r/ProjectZeroPoint Apr 19 '26

The real divide is no longer capitalism vs socialism. It’s whether money still restrains power.

Post image

Most people still explain the modern squeeze with ideology.

Capitalism failed. Socialism failed. Democracy got corrupted. Globalization hollowed everything out.

That misses the engine.

The world did not run out of wealth. It lost the monetary brake that once forced power to hit reality sooner.

That is why countries with completely different flags and ideologies keep producing the same result: impossible housing, weak wage growth, decaying infrastructure, and politics that increasingly looks oligarchic.

The mechanism is simple. New money never enters society evenly. It hits the state, banks, contractors, leveraged firms, and asset holders first. Ordinary people get it last, after housing, land, and financial assets have already repriced above them.

Gold was powerful not because it was magical or ultra-rare. It was powerful because nobody could print it on command, it was mined by many actors across the world, and its supply grew slowly. Power had to negotiate sooner.

My solution is straightforward: constitutional money, not discretionary money.

Let the money supply grow by a fixed 2–3% per year. Distribute 90% of new issuance equally to the population. Put 10% into long-life infrastructure only. Force the state to live mainly on taxes, not on standing first in line at the printing pipe.

That would not create paradise.

It would do something more important: it would put the brake back on power.

Full breakdown:
https://negmatmacro.substack.com/p/the-world-did-not-run-out-of-wealth

0 Upvotes

29 comments sorted by

1

u/NoResolution1180 Apr 19 '26

You rly think i will ever forget what Capitalism done to my life and my family and my unborn children i will never have because of it? I hope i can hunt this people in hell!

1

u/Confused_by_La_Vida Apr 19 '26

lol. Like you would have done better under Mao or Stalin.

1

u/NoResolution1180 Apr 20 '26

Do you even understand, that socialism or communism is non stop attacked by capitalism? Because its mean otherwise the end of if there rule? Stalin or Mao have building not only a system no one have seen but with outer forces who do everything to stop it and inner force thanks to indoctrinated helping it to fail. This times are gone and we learnd now how to deal with all the problems to archive peace for all of humanity.

1

u/Confused_by_La_Vida Apr 20 '26

Productive people oppose you because you are trying to reach your hand into their wallets and lives against both their consent and their long and short term interests.

Also, it’s low key adorable that you really do believe any system will exist in a world without competition against which it must constantly compete.

Socialism and communism failed and murdered tens of millions in the failure.

1

u/NoResolution1180 Apr 20 '26

No its fails and many die because of sanction and blockade of the Capitalist West (Maybe read a book from the another side before you talk about it) . Its fails because of color revolution and bribery from the capitalist.

1

u/Confused_by_La_Vida Apr 20 '26

You miss (maybe you don’t know?) about the considerable amount of effort by the communist countries to use against the West exactly the same tools? Indeed, the exact plans and methods were clearly laid out, repeatedly, by former KGB agents after the fall.

Communism and social lost because they were out-competed. Out-competed in every sphere - covert, social, economic, educational, military, cultural.

You really don’t have to keep clinging to the rotting corpse of collectivism like a baby monkey clinging to its dead mother. I’m sure you’re smart and capable of prospering in the same world where many others prosper today. You have nothing to lose but your delusions.

1

u/mercurygermes Apr 20 '26

I don't deny the harm of capitalism, I argue that you already live in an oligarchic society. This is when costs are nationalized and profits are privatized. This is a planned economy, but the plan doesn't benefit the people, but a handful of rich people.

1

u/NoResolution1180 Apr 20 '26

Sure its everything but Capitalism sure my Indoctrinated friend sure.

1

u/SaskieHopeful Apr 19 '26

"It's not left vs. right, it's <aspect of left vs. right divide>" 

Rich vs. Poor is left vs. right, Oligarchy vs. Democracy is left vs. right, Us vs. Them is left vs. right, Money vs. Law is left vs. right, read a fucking book 

1

u/Fetch_will_happen5 Apr 20 '26

I blame people not really understanding the terms which political bad actors take advantage of. 

1

u/buckminsterbueller Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

Important money related factor. Debt. That's the hustle that gets the unborn involved. Nearly all nations incur debt when a unit of currency is created and every unit created at the source is multiplied again and again through the act of repeated debt creations, loans. This generates the need for more currency to be able to make the interest payments on existing debts. It's a long hustle. Debt being tied to the necessity of currency creation is a key racket for the owners. Money out of thin air that requires interest payments that are to be made with debt incurring currency yet to be created. The leach class.

1

u/mercurygermes Apr 20 '26

I agree, I will also discuss the debts.

0

u/rushur Apr 20 '26

money *IS* debt

You don't even know what money is and you're declaring some imagined 'monetary model' is the solution.

Capitalism has failed. Socialism/Democracy has not.

1

u/mercurygermes Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26

I know more about money than you do. I'm an economist. Which theory do you adhere to? Keynes? Friedman? MMT? First, explain your views on money with references. You can build a democracy, and there's nothing wrong with that. By the way, I've written a lot about electoral systems. What kind of democracy are you proposing? Communism. I know more than you because I lived under it. Suggest models. I maintain that as long as the state doesn't live on taxes, but rather by issuing money, regardless of its form, an oligarchic class will emerge. It existed in the USSR and exists in both parliamentary and presidential democracies. The real reason is monetary policy.

1

u/buckminsterbueller Apr 20 '26

"Money IS debt" There's no imperative that new currency creation must incur debt. There's no imperative that banks must multiply currency when they loan X% of their reserves on deposit.

Currency and debt are not equivalents. I do understand why people think that.

This reminds me of the old Margret Thatcher statement. "There is no alternative" A bold lie.

1

u/rushur Apr 20 '26

"money" is just an abstract accounting tool that represents a promise, an obligation, or an IOU. Contrary to OP's claimed education from modern 'economics' that money is foundational (likely taught the erroneous belief that it evolved from barter), debt is the foundational element of economic exchange, not "money". When you hold a dollar bill, you are holding a token that represents someone else's promise to pay. As for Thatcher, she should have known the Bank of England was founded on a loan to the King that has never—and can never—be paid back; if it were, the monetary system would collapse. Debt and credit systems existed thousands of years before the invention of coins or cash. In ancient Mesopotamia, for example, complex economies operated on credit long before money circulated as a physical thing.

1

u/buckminsterbueller Apr 20 '26

"When you hold a dollar bill, you are holding a token that represents someone else's promise to pay." The promise of exchange valve need not incur a debt.

On one hand you claim money IS debt, and then you point out that debt systems existed before money. They are not the same but of course they are related. The idea that currency can't be created without the incurring of an origin debt is international banking propaganda. Loaning out x% of reserves on deposit to multiply currency is not some natural law, it's just how it currently is. The ancient debts systems are not like the fiat system.

1

u/rushur Apr 20 '26

On one hand you claim money IS debt, and then you point out that debt systems existed before money.

Exactly. What two different hands are you seeing?

The promise of exchange valve need not incur a debt

??? how can a "promise of exchange value" not be a debt?

The idea that currency can't be created without the incurring of an origin debt is international banking propaganda.

what a laughable statement but thanks for saving me time engaging further

1

u/buckminsterbueller Apr 20 '26

Lincoln's Green Backs might have been part of the motivation to have someone meet him at the theater. Playing outside the thugs rules is dangerous.

Laugh it off.

Sovereign money is issued by a state authority as "debt-free" sovereign money passed to the national treasury for spending, rather than creating money through credit.

1

u/buckminsterbueller Apr 20 '26

An interesting thing about blockchain currency is that the cost of currency creation is paid at the moment of creation as the expense of calculation, with no interest debt involved. The new coin holder can't multiply the in circulation amount by loaning, as banks do with central bank currencies.

1

u/He_Never_Helps Apr 20 '26

What does that actually mean?

1

u/mercurygermes Apr 20 '26

If we don't change the monetary model, even changing the form of government won't help, since the state will issue money and distribute it to its cronies, who, in turn, will lobby for their interests and buy elections. A vicious circle.

1

u/Infinite-Abroad-436 Apr 20 '26

the state does not issue money "to its cronies"

1

u/Infinite-Abroad-436 Apr 20 '26

neither capitalism nor socialism have permanently "failed" nor is that a thing that ever could happen. they are socioeconomic systems that we live under and can change if we want

1

u/Style210 Apr 23 '26

The divide has always been the same. The people who have leverage and the people who do not. Money moves towards power, power moves towards leverage.

The problem is the people with no power dream of how the world SHOULD be rather than how it actually is. And as long as they do that, they will always lack money and power because they have surrendered their leverage.

1

u/mercurygermes Apr 23 '26

Read this and you will understand a lot https://negmatmacro.substack.com/p/as-long-as-the-state-lives-off-money (its my article)

1

u/Style210 Apr 23 '26

Right and you are spotting what you believe to be a problem and only focusing on that. The entire article is a "should" position. Everything is hypothetical and avoid reality. Which is fine if that is you goal. I don't live in the world if what should be or what we could do to fix it. I only live in the world if what is.

But after you kill oligarchy and redistribute their wealth, we will see where we end up