[ostrophonics]

> This isn't how a stable society should be set up

and why not? antifragile systems gain stability as they endure shocks. why not cyclically generate then destroy business? makes it easier to funnel resources to the top, because only the biggest - i.e., the most moneyed, hence the most liquid, hence best reactive to risk, hence most stable - firms can survive.

you may not like it morally, but two centuries of corporate history leave little to gainsay empirically about this notion.

[gher-shyu3i]

Because we already have systems that are already superior and much more stable, we don't have to endure any artificial shocks due to inherent instabilities in the system (caused in large due to interest and other immoral practices).

The 2008 crash was just one manifestation of what happens when the system is taken to its logical conclusion, it all comes crumbling down eventually because it is not sustainable. We saw it these past two weeks with GME, however, the big players stepped in to put a stop to it because they can't allow the market to play by their own rules (because they're unstable).

I have no issues with businesses going under because they can't compete, that's how a free market operates. I have issues with lending money with interest and other predatory practices, such as shorting, because they destroy economies and/or exploit one class, causing the lender to gain an unfair and immoral advantage simply because he has money.

Gain wealth, but do it morally and without exploiting others. I'm all for that.