> change 'profits' to 'interest' and buy and sell to lend and the outcome seems like it would be the same. without adding new money or someone overpaying for stuff (financial losses), you would run out of money to pay interest and those who could not pay would lose whatever property they secured, meaning the lenders would end up with all the property and what money some of the players would be able to pay. > example: a bank "lends" (loose use of the term knowing banks create money when they lend) money to someone to buy a house. they pay 15 years of a 30 year mortgage and then get cancer and default. bank gets the house and keeps the 15 years worth of payments. same scenario if they lose their job because their factory moved overseas. yes, in a static money supply, lenders can just snowball their share of the total money supply. assuming no one defaults on their debt. but then everyone else but the lenders could decide to charge lenders significantly more for their time and labour, or the fruits of their time and labour, than what they charge each other (other borrowers or other non-lenders). but this isn't legal in capitalism. you can't charge kikes 10 times more for stuff than you do fellow non-kikes. you'll get arrested and jailed or sued. but even in this current system, everyone still ends up working for the "lenders" and their immediate acolytes. because, through their "lending", they devalue everyone's incomes and savings. to where people far away from the fiat currency faucets get fucked in the ass because their incomes and savings grown much, much more slowly than the money supply or prices do. and people near the fiat currency faucets have their incomes and savings grow considerably faster than the total money supply or at least the circulating supply.
Romania