Comment: But you ARE being defensive

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I'm not defensive and it (see in situ)

But you ARE being defensive

You're defending the current system with box thinking. You have to allow for the possibilities that some of the pieces you consider givens are not as such. For example.

You state that if you're paying your workers too high of a wage, you invite competition and essentially could under. No. If you price your product too high BECAUSE YOU PAID YOUR WORKERS TOO MUCH, then that is true but I didn't say the scenario I gave had its price too high. I said it was 30% LOWER. How is the competition going to put me under if my prices are lower than theirs?

You missed the part where I financed my company without the traditional (bastardized) method of high finance. As such, you assumed that some large percentage could not be lopped off my expenses. In fact, such a large percentage can easily be cut that I can now make this scenario work by paying more to other costs (wages) and keeping the workers happy.

You do realize that the central bank system robs us not only by inflation but through the cost of every single purchase indirectly as well, right? If inflation was, say 10% of our wasted expense, then through aggregation of that across our suppliers and workers and their costs and those suppliers and their costs and so on down the chain, that by extension, our TOTAL AGGREGATE COSTS are about 90% wasted! By 'ending the fed', we can eliminate much of this but the business mentality of 'retiring off of investments' (which is the market's half of the cause of inflation) would continue. What I'm suggesting above solves both problems.

By cutting the endless growth paradigm (e.g. the scenario), we both end the fed (they starve and die off) and we cut the commercialism and globalism that fuels inflation. (I'm not talking about the inflation that results from printing money here. That ends with the fed dying off. I'm talking about costs rising which leads to price hikes. That's more of a result (short term) of businesses surviving from over marketing - selling to people that really don't want their product.)

This is all stuff that one company can do by itself. (Micro-econ) but as other companies learn it's a win-win-win-win, it may be adopted more and become pervasive to the point it affects the entire economy (Macro-econ). What I see you doing is arguing with macro principles that it can't be done before considering the micro aspect of it.