If the objective is to make money, for example, where is it going to come from? Getting it from wages and salaries, which leaves consumers short, causes a declining rate of profit. (All classical economists, remember, recognized the declining rate of profit. Not just Karl Marx. Since Marx recognized it to be a deliberate detriment, not a natural, ontological benefit like capitalists argue, the cyclical model of repossession is now referred to as gaining economic synergies that afford increasing economic efficiency. The efficiency is, of course, the expected risk of default, which effectively repossesses property, described as a “natural condition” that mechanically operates according to economic laws like supply and demand.) You are not making money if the rate of profit is declining. Instead, naturally, the accumulation has to be distributed in order to make a profit. That just happens to be objective reality (on demand, Hobbes argued, for example) but capitalists want to be king. The king naturally makes the rules, and subjects follow them.
Being subjected to debt resists the declining rate of profit.
Adding to the money supply “makes money”–which is the objective. Monetizing the debt was a naturally emergent property of capitalism, allowing capitalists to make money without slamming consumers into massive detriment by default, which is inherently unstable. This forms an effective model of objective reality that accommodates the ECV-symmetry of an on-demand existence. The symmetry cannot be ignored because it has natural utility (existing by the numbers), and the efficiency is, of course, the expected risk of default, which effectively repossesses property.
Notice that House Speaker, Paul Ryan allowed a budget to pass that does not pass muster with most conservatives. Up against a general election, which expresses the on-demand property that cannot be ignored, empathy deficit is magically subsumed. The empathy deficit (naturally possessed by the numbers) is pressured under the force of a more symmetrical, mechanical, pluralistic, free-market device that effectively models the objective reality Randians, like Paul Ryan, must emergently admit to by default.
It is important to notice that physicists, for example, recognize they don’t know what reality actually is. There is a relative understanding of it that reduces the apparent random interpretation, effectively creating a model that conforms to (or causes) the objective (with purpose) on demand (what you want, when you want it, without the cost exceeding the benefit). The interpretation is transactional, it is evolving, like a free market in which the mechanical elements operate with inherent empathy to derive an effective model (what you want, when you want it, at a price you can afford) existing on demand, expanding, emerging, naturally adding identity (profit) at the margin.
Violation of natural identity becomes readily apparent when trying to possess it on command just happens to emerge the property of its repossession on demand.