Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
Hmmm, good point; I'm not sure if the distinction between capitalism and monetary system makes sense to me here, though. Investments in companies through markets are also a way to lend and "create money", since those companies are basically indebted to give some of their future profits. I don't really get finance, but from what I get, most companies are not valued at what money/assets/value they "posess", so that most wouldn't be able to pay back all investors if those wanted their investment back at the same time. The only difference I see with central banks is that those literally create money to control the level of inflation.
Yes, that is what I mean they are not valued for their assets or even actual products or services they offer, rather, for the interest they create through debt. I see this as problematic, but only one form that capitalism can take on. There are others, but we will most likely never get to see them because those who make money off of interest (investment banks) are too powerful to have anyone challenge their position.

What I mean with anti-social is that western economies still have no way to value a lot of social or natural services. In a way, it's undualized Te. For example, shouldn't people who care for their parents be paid like a live-in caregiver? Who would pay for something like that? Some people would say that filial caregiving should be natural and not "paid for", but that's not what's going to pay rent or put food on the table.
That's not entirely true about children not being rewarded for taking care of their parents. For example, out here in Belgium you can have financial advantages (such as tax returns) for being "fiscally responsible" for a parent. Most people simply choose not to do this though, as they give priority to raising a family of their own, even if it's super expensive to have kids. Tbh I'm not sure people know such a law exists.