You might want to read what you replied to again.

Social democracy, maybe. At least they acknowledge social justice as a core political value. Plenty of socialism political stances are emphatic about social justice without going full on accelerationist authoritarian communism.

Of course there is. Are you looking for an -ism name for it?

Basing the collective mentality and the legal framework upon ubiquitous and mutual sovereignty. That is, an individual is sovereign, an organization is sovereign, etc - and thus, none have rights over another, except as agreed to by ongoing mutual agreement. Anyone can withdraw, and no other has the right to deny that. Disputes are resolved through finding the path of least incursion.

Implicit in this is the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, that abortion is a right, that forcing medical choices (including vaccination) has no moral standing, that one can arm oneself, and one can also, by contract, participate in a community which disarms itself. Government bodies are ultimately services, in this model, which people, at some point, contractually agree to - or don’t.

The right to withdraw is a necessary one, as any contract one cannot deny or reject when one wants to is, at its root, compulsion or slavery.

Is there a middle ground between individualism and communitarianism

Socialism…

The middle ground between capitalism and communism is socialism.

Everyone gets enough, and if you work hard you get more.

The Overton window has just shifted so far right that “middle ground” has started being treated as extreme.

Your Bible also says something along the lines of “chop off your hands if you jerk off.” There’s so much shit in Leviticus I could pull up which aren’t exactly “loving.”

Edit: Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”

From: https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/

Well the Bible is mythology, so putting any value into the words is just like putting value into the words of a fictional book.

Apparently it didn’t do the job, as the Jesus fandom in the US are literally the ones killing social services.

You are free to refute it.

You are absolutely incorrect. You literally know your costs when you are a business. That is the one thing you know with absolute certainty.

You might not know what those costs will be in the future, but you also dont need to increase prices ahead of time for a potential future event.

Congrats on having the most ignorant opinion and most downvotes of this entire Lemmy post.

I’m really surprised to see someone still parroting this Trumptard delusion so long after the stimulus checks were long gone. Do you really think those few checks did that much? They were not that much money and probably went mostly to basic living expenses for those who were in need at the time, spent on the usual things and then forgotten. For my family, it was just an increase to our bank balance that stayed there for a little while and we didn’t change any spending habits.

As everyone else has said it’s easy to see that inflation has been caused by corporate greed. There was an initial issue of supply chain resources being scarce during 2020-2021 that hurt economies everywhere, but we are well past that and all the price hikes are due to corporate executive decisions to take more profits now.

it’s the government’s fault.

yeah no but thanks for trying.

Libertarians generally don’t understand Fiat Currency, mainly because it requires some form of societal trust.

And Libertarians can’t trust anyone.

Or are you gonna tell me that money printing isn’t related to inflation?

the evidence supports the claim that an increased monetary supply really doesn’t increase inflation, but that isn’t in the story book you base your economic understanding on, just in the peer reviewed Financial Analyst Journal published by the CFA for example.

You realize the stim cheques were paid for not just printed right?

The bullwhip effect refers to perceived demand, not actual demand. And if perceived demand is larger, suppliers would act to increase supply, which suppresses inflation, not causes it.

Instead we saw supply shortages well before any stimulus checks were passed, and we saw further supply shortages after demand for oil for example absolutely cratered. The impact of this on various supply chains is still being felt everywhere.

It’s also dead-simple to prove that demand hasn’t suddenly spiked due to stimulus checks, because if you look at a graph of US household savings, you’ll notice those jump up at a couple points, and those jumps happen to be roughly equal to the size of the total stimulus package. Which very strongly suggests Americans used the stimulus checks to pay off built up debts and to put the rest into savings. These graphs are available online, feel free to Google it.

Furthermore, inflation was at its peak well after the stimulus checks had ended. This was due to a normalization of demand to pre-covid levels, whereas supply still needs time to go to those levels.

deleted by creator

And if everyone had a relatively comparable amount of assets under their control? If each person could control a certain amount of stock in the stock market or rights to property? As you became more wealthy in assets, the taxes become higher, while when you become less wealthy in assets, you receive more appropriated assets. The same amount of assets would exist in the economy, realized or unrealized, and if the appropriation equation is tuned well enough, it could provide income for people who can’t work, who might exchange all their assets for cash every time they get them, and limit the accumulation of assets for the very wealthy. There would still be the haves and have nots, but the have nots would have an effective floor, and the haves an effective ceiling.

The government would not make decisions on how the assets are used, only provide the means to even out how the assets are divided. People who work and earn enough to live on that income would be able to accumulate assets in the form of the stocks or property. They would earn assets up until the agreed upon point at which assets are taxed more than the average growth of the economy. This point would be at least enough for an average person to live comfortably and not have to work for a few decades until their assets ran out. Think in the 5 to 15 of million dollar ranges.

The assets would appreciate if profitable, like stocks owned by current stock holders, or depreciate if not. Most people would hire someone to manage their assets for a fee. That person would likely manage many people’s assets in the way requested of them. The safe investor would see their client’s assets grow with the economy, but some investors might value other things.

A person could instruct their investor to manage their assets at an agreed upon slow rate of growth, or even a loss. They might do this to spend on stocks that are less profitable, but are something the person cares about. A person might do this if they enjoy their work and have no plans of retirement unless forced to. They would keep enough assets to retire for a shorter period of time, or for use in the case of emergencies. This would allow people to fund some risky projects that could pay out massively, but keep themselves safe enough to not risk too much.

Other side effects include reducing opulent spending. You could have a huge mansion, but you couldn’t have as much in retirement savings. You could have all of your assets be boats, planes, and apartments for personal use, but you’d have to sacrifice to spend any time off work. The most expensive of properties couldn’t be owned full time by a single person, they’d have to be owned by multiple people and shared amongst themselves.

People who have huge businesses under their sole or family ownership would need to bring in outside investors. Large privately traded companies would have to be completely reworked, and would likely stop existing beyond a certain size. CEOs who own most of a large company would stop existing. Many other effects I’m sure I haven’t thought of.

This idea needs more work, and there’s a good chance constitutions would need to be amended to enable it, but it would solve the problem of the ridiculously wealthy having so much sway on the economy, and provide a social safety net. It would bring power to the hands of the people and democratize the economy, while not having the inefficiencies of planned economies.

ya, but most European nations are a better place to live than the USA, and ironically many Americans stationed there from the military chose to stay there after their contracts are up

I live in Norway you fucking retard.

Norway is demonstrably better at pretty much everything except being obese retards than America.

So you’re saying that the sole cause of inflation worldwide is the COVID stimulus checks? Or even that this is the primary driver?

That’s so insane that I need to make sure that’s the point you’re actually making.

What they’ve done to you is even worse.

You absolute fucking moron.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod