NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so here's an idea for a semi-communistic system that I think could actually work in practise. The main problem with communism is that it destroys ambition, and people don't see a reason to work if the fruits of their labors will never benifit them. When you have a very large grouping of people and they all pool their effort, any one worker is inconsequential. So obviously communism can only work in small groups. So what if we were to divide a nation into small communistic communities? In these communities, the work a person does has immediate effect on bettering their lives and the lives of their neigbors.

Anyone have a reason to believe that this wouldn't work?
This is just a thought experiment, by the way. I'm not a devout communist or anything, I just was thinking that there might be a communistic system that's feasable.

Well, if one was to split a country up like that, then each community would be pretty much on its own, and self-sufficiant, yes? So, they would not import much in the way of goods, and so would have to grow or make everything themselvs. And while this might be possible, it would leave no time for anything but work - and the situation would be something like the middle ages

I think the idea is good but it would be very hard to implement. It would perhaps be easier to amend the communist system in some way but i have no idea how

What you're describing sounds a lot to me like syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalist).

I don't think the main problem with communism is "that it destroys ambition," I think the main problem is that communism's success is inversely proportional to the amount of corruption within the government. As with capitalism, it results in the worst elements of society (those with the least social conscience) using dubious means to corner great amounts of wealth while the rest aren't as well off as they could be.

The other problem - at least in the present-day real world - is that the plutocracy that runs the US simply will not stand for any other nation succeeding with an economic model other than neoliberal capitalism, and they'll do whatever it takes to undermine them. Castro got embargoed into poverty, the Sandanistas got bombed back a few decades, and the US is actively working to undermine Chavez. If a communist or syndicalist nation ever showed any signs of succeeding, you'd hear a bunch of lofty rhetoric being used to build support for attacking them.

Well, if one was to split a country up like that, then each community would be pretty much on its own, and self-sufficiant, yes? So, they would not import much in the way of goods, and so would have to grow or make everything themselvs. And while this might be possible, it would leave no time for anything but work - and the situation would be something like the middle ages

You wouldn't isolate them completely, there would be some public projects, and imports and exports would be done with each community acting almost like it's own business. There would be trade between them. (yes, I know this violates one of the core precepts of the communist manefesto.)

I think the idea is good but it would be very hard to implement. It would perhaps be easier to amend the communist system in some way but i have no idea how

To isolate them in any kind of way sounds to oppressive for me to let people become happy.

This sounds like a mix of feudalism and communism almost...

Beyond that, your system is basically a total destruction of the current world order. And I don't just mean governments and capitalism, I mean international interaction in general.

Plus, what happens if one of the small group things gets uppity and decides it's better than everyone else. I'd expect that you might see a series of conquests, espescially if they are able to convince the neighboring communities that they all share the same superiority.

Still too dangerous. I don't like it.

To isolate them in any kind of way sounds to oppressive for me to let people become happy.

Precisely. The system he proposes might "work", but to forcefully ship hundreds of people off to farming communes is a horrendous civil rights infringement. People should be allowed to live wherever the hell they want.

Okay, so here's an idea for a semi-communistic system that I think could actually work in practise. The main problem with communism is that it destroys ambition, and people don't see a reason to work if the fruits of their labors will never benifit them. When you have a very large grouping of people and they all pool their effort, any one worker is inconsequential. So obviously communism can only work in small groups. So what if we were to divide a nation into small communistic communities? In these communities, the work a person does has immediate effect on bettering their lives and the lives of their neigbors.

Anyone have a reason to believe that this wouldn't work?
This is just a thought experiment, by the way. I'm not a devout communist or anything, I just was thinking that there might be a communistic system that's feasable.

It wouldn't work. Competition would inevitably arise between communities.

It's good, but it isn't communism. You're suggesting a reestablishment of a state, even if it is a bit different than the modern state. Anyhow, communist theory states that a state won't be needed.

Okay, so here's an idea for a semi-communistic system that I think could actually work in practise. The main problem with communism is that it destroys ambition, and people don't see a reason to work if the fruits of their labors will never benifit them. When you have a very large grouping of people and they all pool their effort, any one worker is inconsequential. So obviously communism can only work in small groups. So what if we were to divide a nation into small communistic communities? In these communities, the work a person does has immediate effect on bettering their lives and the lives of their neigbors.

Anyone have a reason to believe that this wouldn't work?
This is just a thought experiment, by the way. I'm not a devout communist or anything, I just was thinking that there might be a communistic system that's feasable.

This is pre-Colombian Native American tribalism.

Communism doesn't fail because it destroys ambition. Most workers get away with half-assed work in a capitalism. The reason a strict communism fails is that it destroys profit incentives for industries and kills price efficiency in the market. While I have heard plans like yours for segmentation of communities like that, that doesn't address the economic downfalls of communism, in fact it doesn't touch on any of the economic aspects of communism. It is more of a system of anarchy.

Indeed. Communism does not destroy ambition, because communism is still a system that must cope with the fact that humans are humans. A truly great Communism manages to complement human nature by implementing a working standards, in which those who do not work to these standards do not get their pay. Because communism is a democratic system, the entire population will elect representatives who will determine the most mathematically fair labor standard based on how much production the people desire. The representative factor is because such a complex factor, one which must be changed at a constant rate, cannot be carried out efficiently enough with a large population. However, because these decisions directly affect the people, if the representatives do a noticably bad job they will be replaced by the people and the people will decide in what direction the wage and labor standards will go. In such a way, whatever incentive is necessary on the part of industries to make the people happy (these needs for happiness will be the same in both communism and capitalism) will be achieved. This way, the prolitariat wins, the nation wins, and human nature wins. Just to sumarize, there are still working standards so one must work based on what the community wants/needs (how productivity ambition is judged even in capitalism) in order to receive pay. Needs are just that; necessary, and therefore even if the action of work is not out of human ambition, it secures victory for the entire populace.

Let us not forget that capitalism is not entirely successful, as mentioned above. In fact, capitalism is the one that ISN'T successful (I'm a Communist.) Capitalism makes it so that ambition hurts everyone. We acknowledge that in order to make money, it must come from somewhere, yes? Well, if one decides to work harder than what is expected from them, and then their competitor works just as hard, they will still maintain a relative 50:50 ratio (33:33:33 for 3 corperations, it's basically the same), yes? So, their monetary gains will still be equal, because an equal amount of whatever if the source of their money, be it a boss for individuals or the people for corperations, will become a client of both parties. If the rival competitrs choose not to work harder, then they will gradually lose clients until it becomes zero, so whatever they were gaining previously for the same amount of work became less. In other words, in both scenarios, due to competition, people will begin to have to work harder in order to maintain the same profit.

The beauty of communism is that the workers actually control the economy, so the economy can democratically adapt to fulfill the general communal and individual needs, and because the economy is run by a democratic state, the planned economy will not run into unfair situations like the ones mentioned above.

Let us not forget that capitalism is not entirely successful, as mentioned above. In fact, capitalism is the one that ISN'T successful (I'm a Communist.)

You are going to have trouble proving that point, seeing as there hasn't been a successful Communism. China became an economic powerhouse through installing a capitalistic system, while using the title of Communism to further control their workforce. Also just about every developed nation in the world with any sort of advance human rights level and decent standard of living has a capitalistic economy.

Capitalism makes it so that ambition hurts everyone. We acknowledge that in order to make money, it must come from somewhere, yes? Well, if one decides to work harder than what is expected from them, and then their competitor works just as hard, they will still maintain a relative 50:50 ratio (33:33:33 for 3 corperations, it's basically the same), yes? So, their monetary gains will still be equal, because an equal amount of whatever if the source of their money, be it a boss for individuals or the people for corperations, will become a client of both parties. If the rival competitrs choose not to work harder, then they will gradually lose clients until it becomes zero, so whatever they were gaining previously for the same amount of work became less. In other words, in both scenarios, due to competition, people will begin to have to work harder in order to maintain the same profit.

First off, due to competition, if the one company works harder than the other than the other then they will see increased profits and an increased profit margin, meaning that competition does work. Also, even if the first scenario was plausible, the result would be a much greater level of quality goods for the consumer, which just so happens to be the workforce. Meaning in the end competition works there to.

To make a non-capitalist system work, you would have to change people's attitude to what constitutes an accomplishment. You have to convince people that helping people, improving the world, and contributing to society are better things than getting rich. You have to convince people that a "good job" is one that benefits the world best, not one which pays most. Etc.

Okay, so here's an idea for a semi-communistic system that I think could actually work in practise. The main problem with communism is that it destroys ambition, and people don't see a reason to work if the fruits of their labors will never benifit them. When you have a very large grouping of people and they all pool their effort, any one worker is inconsequential. So obviously communism can only work in small groups. So what if we were to divide a nation into small communistic communities? In these communities, the work a person does has immediate effect on bettering their lives and the lives of their neigbors.

Anyone have a reason to believe that this wouldn't work?
This is just a thought experiment, by the way. I'm not a devout communist or anything, I just was thinking that there might be a communistic system that's feasable.

One workable communist system: The Army. No individual goals, no envy, no nothing. Just the collective, for the collective goals.

You are going to have trouble proving that point, seeing as there hasn't been a successful Communism. China became an economic powerhouse through installing a capitalistic system, while using the title of Communism to further control their workforce.

Which brings us to a point: what's the point of a powerhouse economy if not everyone benefits from it? Nations like Qatar and the UAE, where the citizens of the country share in their oil profits, are shining examples of very nearly successful capitalism, but near facist states like China are NOT.

Also just about every developed nation in the world with any sort of advance human rights level and decent standard of living has a capitalistic economy.

This is attributable to cultural factors more than anything. Nearly all the states that participated in the Enlightenment (the source of modern human rights) was a Mercantilist nation. The natural step up from Mercantilism is capitalism. When Capitalism was the new, idealistic system, it was as widely opposed by those in power as communism. America, in a way, was capitalism's great testing. The success it enjoyed was what brought the rest of the world out of mercantilism.

First off, due to competition, if the one company works harder than the other than the other then they will see increased profits and an increased profit margin, meaning that competition does work. Also, even if the first scenario was plausible, the result would be a much greater level of quality goods for the consumer, which just so happens to be the workforce. Meaning in the end competition works there to.

The problem with capitalism is not on the worker's end, at least not as far as competition is concerned. The problem lies on the consumer end. Smith's version of capitalism rests heavily upon an educated, enlightened populace; the same thing idealistic communism rests upon. However, capitalism fails this test for different reasons than communism.

One of the main reasons is the idea of "percieved quality versus actual quality". This problem, while an old one, has only come to the fore front in the last 100 years with the advent of mass media and, you guessed it, mass advertising. A good example (while not 100% accurate, gets the gist across) are burger places. They do all kinds of horrible things to burgers before they put them into commercials -- things that make them completely inedible. This is all to make them look much more appetizing than they actually are.

This "lie" to the consumer public makes it so the real best company with the real best product doesn't succeed, only the one with the best marketing division. This leads to an economy centered around advertising, "spreading the word"...propoganda.

Another problem is mandatory obsoletism, or the practice of making sub-par products that will not last as long as they really could. This way the consumer must go out and replace the product within a shorter time period.

The underlying lesson? Teach the people the things they need to know, the things they reallly need to know, and capitalism can succeed as a system for the benefit of all. Until then, it will fail, just as communism has.

The problem with capitalism is that no one has yet solved the problem with overpruction and resource waste.
In most productive areas there is no real need to increase production other than undercut the competitors and resulting in a sheer mass of unsold and unutilized products.
The most evident example is food: World production is more than sufficent to well feed the whole world population... But why there's still hunger in the world?
Because you've got millions tonnes of unsold food to ROT into the storages...
The sole reason they stay to rot and aren't shipped where they're needed it's because it would be antieconomical :rolleyes:
The very first requisite of capitalism is scarcity of a resource...
When this requisite falls you have waste, lowering the overall efficency.
Food is not the only example, there are enough unsold good to bring the whole world near to the western quality of life, only it pays more to waste them than distribute them... :headbang:

Which brings us to a point: what's the point of a powerhouse economy if not everyone benefits from it? Nations like Qatar and the UAE, where the citizens of the country share in their oil profits, are shining examples of very nearly successful capitalism, but near facist states like China are NOT.

I agree, capitalism can be detrimental to the workers, but when regulated by a representative government, it works better than Communism, at least in my opinion. I would also like to point out that China has human rights problems because of it's communistic past, not because of its shift to capitalism. If anything Capitalism is helping the Chinese worker.

The problem with capitalism is not on the worker's end, at least not as far as competition is concerned. The problem lies on the consumer end. Smith's version of capitalism rests heavily upon an educated, enlightened populace; the same thing idealistic communism rests upon. However, capitalism fails this test for different reasons than communism.

One of the main reasons is the idea of "percieved quality versus actual quality". This problem, while an old one, has only come to the fore front in the last 100 years with the advent of mass media and, you guessed it, mass advertising. A good example (while not 100% accurate, gets the gist across) are burger places. They do all kinds of horrible things to burgers before they put them into commercials -- things that make them completely inedible. This is all to make them look much more appetizing than they actually are.

This "lie" to the consumer public makes it so the real best company with the real best product doesn't succeed, only the one with the best marketing division. This leads to an economy centered around advertising, "spreading the word"...propoganda.

Another problem is mandatory obsoletism, or the practice of making sub-par products that will not last as long as they really could. This way the consumer must go out and replace the product within a shorter time period.

The underlying lesson? Teach the people the things they need to know, the things they reallly need to know, and capitalism can succeed as a system for the benefit of all. Until then, it will fail, just as communism has.

I agree completely with you. But this problem on the consumer end is the exact reason I do not like communism. Governments are just as much mass marketers as the corporations, and in the end I don't think the government would be any more legit than the corporations in the way they treat their employees or their consumers.

The problem with any system is going to be the fallibility of the public, and in my opinion, communism will give the government the ability to take advantage of that.

I agree, capitalism can be detrimental to the workers, but when regulated by a representative government, it works better than Communism, at least in my opinion. I would also like to point out that China has human rights problems because of it's communistic past, not because of its shift to capitalism. If anything Capitalism is helping the Chinese worker.

Actually, wouldn't it be a result of its authoritarian past? I agree that the increase of rights is attributible to its market shift. No capitalist system can succeed without a free exchange of ideas.



I agree completely with you. But this problem on the consumer end is the exact reason I do not like communism. Governments are just as much mass marketers as the corporations, and in the end I don't think the government would be any more legit than the corporations in the way they treat their employees or their consumers.

The problem with any system is going to be the fallibility of the public, and in my opinion, communism will give the government the ability to take advantage of that.

While I disagree with your assessment of trust in government versus trust in business, I do agree with you on the fallibility of the public and the massive power vaccuum that is left in a communist state. However, I do believe that a communist state could succeed, but I am not a communist because, in truth, I really do like my life and the way it is going now. So, I want to solve the problems of others, not myself.

To this end, I have adopted a rather extremist stance on consumer education and education in economics. I believe we should drop our concentration on certain subjects (say, in high school) and instead focus in one making sure our populace is one of educated consumers, able to differentiate the two qualities I spoke of earlier (percieved and actual quality).

One workable communist system: The Army. No individual goals, no envy, no nothing. Just the collective, for the collective goals.
Relying on the rest of society...for without the rest of society the funding, equipment and resources for the army suddenly disappear.

It's kind of like the Spartans/Helots thing almost, only the rest of society isn't subservient to the army (or at least it shouldn't be.)

I hate capitalism.

But I hate communism worse. Communism has been a murderous, anti-humanist system of government that has resulted in110 million people being killed by their own government.

Okay, so here's an idea for a semi-communistic system that I think could actually work in practise. The main problem with communism is that it destroys ambition, and people don't see a reason to work if the fruits of their labors will never benifit them. When you have a very large grouping of people and they all pool their effort, any one worker is inconsequential. So obviously communism can only work in small groups. So what if we were to divide a nation into small communistic communities? In these communities, the work a person does has immediate effect on bettering their lives and the lives of their neigbors.

Anyone have a reason to believe that this wouldn't work?
This is just a thought experiment, by the way. I'm not a devout communist or anything, I just was thinking that there might be a communistic system that's feasable.
Which you could further break down to the individual, who could even more easily see the effects of his efforts immediately on him/herself. And we are then back to capitalism/free enterprise . . .

What you're describing sounds a lot to me like syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalist).

I don't think the main problem with communism is "that it destroys ambition," I think the main problem is that communism's success is inversely proportional to the amount of corruption within the government. As with capitalism, it results in the worst elements of society (those with the least social conscience) using dubious means to corner great amounts of wealth while the rest aren't as well off as they could be.

The other problem - at least in the present-day real world - is that the plutocracy that runs the US simply will not stand for any other nation succeeding with an economic model other than neoliberal capitalism, and they'll do whatever it takes to undermine them. Castro got embargoed into poverty, the Sandanistas got bombed back a few decades, and the US is actively working to undermine Chavez. If a communist or syndicalist nation ever showed any signs of succeeding, you'd hear a bunch of lofty rhetoric being used to build support for attacking them.
Chavez is turning into a dictator, suppressing critical speech, and is good buddies with our pal Castro - another tinpot dictator.

Okay, so here's an idea for a semi-communistic system that I think could actually work in practise. The main problem with communism is that it destroys ambition, and people don't see a reason to work if the fruits of their labors will never benifit them. When you have a very large grouping of people and they all pool their effort, any one worker is inconsequential. So obviously communism can only work in small groups. So what if we were to divide a nation into small communistic communities? In these communities, the work a person does has immediate effect on bettering their lives and the lives of their neigbors.

This system has a name, it is called communitarianism. The only thing that you overlook, is that each community has to be free to choose its own form of local government. Otherwise you are proposing a central large scale government, that imposes communistic cells on the local populace. I havew no doubt, that under communitarianism, some communities would work on a true communist principles, as it has already happened. See the history of the Spanish civil war, for true communism spontaneously emerging in some villages when the large scale social structure collapsed.

Chavez is turning into a dictator, suppressing critical speech, and is good buddies with our pal Castro - another tinpot dictator.

Despite not agreeing with his political line, and living next door. A lot closer than you. I have to point out that Chavez was actually elected and then reafirmed as president by two seperate full plebescites. The first an election, the second a referendum that was forced by the middle classes to try and protect their priveledged position in the Venezuelan society. He is friends with Castro, true. But at least he has friends abroad, unlike some presidents. He is not a dictator, he simply represents a political line that you happen to find uncomfortable and threatening. Rather like communism left you feeling.

The main problem with communism is

That it isn't understood in the sense Marx wrote about it.

He said in effect, that communism develops out of the highest developed capitalism. In fact, in his communism everyone is an entrepreneur and enters freely into associations with others and therefore also reaps the fruit of his ambition and labor.

The point he made is: if the employees organize the company, why should they give the profit to the shareholders who do nothing?

If you're going to recognize the power of competition and move rewards down so many levels, why don't you just take the rational step and move down to the level of the individual, where each individual is responsible for his own actions and recieves the rewards? You yourself admit that competition and rewards are what make the system work. Anything short of pure capitalism will have inherent problems because of a lack of the aforementioned.

Despite not agreeing with his political line, and living next door. A lot closer than you. I have to point out that Chavez was actually elected and then reafirmed as president by two seperate full plebescites. The first an election, the second a referendum that was forced by the middle classes to try and protect their priveledged position in the Venezuelan society. He is friends with Castro, true. But at least he has friends abroad, unlike some presidents. He is not a dictator, he simply represents a political line that you happen to find uncomfortable and threatening. Rather like communism left you feeling.
See this article: Hugo Chavez (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146472,00.html)
Particularly note that he STARTED his political career with a failed coup attempt. Also note the repression of any news of violent activities against his opponents, which indicates to me there probably are violent activities against his political opponents. And note the land grab. Sounds an awful lot like Castro...

That it isn't understood in the sense Marx wrote about it.

He said in effect, that communism develops out of the highest developed capitalism. In fact, in his communism everyone is an entrepreneur and enters freely into associations with others and therefore also reaps the fruit of his ambition and labor.

The point he made is: if the employees organize the company, why should they give the profit to the shareholders who do nothing?

Truly, this is Marx's line, the problem is that he was plain wrong about human nature. Notice that you say that everyone is an entrepreneur, as Marx also said, but never has there been, nor will there ever be a time when everyone pulls there own weight. It is the deadweights that make communism, on a large scale, unworkable. They simply hide in the size of the sytem, faceless, nameless, but uttrerly destructive. At the local level, this can not happen. People know their neighbours. They know when someone is not pulling their weight, and can effectively punish the transgressor.

Since people on here seem to favor talking over listening, I am going to repeat what I said earlier, especially in reference the previous post.

If you're going to recognize the power of competition and move rewards down so many levels, why don't you just take the rational step and move down to the level of the individual, where each individual is responsible for his own actions and recieves the rewards? You yourself admit that competition and rewards are what make the system work. Anything short of pure capitalism will have inherent problems because of a lack of the aforementioned.

If you're going to recognize the power of competition and move rewards down so many levels, why don't you just take the rational step and move down to the level of the individual, where each individual is responsible for his own actions and recieves the rewards? You yourself admit that competition and rewards are what make the system work. Anything short of pure capitalism will have inherent problems because of a lack of the aforementioned.
See my earlier post - #25.

See this article: Hugo Chavez (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146472,00.html)
Particularly note that he STARTED his political career with a failed coup attempt. Also note the repression of any news of violent activities against his opponents, which indicates to me there probably are violent activities against his political opponents. And note the land grab. Sounds an awful lot like Castro...

You cite a TV news report tailored for the US public as an argument that Chavez is dangerous? Yes he did start his career in the military, and yes he did take part in a coup attempt which failed, against a corrupt and unrepresentative government. However he is now president as he was elected freely to the post. Democracy means accepting the decision of the majority, whether you agree with it or not.
An absence of reports of violent repression of Bush's opponents is also noticable in the news. Is this repression of this news, or is this simply that it is not happening. Should I take its absence as an indication that there probably are violent activitie ongoing against his opponents.
Living next door, in Brazil, suppresion of such news here would be very difficult indeed. Our press has a vast distaste for repression of news, far more so than the US or EU press has, as Brazil sufered complete censorship of the press under a military dictatorship until just over 20 years ago. The press here is oversensitive to any attempt to repress news. Howwever, there has been no news of any political intimidation whatsoever coming out of Venezuela. If you look at the geography, you will see that there is absolutely no way that anyone could seal the Brazilian/Venezuelan border. It is in the middle of the Amazon jungle. Any political pogroms or such would be news here.

Having said all that, I don't like and don't trust Chavez. But he holds his position legitemately. Also, this is getting off thread.

Let us not forget that capitalism is not entirely successful, as mentioned above. In fact, capitalism is the one that ISN'T successful (I'm a Communist.) Capitalism makes it so that ambition hurts everyone. We acknowledge that in order to make money, it must come from somewhere, yes? Well, if one decides to work harder than what is expected from them, and then their competitor works just as hard, they will still maintain a relative 50:50 ratio (33:33:33 for 3 corperations, it's basically the same), yes? So, their monetary gains will still be equal, because an equal amount of whatever if the source of their money, be it a boss for individuals or the people for corperations, will become a client of both parties. If the rival competitrs choose not to work harder, then they will gradually lose clients until it becomes zero, so whatever they were gaining previously for the same amount of work became less. In other words, in both scenarios, due to competition, people will begin to have to work harder in order to maintain the same profit.
Yes, the amount of paper cash stays the same. However, the value of the economy increases. You can buy better products with the same amount of money. So, if a company and its competitor both work harder, then everybody who uses their product or service benefits from the competition. Also, in any industry where the demand is greater than the supply, an increase in productivity will not harm the competitor who doesn't change.

Truly, this is Marx's line, the problem is that he was plain wrong about human nature. Notice that you say that everyone is an entrepreneur, as Marx also said, but never has there been, nor will there ever be a time when everyone pulls there own weight. It is the deadweights that make communism, on a large scale, unworkable. They simply hide in the size of the sytem, faceless, nameless, but uttrerly destructive. At the local level, this can not happen. People know their neighbours. They know when someone is not pulling their weight, and can effectively punish the transgressor.


So, let me see. The are no deadweights on locality A and not on locality B, but if you put locality A and B together you have huge deadweights who destroy the system.

Well, as Marx also said, first comes capitalism and imperialism (extension of capitalism all over the world, what we call now globalisation). So in the end, locality A and B should work approximately in the same way.

And well, Marx also said that capitalism is absolutely necessary, sort of like adolescence is necessary to become an adult.

Yes, the amount of paper cash stays the same. However, the value of the economy increases. You can buy better products with the same amount of money. So, if a company and its competitor both work harder, then everybody who uses their product or service benefits from the competition. Also, in any industry where the demand is greater than the supply, an increase in productivity will not harm the competitor who doesn't change.


The amount of cash doesn't stay the same. For anyone interested, find out something about M1, M2, M3 money supply and how it grows.