[Mosaic Mystic]

I believe both Marxism and Fascism have become outdated and largely irrelevant in today's world. These ideologies have been reduced to little more than pejorative terms. On the right, anyone left-leaning, from moderates like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to social democrats like Bernie Sanders, is often labeled a "Marxist." On the left, the same tactic is used against the right, but the term "Fascist" is applied instead. As a result, these terms have lost much of their original meaning and are now primarily used to discredit others. However, there are still individuals who identify with these ideologies. Self-proclaimed Marxists and even Fascists often define themselves by their opposition to capitalism, claiming to despise it as a core tenet of their beliefs.

I believe economic prosperity is achievable within capitalism, and we have the potential to address major issues like poverty and climate change. The key lies in increasing the money circulating within the economy. Poverty, at its core, is simply defined as not having enough money to maintain a decent standard of living, such as a middle-class or upper-class lifestyle. To solve this, we should focus on providing people with more financial resources.

For climate change, we can achieve similar outcomes by directing more subsidies—essentially, money—towards renewable energy companies like wind, solar, and nuclear. We can also incentivize oil companies to transition away from fossil fuels, potentially by imposing penalties or taxes if they fail to consistently reduce their reliance on oil.

Additionally, we need to move away from practices like overtaxation, high interest rates, and excessive tariffs. One of my more radical views is the nationalization of banks, though this doesn't automatically place me within the socialist camp.

In conclusion, I believe capitalism has the potential to address our issues, but it requires some adjustments to function more effectively.

[Rich]

I believe both Marxism and Fascism have become outdated and largely irrelevant in today's world.

What do you mean by capitalism? The problem is that "Capitalism" is a Marxist term that non Marxists have carelessly adopted without any thought as to what it really means. It was a contraction of "Capitalist mode of production". My understanding is that Karl Marx never used the term. I believe Frederick Engels introduced the term "Capitalism" / "Kapitalismus" to the second edition of Das Kapital. Its even more unfortunate because Marxists and their fellow travelers are hopelessly confused about the term, some using it as a stand in for "industrial capitalism" implying that "Mercantilism" was its own mode of production totally contradicting their theory.

So when people say they are for or against capitalism, it would be helpful to know exactly what they are for and against. Take the Roman Republic, that was good capitalism right? When did the Roman Republic cease to be capitalist. Was it when Augustus introduced a nationalised fire service or was it earlier when the Roman nanny state started buying soldiers weapons and kit for them or when the dole was introduced?

[Mosaic Mystic]

What do you mean by capitalism? The problem is that "Capitalism" is a Marxist term that non Marxists have carelessly adopted without any thought as to what it really means. It was a contraction of "Capitalist mode of production". My understanding is that Karl Marx never used the term. I believe Frederick Engels introduced the term "Capitalism" / "Kapitalismus" to the second edition of Das Kapital. Its even more unfortunate because Marxists and their fellow travelers are hopelessly confused about the term, some using it as a stand in for "industrial capitalism" implying that "Mercantilism" was its own mode of production totally contradicting their theory.

So when people say they are for or against capitalism, it would be helpful to know exactly what they are for and against. Take the Roman Republic, that was good capitalism right? When did the Roman Republic cease to be capitalist. Was it when Augustus introduced a nationalised fire service or was it earlier when the Roman nanny state started buying soldiers weapons and kit for them or when the dole was introduced?

I need to correct you—capitalism is not a term uniquely coined by Marxists that "non-Marxists have adopted." The term "capitalists" was used as early as 1633 and 1654 in the Hollantse Mercurius (a Dutch publication) to describe owners of capital. In French, Étienne Clavier referred to "capitalistes" in 1788, four years before its first recorded English use by Arthur Young in Travels in France (1792). David Ricardo mentioned "the capitalist" multiple times in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), and Samuel Taylor Coleridge used the term in Table Talk (1823). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon referred to capital owners in What is Property? (1840), and Benjamin Disraeli used it in his 1845 work Sybil. Alexander Hamilton also used "capitalist" in his 1791 Report on Manufactures to the U.S. Congress. This shows that the concept of capitalism existed long before Marx.

I would also stress that when people criticize capitalism, they're specifically referring to the current economic system — one driven by money, profit, private ownership, markets, and exchange. Rich, I think you're overanalyzing it.

[Wellsy]

Yes, reformism. The ills of capitalism can be offset if we just fine tuned our policies to better manage it.
For a long time during the 20th century, many thought with Keynesian economics, that capitalism's boom and bust cycles had fundamentally be resolved in the west. But that was brought crashing down with stagflation. I also don't have a great optimism for what seems to be the anomoly of appeasing the western working class with super profits based on extracting a surplus in resources and labor from the underdeveloped parts of the world with their low wages.

I do think you could probably have a lot dine to mitigate our current issues in climate change while retaining capitalism, but it is also the present state of capital that obstructs such a change in our energy production and distribution. The old industries are a fetter on the emergence of such new industries and we haven't the time for the economics to simply battle it out.
Also, there is a lot of companies that are still undermining environmental efforts by attacking the very instittions tha tseek to maintain any standards and many are reluctant to pursue serious policies in part because they lack the political power to take on such large corporations.
So yes, in theory we could have a lovely green capitalism, but all that does in it's dream world is minimize the current pollution, and doesn't really address the decline in living standards for the average person as real wages remain stagnant and inequality increases. This is not some accidental outcome but a necessary one as corporations consolidate greater and greater capital and end up killing off emerging competition. Free markets are but a moment, not an ever present condition of capitalism.

I also don't think that people misuse a term means that Marxist theory or even fascist tendencies are somehow obsolete in the modern world. They still retain their place, and have only been subdued under a neoliberal hegemony that increasing cracks and struggles as we see with the election of far right populist figures who position themselves against the liberal face of capitalism.
As long as capitalism and it's many negative effects continue, so to do the conditions that created the basis for a workers movement, marxist theory, and fascism to emerge. So aren't ideas that spring from no where but precisely from the emergence and domination of capital over everyday life. Until that is done way with in a fundamental sense, they will retain their relevance even if their popularity waxes and wanes.

[Saeko]

I believe economic prosperity is achievable within capitalism, and we have the potential to address major issues like poverty and climate change. The key lies in increasing the money circulating within the economy. Poverty, at its core, is simply defined as not having enough money to maintain a decent standard of living, such as a middle-class or upper-class lifestyle. To solve this, we should focus on providing people with more financial resources.

So what happens when you do that and prices simply rise to counteract your policy?

Poverty is not a consequence of the circulation of money, but a consequence of the distribution of property.

[Rancid]

I wish we could give out more votes to people that earn more money. like 1 vote for every 10k you earn.

[Rich]

I need to correct you—capitalism is not a term uniquely coined by Marxists that "non-Marxists have adopted." The term "capitalists" was used as early as 1633 and 1654 in the Hollantse Mercurius (a Dutch publication) to describe owners of capital. In French, Étienne Clavier referred to "capitalistes" in 1788, four years before its first recorded English use by Arthur Young in Travels in France (1792). David Ricardo mentioned "the capitalist" multiple times in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), and Samuel Taylor Coleridge used the term in Table Talk (1823). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon referred to capital owners in What is Property? (1840), and Benjamin Disraeli used it in his 1845 work Sybil. Alexander Hamilton also used "capitalist" in his 1791 Report on Manufactures to the U.S. Congress. This shows that the concept of capitalism existed long before Marx.

"capitalist" is not the same term as "capitalism". None of this shows that the category of "Capitalist mode of production" existed before Marx. Capitalist mode of production means a system run in the interests of the capitalists. I broadly support the current system precisely because it is not capitalist. It is not a system that only serves the interests of the big owners / controllers of capital

I would also stress that when people criticize capitalism, they're specifically referring to the current economic system — one driven by money, profit, private ownership, markets, and exchange. Rich, I think you're overanalyzing it.

When people say they want to abolish capitalism, what they mean is that they want to abolish democracy and freedom and set up a totalitarian communist dictatorship. The current system is not driven by money. Few people accumulate much money. Note if I put money into a deposit account I no longer have money, I have a loan. I own a loan. Money is merely a means of exchange. Profit, private ownership, markets and exchange have almost certainly existed since before we were human, at the least they have existed for hundreds of thousands of years thousands of years. Many primitive peoples have primitive forms of money to facilitate exchange.

Careful analysis of what people say and the terms and categories they use is very important. Money private ownership, markets and exchange all existed in the Soviet Union. In the nineteen thirties in the Stalinist hey day the accumulation of capital was an overriding priority. Under Stalinism capital was accumulated at a far faster rate than in the non communist West. 6 Million people were exterminated by the Communists during the enslavement, the so called collectivisation of the peasantry. This was all done with the aim of increasing the speed at which capital was accumulated.

If anyone doubts this, I would suggest that the book "State Capitalism in Russia" by Tony Cliffe is a good place to start. The author was a Trotskyist. He demonstrates how the accumulation of capital was much more severe in the Soviet Union.

[Mosaic Mystic]

So what happens when you do that and prices simply rise to counteract your policy?

Poverty is not a consequence of the circulation of money, but a consequence of the distribution of property.

I’m not convinced by the argument that low interest rates, deficits, and increased debt (from the accumulation of deficits and T-securities) inherently lead to inflation. There isn’t a clear-cut correlative or causative relationship here. Even many modern economists—who I often find myself disagreeing with—acknowledge that this perspective is overly simplistic and reductionist.

Based on the data I’ve reviewed, I see inflation as primarily driven by shortages of critical commodities, like oil, food, and labor. In these cases, I’d advocate for more targeted deficit spending to address and resolve these shortages. On the flip side, I wouldn’t be surprised if high tariffs, moderate-to-high interest rates, and federal taxes indirectly contribute to price increases, complicating the picture further.

Deficits, in my view, are not only helpful to the economy—they’re essential for growth. At its core, a deficit is simply the gap between federal spending and tax revenue. For our GDP to grow, spending must outpace taxation because GDP is the sum of federal spending, nonfederal spending, and net exports. Government spending doesn’t just provide programs like Social Security or Medicare for All—it also stimulates investment, much like tax cuts do. This is why I don’t see deficit spending and tax cuts as fundamentally opposed; both encourage economic activity and are necessary.

Furthermore, I’d support removing the debt ceiling altogether. The government doesn’t need to borrow or tax to spend—it has the ability to create unlimited amounts of dollars as needed. This flexibility is key to managing the economy and addressing real-world needs without arbitrary constraints.

I don’t quite understand your argument about "property." If it’s meant as a critique of wealthy individuals who own property and earn a basic income from it, I’m not against that concept in itself. Profit isn’t inherently bad—spending drives the economy, whether it’s government or consumer spending. Spending generates profits and forms the foundation of economic transactions. It’s essential because GDP equals federal spending, nonfederal spending, and net exports. For spending to happen, money must first be created by the government. This is why money creation is crucial: a growing economy needs a growing money supply.

Federal taxes, on the other hand, remove dollars from the economy, which is why they’re often seen as slowing economic activity. As for the argument that the wealthy "sit on their wealth," that idea—what some call the "first-use fallacy"—is flawed. Every dollar in the economy contributes to economic output as it circulates from one person to another, creating value at each step.

And if the conversation shifts to T-securities and federal debt, I’d clarify that what’s called "federal debt" isn’t really debt in the conventional sense. The dollars in T-security accounts always belong to the depositors; the government doesn’t owe or borrow them—it simply holds them in safe storage. T-securities don’t fund government spending. Instead, their purpose is to offer a secure place for people, institutions, or even foreign entities like China to park unused dollars. This system helps stabilize the dollar and maintain its position as the world’s preferred currency.

[Saeko]

This is why money creation is crucial: a growing economy needs a growing money supply.

Yes, we're all pretty well acquainted with MMT around here.

I don’t quite understand your argument about "property."

Institutions of property determine who gets to make the important decisions, whose interests will the production system reflect, and who will benefit from economic activity and by how much.

There is poverty because our institutions of private property guarantee that some will own and everyone else will work. Without the credible threat of poverty, labor would be a lot harder to exploit and profits almost impossible to generate.

You can shuffle money around all you want (and there are small improvements that can be achieved by doing that), but poverty cannot be eliminated without a change to the fundamental structure of property relations.

[Potemkin]

I believe both Marxism and Fascism have become outdated and largely irrelevant in today's world. These ideologies have been reduced to little more than pejorative terms. On the right, anyone left-leaning, from moderates like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to social democrats like Bernie Sanders, is often labeled a "Marxist." On the left, the same tactic is used against the right, but the term "Fascist" is applied instead. As a result, these terms have lost much of their original meaning and are now primarily used to discredit others. However, there are still individuals who identify with these ideologies. Self-proclaimed Marxists and even Fascists often define themselves by their opposition to capitalism, claiming to despise it as a core tenet of their beliefs.

I believe economic prosperity is achievable within capitalism, and we have the potential to address major issues like poverty and climate change. The key lies in increasing the money circulating within the economy. Poverty, at its core, is simply defined as not having enough money to maintain a decent standard of living, such as a middle-class or upper-class lifestyle. To solve this, we should focus on providing people with more financial resources.

For climate change, we can achieve similar outcomes by directing more subsidies—essentially, money—towards renewable energy companies like wind, solar, and nuclear. We can also incentivize oil companies to transition away from fossil fuels, potentially by imposing penalties or taxes if they fail to consistently reduce their reliance on oil.

Additionally, we need to move away from practices like overtaxation, high interest rates, and excessive tariffs. One of my more radical views is the nationalization of banks, though this doesn't automatically place me within the socialist camp.

In conclusion, I believe capitalism has the potential to address our issues, but it requires some adjustments to function more effectively.

No wonder you support capitalism if you think that it’s a Magic Money Tree. And ‘curing’ poverty by just printing more money and giving it to poor people is… interesting. Why did nobody else think of this?! Lol.

No, money is simply ration coupons for people to withdraw a fixed quantity of goods and services from the social wealth created by human labour power using the mode of production a society happens to have, whether feudal, capitalist or socialist, or whatever. Money, in and of itself, is not wealth. It’s just bits of paper with ink printed on it. You know, tokens. Fungible ration coupons. Wealth is the goods and services which exist in society, which have been created by human labour-power working on raw resources within a given mode of production. Curing poverty means expanding that body of goods and services, and using the distribution of money to ensure that everyone has proper access to those goods and services according to the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need”. In other words, Communism.

[AFAIK]

Capitalism requires constant growth to survive, which makes it inherently unsustainable.
Capitalism causes class conflicts that tear society apart, making it inherently unstable.
Capitalism requires some of your population to remain unemployed in order control inflation, making it inherently impoverishing.

Much of the environmental and social damage that occurs under capitalism is driven by debt. Everyday a business's debt remains the more interest it has to pay so the incentive is to rush ahead and destroy whatever resource you have access to as quickly as possible. Any effort to act sustainably will cost you dearly.

[Mosaic Mystic]

Yes, we're all pretty well acquainted with MMT around here.

I'm not a proponent of MMT. While we share common ground on the fundamentals of money, debt, and deficits, I disagree with several of their key ideas. I don't accept the MMT label because I part ways with them on concepts like the job guarantee and the notion that "taxes drive the currency." Taxes can create demand, but they're not essential to a currency's value. MMT also ties deficit spending limits to "unused productive capacity," which I find unconvincing.

Institutions of property determine who gets to make the important decisions, whose interests will the production system reflect, and who will benefit from economic activity and by how much.

There is poverty because our institutions of private property guarantee that some will own and everyone else will work. Without the credible threat of poverty, labor would be a lot harder to exploit and profits almost impossible to generate.

You can shuffle money around all you want (and there are small improvements that can be achieved by doing that), but poverty cannot be eliminated without a change to the fundamental structure of property relations.

Regarding prosperity through property ownership: I think the left's issue with private property isn't ownership itself but the way the wealthy extract income through land rents without contributing to productive output. The property-owning classes often gain a form of "basic income" through rents or subsidies—like corporate welfare—without working, while workers have no such safety net. The problem isn’t the existence of property but the unequal playing field. We need to provide the working class with their own basic income, not redistribute property or punish property owners. For this reason, I also oppose land value taxes.

If we're discussing property in terms of homeownership, I wouldn't oppose subsidized housing initiatives or providing subsidies to companies that build housing. This could help increase supply to outpace demand, driving down prices to a level of clear affordability. Additionally, providing people with more money could enable those who couldn't otherwise afford to invest in property to become homeowners themselves. Ultimately, closing the wealth gap requires giving people more financial resources.

[Mosaic Mystic]

No wonder you support capitalism if you think that it’s a Magic Money Tree. And ‘curing’ poverty by just printing more money and giving it to poor people is… interesting. Why did nobody else think of this?! Lol.

No, money is simply ration coupons for people to withdraw a fixed quantity of goods and services from the social wealth created by human labour power using the mode of production a society happens to have, whether feudal, capitalist or socialist, or whatever. Money, in and of itself, is not wealth. It’s just bits of paper with ink printed on it. You know, tokens. Fungible ration coupons. Wealth is the goods and services which exist in society, which have been created by human labour-power working on raw resources within a given mode of production. Curing poverty means expanding that body of goods and services, and using the distribution of money to ensure that everyone has proper access to those goods and services according to the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need”. In other words, Communism.

This fixation on workers owning the means of production doesn’t resonate with me, Potemkin. Expanding the body of goods and services is inherently a good idea—how does that conflict with my goals? And more importantly, how would you even achieve that without massively increasing government spending? It also sounds like you’re talking about redistribution rather than distribution—taking from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots." That’s a key theme in the Marxist critique, but I argue that class conflict isn’t necessary. The government can provide working people with the programs they need while simultaneously lowering taxes for everyone.

Wealth isn’t created by human labor alone. Maybe you’d have a point when money was tied to gold; back then, laborers in gold mines were directly creating wealth. But gold no longer backs our currency—it used to impose artificial constraints on the government. Today, laborers earn wages, not create money. Money is a creature of the state, and this is especially true in the era of modern fiat currency.

[Hakeer]

This fixation on workers owning the means of production doesn’t resonate with me, Potemkin. Expanding the body of goods and services is inherently a good idea—how does that conflict with my goals? And more importantly, how would you even achieve that without massively increasing government spending? It also sounds like you’re talking about redistribution rather than distribution—taking from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots." That’s a key theme in the Marxist critique, but I argue that class conflict isn’t necessary. The government can provide working people with the programs they need while simultaneously lowering taxes for everyone.

Wealth isn’t created by human labor alone. Maybe you’d have a point when money was tied to gold; back then, laborers in gold mines were directly creating wealth. But gold no longer backs our currency—it used to impose artificial constraints on the government. Today, laborers earn wages, not create money. Money is a creature of the state, and this is especially true in the era of modern fiat currency.

These guys will always be bitter that the U.S. economy outperformed the Soviet economy from the end of WW2 right up to the collapse of the USSR in 1989.

I agree with you about the advantages of capitalism. To function best, however, you need good tax policy and regulatory policy. The tax policy is to redistribute the wealth, and the regulatory policy is to control corporations that would otherwise engage in illegal or immoral activities.

Some countries are more successful than others in that endeavor, and our country has failed badly, enabling a fascist wolf at the doorstep.

[Truth To Power]

So what happens when you do that and prices simply rise to counteract your policy?

Economic growth requires expansion of the money supply. In theory, if the national government was responsible for expanding the money supply instead of private commercial banks, prices could be stable even with a policy of relieving poverty by issuing money. Of course, this can't work in a monetary environment like the eurozone, where national governments do not control the monetary system.

Poverty is not a consequence of the circulation of money, but a consequence of the distribution of property.

It is more a consequence of what is legally considered property. When people's rights to liberty are made into other people's private property via slave deeds, land deeds, IP monopolies, etc., those who are least able to pay the owners of their rights the market rent for permission to live are naturally forced into poverty. It should not come as a surprise that many people end up poor when the rich are legally entitled to steal from them.

[Truth To Power]

I wish we could give out more votes to people that earn more money. like 1 vote for every 10k you earn.

Votes can be purchased from PR firms for a lot less than $10K each.

[Truth To Power]

I would suggest that the book "State Capitalism in Russia" by Tony Cliffe is a good place to start. The author was a Trotskyist.

Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production. State capitalism is therefore an oxymoron. More accurately, it is a lie socialists concocted to try to blame capitalism for the failures of socialism.

[Truth To Power]

I need to correct you—capitalism is not a term uniquely coined by Marxists that "non-Marxists have adopted." The term "capitalists" was used as early as 1633 and 1654 in the Hollantse Mercurius (a Dutch publication) to describe owners of capital. In French, Étienne Clavier referred to "capitalistes" in 1788, four years before its first recorded English use by Arthur Young in Travels in France (1792). David Ricardo mentioned "the capitalist" multiple times in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), and Samuel Taylor Coleridge used the term in Table Talk (1823). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon referred to capital owners in What is Property? (1840), and Benjamin Disraeli used it in his 1845 work Sybil. Alexander Hamilton also used "capitalist" in his 1791 Report on Manufactures to the U.S. Congress. This shows that the concept of capitalism existed long before Marx.

That is an equivocation fallacy. "Capitalist" has more than one sense. The sense in the examples you cite is a noun meaning something like, "person who funds acquisition of producer goods for a productive enterprise in pursuit of profit." But that sense is completely different from the relevant noun sense meaning, "person who advocates the economic system of capitalism," or the adjective sense meaning, "pertaining to the economic system of capitalism."

I would also stress that when people criticize capitalism, they're specifically referring to the current economic system — one driven by money, profit, private ownership, markets, and exchange. Rich, I think you're overanalyzing it.

Money, profits, markets and exchange are not peculiar to capitalism. Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production: natural resources (which classical economics called, "land"), and producer goods ("capital"). In practice, it is only applied to the economic system that emerged in the last few centuries, in which most people have been stripped of their rights to use land to survive, and must consequently offer their labor to employers on whatever terms may be available in order to pay landowners for permission to exist.

In previous systems like feudalism and ancient slave-based economies, even when the means of production were privately owned, most people still had a traditional right to use land -- e.g., the village commons, the feudal serf's fief, the clan's customary lands, etc. -- to survive. Capitalism as an economic system really dates from the Enclosures in Britain, whereby for the first time in history, nominally "free" workers were forcibly stripped of their liberty rights to use land to survive, and had to seek employment in the towns on whatever terms they could get.

Marxism-socialism merely consists in blaming the factory owners for what the landowners did to the workers.

[Tainari88]

@Rich please tell me you did not write this total garbage. You have to be smarter than this sentence. It is completely false. Did you mean this or are you pulling my leg?

Money is merely a means of exchange. Profit, private ownership, markets and exchange have almost certainly existed since before we were human, at the least they have existed for hundreds of thousands of years thousands of years. Many primitive peoples have primitive forms of money to facilitate exchange.

Before we were human this existed? Really? Go and talk to a dolphin or a whale or an amphibian or Homo Erectus dead species and ask them about the concept of money and capitalism and markets and see if they can explain what it is about to you? In English and not in French or some other language you can't speak.

[Truth To Power]

Capitalism requires constant growth to survive, which makes it inherently unsustainable.

That is incorrect. There is nothing about capitalism that requires constant growth to survive.

Capitalism causes class conflicts that tear society apart, making it inherently unstable.

More accurately, capitalism -- with ideological help from Marxism-socialism -- creates a false class consciousness by conflating privilege with productivity, making class antagonisms obscure, ambiguous, and unintelligible to the economically naive majority.

Capitalism requires some of your population to remain unemployed in order control inflation, making it inherently impoverishing.

No, unemployment does not control inflation, as examples like Zimbabwe prove. Capitalism does not so much require as create unemployment, through the economics of private landowning:
1. The landless must pay landowners full market value for permission to work, and the least productive among them cannot afford it.
2. Taxes that bear on production and exchange must be imposed to pay for the subsidies to private landowners, and private employers cannot afford to pay both wages and the associated production and payroll taxes for the least productive workers who would otherwise have been employable.
3. The value of public investments in desirable services and infrastructure must all be given away to landowners in return for nothing instead of being recovered to pay for them, so governments cannot afford to hire workers to do all the work on public goods that would otherwise have been economically justified.

Much of the environmental and social damage that occurs under capitalism is driven by debt. Everyday a business's debt remains the more interest it has to pay so the incentive is to rush ahead and destroy whatever resource you have access to as quickly as possible. Any effort to act sustainably will cost you dearly.

That is not really the problem with the debt-money system. It's true that compared to equity financing, debt financing transfers risk from the investor to the entrepreneur, making it difficult to retrench when market conditions are unfavorable, which leads to overproduction, oversupply, waste of resources and even more difficult market conditions at such times; but it also makes risk-averse capital available for investment that would not otherwise be available.

Debt is not the problem, and lending at interest is not the problem. The debt-money system is the problem.