the answer to the question is that the capital allocator creates the reward for the saver. the saver is rewarded for risk they didn't take.
that isn't "earning."
lionizing it as reward for deferred gratification is just some Protestant headtrip.
if anyone is espousing socialist ideas its you, trying to rationalize the structural reallocation of the value created by the speculator and entrepreneur.
Savers take risks - the risk of opportunity costs, future uncertainty, and deferred consumption.
Without savers, there is no capital to deploy. Entrepreneurs rely on deferred consumption to finance production.
Calling voluntary exchange "structural redistribution" is absurd - it's basic market coordination, not socialism.
Socialism is forced redistribution.
there is no opportunity cost or any risk when the hoarder is guaranteed a return for doing nothing.
There’s never a guaranteed return in a free market. The risk is real: time, uncertainty, technological shifts, and opportunity cost.
"i should get paid for doing nothing because life is uncertain"
get a helmet.
You confuse doing nothing with deferring consumption.
Savings provide the capital that makes production possible - no capital, no entrepreneurship.
The helmet is for those who think you can have investment without prior savings.
There is no assurance the money is ever spent. Nothing prevents the hoarder from just sitting on theor stack and reaping the reward of *other peoples* economic ventures.
in fact they're incentivized to do so.
You have no way to distinguish between "doing nothing" and "deferred consumption".
you just making it up and saying "trust me bro, they'll invest at some point."
If hoarders just sit on their stack, how exactly does the purchasing power of their money increase without others voluntarily producing more goods and services?
Who is forcing anyone to produce for them?
yes.
their purchasing power increases because of the economic ventures of other people.
the hoarder gets a free ride.
there is no coercion. you want to structurally design it to be that way.
pretty sure we're just talking in circles now
┐( ˘_˘)┌
Exactly, no coercion.
The saver enables capital formation by delaying consumption.
Without savings, those ventures you speak of wouldn’t have capital to operate.
Calling that a free ride is like calling oxygen a parasite for feeding fire.
thats a extremely tortured metaphor and you didn't respond to my point at all
we're done here.
No saving = no capital.
No capital = no investment.
No investment = no growth.
No growth = stagnation & poverty.
Consumption alone doesn’t build wealth. It burns it.
nice strawman you got there 👍
lol horseshit
to recap
there is no austrian economist ever that advocates for creating the most deflationary environment possible
or a cap on the amount of monetary units
nothing you've said has shown otherwise
characterizing my argument as if I was against saving is a retarded strawman
But hey
I guess when you really don't have anything to say
except for repackaging Human Action
it's best to just strawman and claim victory
Mises, Hayek and Rothbard rejected government monetary expansion, which means keeping the money supply constant or decreasing.
Rothbard was against the state and didn't know about crypto, so gold was money for him. With a natural upper limit.
Hayek wanted currency competition and was in favor of deflationary currencies becoming dominant in the market.
Or the workers make make the wheels turn...
