>>402825
Honestly I don't like clinging to a label because the world is a complex, dynamic place and it's important to keep a fluid perspective on things. But ultimately what matters isn't political or private ideals, but the medium of exchange within the economy & how it's created and issued. Everything else is derived from that.
Our current system is actually dominated by private, for-profit institutions (commercial & investment banks) who create money (credit) on demand and loan it at interest. Near 97% of the money supply is bank credit. So it's always funny to me when free marketers complain how the system should be more privately run when it already is. Competition really isn't a cure-all, you'll still get consolidation of power and influence over the world. That is more the 'natural state' of things.
I think the government should have the power to create/loan money at lower rates to social services in a non-profit fashion, and more speculative, entrepreneurial endeavors can continue to be serviced by banks at a more punitive rate to prevent abuse. Although frankly such abuse already occurs within our private, for profit system, but letting the government fund social services will truncate a good deal of the opportunity to extract excess profits from public services that commercial banks do currently. It's really a no-brainer, banks are just so huge and powerful they're able to keep congress out of their turf. As it stands, with the banking system around most the developed world needing ZIRP/IOER/APP (Zero Interest Rate Policy, zero rates on loans/Interest On Excess Reserves, the central bank paying them interest on reserves with freshly printed cash/Asset Purchase Program, the ECB effectively monetizing their corporate bond markets) to continue functioning, it's not long till we see some form of "QE for the people", ie helicopter money, to stimulate the economy. Or we can continue in eternal stagnation and borderline debt-deflation which just continues this 60 year trend of wealth consolidating within a fraction of the population while everyone else gets poorer from a combination of inflation and wage stagnation.
>what makes you think you deserve it?
Not so much that I deserve it, more that the system as it is (which I reiterate already is mostly free and privately operated) is totally unfair and caters to the wealthy first (banks only loan to those with collateral), as such you see financial consolidation amongst the wealthy while everyone else gets poorer. The government being able to issue loans below the market rate to social needs would be healthy and necessary competition to our current for-profit based economy.
>>402822
Indeed, government should manage (read: fund) the immediate needs of the public, healthcare, utilities, education, etc, while everyday goods, services, and innovation can be done by private business.
The problem really is the fact that funding for all things, healthcare etc comes from a for-profit initiative, when non-profit government funding can alleviate most of the social ills we're facing today.
Absolutely awesome podcast that nails this subject: https://itsourmoney.podbean.com
sign up for their newsletter: http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org/join
good layman introduction to how private bank credit is the primary cause of economic instability (from Soros' thinktank no less): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmMSmKO1U-8
