I've endeavored to address all of your questions. If we're to have this discussion I can only ask the same.
Why do you worry about the relative increased cost of a short term loan over the continuous purchasing power erosion of a lifetime of savings?
Computers, phones, pencils, or airplanes, the principal of capitalism is the same: Increase productivity to increase profits, reduce prices, and increase marketshare, or be replaced by those who do. Do you abhor competition as 'destructive'?
If your business needs loans to survive and mine doesn't, why should you get bailed out at my expense, and the expense of everyone else who has or earns a dollar?
Yes! We need deflation, to kill all businesses that borrow money! Now you get it. LOL!
That isn't an answer to the question. How do computer companies profit in an environment where they borrow to invest, and yet the price of the product they sell goes down at a higher than 3% annual rate? The answer is by being more productive, and hence more profitable, than their peers. The reality of the computer marketplace completely contravenes your expectations. Prices go down, consumers buy more every year than the last, and profits continue to be found.
And 30 years of deflation of the value of the home.
Again you confuse nominal price with value (purchasing power). Do you think a home purchased for $100k today is worth twice as much when it sells for $200k after 30 years of 3% inflation?
If they wanted to loan more money, they could have sold the bond, without Fed involvement.
You think they could obtain the same price, absent the Fed printing the money (thereby inflating the money supply) to meet their price?!
My comments had nothing to do with subsidiaries, only the claim that the primary dealer profits from having cash instead of a bond.
I explained to you how JPM uses subsidiaries to acquire and profit from the Fed's monetary creation. You asked how JPM profits, not how a particular subsidiary of JPM profits. This hair splitting only serves your point if you ignore that JPM owns the bank loaning the deposit, and the securities firm that counts the deposit as an asset.
Say the Fed buys $1 billion of 10 year Treasuries, yielding 1.87%, from JP Morgan. JP Morgan now has cash yielding 0%. How does this enrich them?
30 years of 3% deflation leaves your house worth 40% of what you paid. It makes your last payment 250% of your first. I could show you actual numbers, if you don't understand.
How do computer companies profit in an environment where they borrow to invest, and yet the price of the product they sell goes down at a higher than 3% annual rate?
How will farmers profit when their product will decrease at 3% a year, forever? Or an auto company?
Does Apple make money selling the same Ipod that gets 3% cheaper each year? No, they sell newer, more expensive products, because they would go broke selling Ipods cheaper every year.
Do you think a home purchased for $100k today is worth twice as much when it sells for $200k after 30 years of 3% inflation?
No, but I think a mortgage payment that gets 3% more expensive each year is a bad idea, especially when the house loses 3% in value each year.
You think they could obtain the same price, absent the Fed printing the money (thereby inflating the money supply) to meet their price?!
Yeah, $1 billion in bonds is worth $1 billion, whether the Fed buys it or Fidelity does.
I explained to you how JPM uses subsidiaries to acquire and profit from the Fed's monetary creation.
Try again. JPM had a bond yielding 1.87%, now they have cash yielding 0%. Where is the profit?