I give them the same argument. 🤔

However it seems they believe that growth is what makes an economy healthy. The argument is that Apple, for instance, could not be successful without having prices rising. While it’s production efficiencies are increasing, it cannot repay its debts if it reduces prices. Apple has to have prices rise because it has to service its debts. The argument continues. How can Apple invest in greater amounts of capital equipment without borrowing money first? It would need debt for that. Then later, sales would provide the money to pay off the debt. My answer to that is Apple would have to save enough money to invest in the capital equipment first. The response to that is “fine for Apple… that have lots of money but how would a startup get going without debt? …and if the value of money keeps going up, why start a new business if the return on savings incentivizes just hodling?”

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

There would still be debt. You could still take out loans. The goal would be to provide so much value with a new product that you make enough to cover your debt OR a company that figured out a way to reduce the cost of a product could borrow to start up and undercut the competition, therefore, capturing all that value to pay back to the lender.

Lending, borrowing, paying off, and defaulting all existed before the current system. To take Jeff's argument, people are so ingrained in this system and the wacky numbers that it's hard to see the other system.