larger scale, this small town now consisting of three enterprises
and a new venture can’t expand unless there are enough new ventures.
Available credit is again useless to the town in the same manner as it
was useless for the first three enterprises without customers.

This example of yours is WAY too simplistic to have any reasonable
merit. Even "primitive" societies were more complex than this. A
simplistic example, in this case, fails to illustrate principles because
complexity is now an integral component of relevant contemporary economies.

It should be clear that real growth is the product of something new
being introduced. The article seems only to address a downside of a
credit monopoly and suggests breaking the monopoly as a correction to
the larger issue of growth.

"Growth" is something of a phony baloney issue.

When we look deeper into the creditor’s enterprise, we see their
product is money. Where did they get the money? Isn’t this the product
of a prior successful enterprise? And why would an individual be
accumulating so much wealth?

That is nobody's business but that of the creditor.

It’s at this point many economists and Alan Greenspan included would
have us believe the problem is human nature in the form of greed. I
would argue against this notion. Every human being does not share this
hoarding complex.

Doesn't have to me "every". Only has to be "enough".

I would argue greed is not as common as many experts
would have us believe.

You should be more precise and say "morbid greed". We are all
greedy. Some more than others, and some of those are absolutely
terminal with it.

If I’m correct, the problem arises from the few
who do share this hoarding complex. Someone with an overabundance of
wealth tends to become another creditor rather than risk their wealth
in a new venture with too much risk associated with it. At a certain
level their caution in investing is understandable but at another
level, it’s also a sign of their hoarding mentality.

All of this is irrelevant. Private property is there at the owner's
whim. He may do with it as he pleases.

Is it simply a quant or naïve notion to believe that too much wealth
is a detriment to society is the need for continued growth just a
function of too much wealth resulting from a hoarding complex?

Sentence is not clear, but if I understand it correctly, you may
need to go back to basic economics. "Too much wealth"? By what
standard is any level "too much"? Who determines this? By what
authority would they presumably limit wealth? And of whom? "Society"?
Given individuals deemed too wealthy?

If the
latter is true, the solution may be to correct or even punish the ones
who are hoarding. This is not an indictment against the free market as
would often be alleged, but an indictment of personal ethics. This is
less an argument for socialism than it is for sound human values.

The world has been down this road many times before. What you
suggest is neither new nor particularly astute. The universal result of
what you have suggested here has been lots of death, destruction, decay,
and unbounded misery.

My suggestion would be to take these ideas, throw them into a wood
stove, light a match, toss it in, shut the door, wait for the flames to
roar so you know the ideas are meeting their just fate, turn away, and
never ever look back. Ever.

My two cents on a couple of points and then I'll jump out.

The complexities of 1st world economies are artificial.

Debt money
systems, quasi private banks and government regulatory agencies
fuel political bondage and foreign intrigue providing the perfect
corruption machine. This combined with lobbyists, front men,
interlocking corporate directorates indexed to elected criminals make
for complexity beyond comprehension.

It should be clear that real growth is the product of something new
being introduced. The article seems only to address a downside of a
credit monopoly and suggests breaking the monopoly as a correction to
the larger issue of growth.

"Growth" is something of a phony baloney issue.


Growth, development, can be a pain, particularly when growth
exceeds capacity, but, we need some. It's either that or back
to an agricultural society.