Increasing inequality does in fact encourage deflation. Redistribution in forms of common services and education (for um.. jobs) is very necessary.
I know it's still a gross oversimplification, but I think the general truth encoded in the parable should be appreciated for its own sake in general terms.
Except that it does - up to a certain point.
That's one of the few repeatable, tested, and validated economical principle from the XX century. Counter intuitive as it is, there's just no point denying it.
The idea that producers are only incentivized monetarily is false.
An obtuse mischaracterization of the poor; a more typical "sin" would be failure to hop over the ever-rising bar that denotes the ability to secure money by threatening to withhold labor.
Circulation goes both ways and it isn't the ability of producers to secure profits that seems to be most endangered at the moment.
Why do you think it's a characterization of the poor at all?
Circulation goes both ways and it isn't the ability of producers to secure profits that seems to be most endangered at the moment.
The working poor are themselves producers.
Because they're the ones who the type of policy we are discussing would actually be intended to benefit. Voicing that side of the argument through a "spendthrift vagabond" is disingenuous at best.
> The working poor are themselves producers.
I was using the term with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I thought it would be clear enough from context that I was referring to capital-holders.
