Morti

Woah woah woah. Slow down, there. You weren’t selected to lead, just to join. You gotta work your way up!

I would maybe argue that, when it comes to debt, sure inflation might be good, but only if inflation is higher than the interest rate. This is because the amount owed (initial plus interest) is decreasing in value due to inflation. However, if one doesn’t have debt (besides national debt, I suppose), then this argument is moot.

Devaluing a currency over time incentivizes it to be spent, which could be argued is a good thing, but there’s a problem. Human necessities exist on a market, so the money has to be spent, anyway, on things like food and housing. Devaluing currency faster than one can save it (inflation is greater than the interest rate given by banks) only serves to make it harder to make large purchases. One can buy their necessities, but struggles to save for a house because money not spent on necessities loses value too fast to be saved for a down payment. Pair this with wage stagnation, and we see that the difference between net income and necessities can become negative: income is no longer enough for necessities, and saving is impossible.

The water does seem to be wet, after a recent survey.

Typst is wonderful. I’ve been using it for a long time. The lack of packages (as compared to latex) hasn’t been problematic for me. It’s mostly due to how new it is. This novelty is the reason for many of the downsides listed in the article, and can be remedied by wider adoption, and more development time.

This is a great question! You’re basically correct, but there are a few additional things. As far as the relationship between workers/consumers and the means of production is that of social ownership. Rather than an individual (or individuals) privately owning the means of production and purchasing labor from workers, the workers, consumers, and society as a whole collectively own and operate the means of production.

Additionally, the economic system is not a market system. Instead, investments, production, and allocation of capital goods (resources/products which are used either as ingredients for another product or as machinery/tools to produce another product) are planned, and not left up to “market forces”.

There are some aspects which are debated among communist philosophers. One major aspect is whether the economic planning would/should be centrally or decentrally done. The USSR had a primarily centrally planned economy. Others (myself included) advocate for a decentrally planned system.

Some things, which are usually stated, as being part of communism, are that society is moneyless, stateless, and classless. Starting with moneyless, if goods are exchanged on a market, an intermediate good is usually used specifically for exchange purposes (currency/money). If goods are not exchanged on a market, money is less necessary, so it is expected to be phased out.

Many philosophers say that the state’s purpose is to “ease” tensions between classes, and enforce economic policies. If there are no classes, and goods and services are “produced based on ability, and distributed based on need”, the primary purposes of the state no longer exist, so it would likely “whither away”. Anarchists generally argue for an immediate dissolution of the state.

The keen eyed, among you readers, might wonder how the planning could be done without a state, especially if the planning is central. I would be interested in the answer to that, myself. There are a few books talking about a post-capitalist system. I recommend No Bosses and Inventing the Future.

Hope this helps!

I suggest posting the “PS” link to a tech community. Sounds interesting! Keep up the good work!

See here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/19528084

Aight, so, we got cities/metropolitan areas, then we have the outer edge of cities called suburbs (could also be referred to as towns), then we got further out areas, which are rural, which have a lot of agriculture and wilderness.

“Small” and “rural” are used as qualifying adjectives, and typically compound. Rural: generally far from near by cities, lots of wilderness/agriculture around. Small: not a lot of residents or amenities.

Village is not a term that is commonly used, at least not where I’m from (midwest).

Your village is our small rural town: low population density, lots of wilderness/agriculture, not a lot of buildings.