The obsession with companies needing to post increasing profits every single year is frankly baffling. Let’s say a company makes X amount in profits in 2024, and everyone—employees, shareholders, stakeholders—are happy and well-compensated. Why should the expectation be that profits must increase in 2025, even if the company is already performing well? The only explanation that comes to mind is greed. It seems like the focus is less on long-term sustainability or fairness and more about feeding the insatiable hunger of CEOs and executives who just want more—more profits, more bonuses, more power. It’s as if they’re modern-day dragons, hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding, rather than for the health of the business or the people within it.
It’s how the financial system works. Money is created out of loans that need to be paid back with interest, and the money for that interest comes out of other loans made by other people. It creates an ever increasing mountain of debt, and it pushes businesses to keep growing to stay ahead of their interest payments. The ones that don’t are bought up by the ones that do. Naturally the most greedy and sociopathic float to the top in this system.
And so you get the eternal search for more things to exploit to keep growing and more profit. These things are baked in at a fundamental level.
No, it creates seignorage. Central bank lends money to bank so bank has a reserve so that it can lend book money, bank’s customer pays back loan, bank pays back loan, central bank made a profit. Profit is put into the state budget and thus re-distributed.
If your business accumulates an ever-increasing mountain of debt then that’s a problem with your business, not the monetary system. You could, for example, not take on loans, or not more than you can pay off. I’d say that’s the smart thing to do.
And the whole thing is necessary: Without the banks having to pay back more money than what they got from the central bank the central bank could not lower the amount of money in circulation which, during a recession, would mean uncontrolled inflation. That is why you see central banks raising interest rates when there’s inflation: So that they can mop up surplus money, so that the value of money stays stable. Similarly, during deflation they want to increase the amount of money in circulation so they lower the interest rate, might even turn it negative, or (this has been on the table for the Euro) even right-out transfer money into everyone’s bank accounts.
This one thing (at least in the case of the ECB) is the sole purpose of the central bank and the monetary system: To make sure, as best as possible, that a sandwich tomorrow costs the same as it did yesterday. When the economy grows more money is needed to reflect the value in circulation or you’d get deflation, when the economy shrinks, less value is in circulation thus less money is needed or you’d get inflation. The central bank always has to adjust.
…the target is 2% inflation instead of 0% because you need some wiggle room and some inflation is better than any deflation. The amount the central bank adds or subtracts from the monetary supply has no direct connection to the inflation rate, for that you have to take the actual economy into account, as said, if monetary supply tracks the economy perfectly, shrinking and expanding in response to it, there’s no inflation, and no deflation.
You can have inflation and lower profits, no issue there. The unit of account shifting in value has some, but ultimately little, impact on how much of the value-add companies keep for themselves, or how much their business expands or contracts. The same percentage of a less valuable unit of account is a larger number, but still the same percentage.
People like when if their rent is suddenly a lower percentage of their wages, they don’t really care about the absolute numbers.
Unfair redistribution is an issue, but it’s a bit orthogonal from deflation issues. I think people expect to get opportunities, promotions, new jobs, raising salary etc. this works better with a little inflation.
So long as the increases in salary outweigh the increases in inflation, sure. But that will never happen. The entire system is flawed. Debt will grow and grow and those holding the debt will pull the puppet strings and make those below them dance (and suffer).
Companies need to ditch their boards. They need to delist from the stock market. They need to be 100% employee owned. Profits need to be set at a specific percentage of COGS.
If a company isn’t profitable, during a delfationary period, we really need to examine whether or not that business should even exist in the first place, since it apparently is only sustainable if there is an unsustainable economic model supporting it…
Let’s say a company makes X amount in profits in 2024, and everyone—employees, shareholders, stakeholders—are happy and well-compensated. Why should the expectation be that profits must increase in 2025, even if the company is already performing well?
Many of the products and services that businesses depend on will or might raise in price. This is by design; most central banks target a low inflation rate, often around 2%. Without an increase in profits, raising prices on inputs will eat away at a business’ profit margin.
Many of the products and services that businesses depend on will or might raise in price.
Many of those businesses shouldn’t even exist, to begin with. cough the entire ad tech market cough
Maybe we should see increasing prices for energy… And let “the free and open market” fully control how much consumers pay for fossil fuels at the pump?
raising prices on inputs will eat away at a business’ profit margin.
Maybe we should see increasing prices for energy… And let “the free and open market” fully control how much consumers pay for fossil fuels at the pump?
Although I’m all for letting free market advocates get fisted by the invisible hand they worship, high energy prices have arguably contributed to the wave of obnoxious populism sweeping the world. I’m not saying we should keep fossil fuels to cater to the angry and fearful; I’m saying the transition should be more managed, because the sudden economic disruption you suggest is politically fraught.
The obsession with companies needing to post increasing profits every single year is frankly baffling. Let’s say a company makes X amount in profits in 2024, and everyone—employees, shareholders, stakeholders—are happy and well-compensated. Why should the expectation be that profits must increase in 2025, even if the company is already performing well? The only explanation that comes to mind is greed. It seems like the focus is less on long-term sustainability or fairness and more about feeding the insatiable hunger of CEOs and executives who just want more—more profits, more bonuses, more power. It’s as if they’re modern-day dragons, hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding, rather than for the health of the business or the people within it.
It’s how the financial system works. Money is created out of loans that need to be paid back with interest, and the money for that interest comes out of other loans made by other people. It creates an ever increasing mountain of debt, and it pushes businesses to keep growing to stay ahead of their interest payments. The ones that don’t are bought up by the ones that do. Naturally the most greedy and sociopathic float to the top in this system.
And so you get the eternal search for more things to exploit to keep growing and more profit. These things are baked in at a fundamental level.
No, it creates seignorage. Central bank lends money to bank so bank has a reserve so that it can lend book money, bank’s customer pays back loan, bank pays back loan, central bank made a profit. Profit is put into the state budget and thus re-distributed.
If your business accumulates an ever-increasing mountain of debt then that’s a problem with your business, not the monetary system. You could, for example, not take on loans, or not more than you can pay off. I’d say that’s the smart thing to do.
And the whole thing is necessary: Without the banks having to pay back more money than what they got from the central bank the central bank could not lower the amount of money in circulation which, during a recession, would mean uncontrolled inflation. That is why you see central banks raising interest rates when there’s inflation: So that they can mop up surplus money, so that the value of money stays stable. Similarly, during deflation they want to increase the amount of money in circulation so they lower the interest rate, might even turn it negative, or (this has been on the table for the Euro) even right-out transfer money into everyone’s bank accounts.
This one thing (at least in the case of the ECB) is the sole purpose of the central bank and the monetary system: To make sure, as best as possible, that a sandwich tomorrow costs the same as it did yesterday. When the economy grows more money is needed to reflect the value in circulation or you’d get deflation, when the economy shrinks, less value is in circulation thus less money is needed or you’d get inflation. The central bank always has to adjust.
…the target is 2% inflation instead of 0% because you need some wiggle room and some inflation is better than any deflation. The amount the central bank adds or subtracts from the monetary supply has no direct connection to the inflation rate, for that you have to take the actual economy into account, as said, if monetary supply tracks the economy perfectly, shrinking and expanding in response to it, there’s no inflation, and no deflation.
You can have inflation and lower profits, no issue there. The unit of account shifting in value has some, but ultimately little, impact on how much of the value-add companies keep for themselves, or how much their business expands or contracts. The same percentage of a less valuable unit of account is a larger number, but still the same percentage.
People like when if their rent is suddenly a lower percentage of their wages, they don’t really care about the absolute numbers.
Unfair redistribution is an issue, but it’s a bit orthogonal from deflation issues. I think people expect to get opportunities, promotions, new jobs, raising salary etc. this works better with a little inflation.
So long as the increases in salary outweigh the increases in inflation, sure. But that will never happen. The entire system is flawed. Debt will grow and grow and those holding the debt will pull the puppet strings and make those below them dance (and suffer).
Companies need to ditch their boards. They need to delist from the stock market. They need to be 100% employee owned. Profits need to be set at a specific percentage of COGS.
…but greed, greed never changes.
That’s a factor, yes, but deflation can easily make a company unprofitable.
If a company isn’t profitable, during a delfationary period, we really need to examine whether or not that business should even exist in the first place, since it apparently is only sustainable if there is an unsustainable economic model supporting it…
Many of the products and services that businesses depend on will or might raise in price. This is by design; most central banks target a low inflation rate, often around 2%. Without an increase in profits, raising prices on inputs will eat away at a business’ profit margin.
Many of those businesses shouldn’t even exist, to begin with. cough the entire ad tech market cough
Maybe we should see increasing prices for energy… And let “the free and open market” fully control how much consumers pay for fossil fuels at the pump?
Good.
Although I’m all for letting free market advocates get fisted by the invisible hand they worship, high energy prices have arguably contributed to the wave of obnoxious populism sweeping the world. I’m not saying we should keep fossil fuels to cater to the angry and fearful; I’m saying the transition should be more managed, because the sudden economic disruption you suggest is politically fraught.
Why would inputs increase?
Because everyone wants infinite growth, including the companies supplying your inputs.
Incorrect, anyone that wants infinite growth is too stupid to breathe, much less be a part of a successful business.
Yeah, take a look around bud.