Sigh, always with this Bezos guy. He famously works for peanuts, something like 80K a year. The entirely of his wealth is from his ownership that of something that has increased in value because it is so ridiculously useful. Your argument would be so much stronger if you highlighted the inbred parasites that are the multi-generational inheritors of wealth. At least they really did nothing for the money.

@1 Stronger at what?

Seems like Bezos is a perfect illustration of the dynamic Reich and Mudede are talking about - his work has destroyed tens of thousands of middle class incomes, transformed them into wage slave warehouse drones and shoved the difference into the pockets of shareholders.

"Convenience costs."

If it's cheap or easy to you, then it is "expensive" in terms of the waste is causes, or the labor or natural resources it exploits. Always.

I think it's somewhat curious that Keynes and other economists thought that "low interest rate" money would deliver class-equalization -- somehow. Missing the point that most cash in circulation is literally created by banks[1]... and banks are distributing cash specifically in order to charge interest on it for their own profit. As long as such private-profit interests are creating around 90-95% of all circulating currency[2], how would this pro-social revolution happen?, according to Keynes.

If the Federal Gov used ~their~ ability to create new money and offered citizens interest-free loans, thereby "disrupting" the banks' power over us, then maybe. But never otherwise.

Indeed, the very mechanism of "interest" as fees on cash being put into circulation is essentially the root form of "profit-extraction" which in turn drives an economy's requirement for "growth" and ever-increasing profits,,, or else we suffer a punishing recession.

Positive-interest currency itself is based on and requires exploitation of something/someone in order to maintain that growth. SOMEone has to fail for the others to succeed at all -- where else is the money for those interest-fees to come from? Either through bankruptcy, foreclosure, cheap products, natural resource extraction, and wage- or literal slavery.

I assert that the politics of capitalism derive from the profit-extraction demands of the currency itself. Not the other way around.

Of course, Keynes was never going to even imagine what another money-savvy person has proposed. Bernard Lietaer, the fellow who designed the ECU (which later become the Euro) went on to advocate --and create-- non-interest-bearing currencies as a way to withstand the tumult of the global economy's systemic instabilities[2]. "Mutual-credit" currencies also allow people to trade, -locally-, without profiting off one another. A critical pro-social detail that Keynes completely missed.

[1] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

[2] "Money Diversity" B. Lietaer -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9EI2PrDpmw