Defo! (but not necessarily a tautology: there are models where it's false, it just happens to be true both for Marxists and for financiers — or have we some axi

Defo! (but not necessarily a tautology: there are models where it's false, it just happens to be true both for Marxists and for financiers — or have we some axioms which would make these models inconsistent?) Note that 1984's Inner Party, despite not owning anything, benefits from everything; compare Plato's Guardians: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 (or Номенклатура?) On a straight CenFi note, even Cicero is more subtle than he'd appear by my contextless quote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796726 ; he may have enlisted Cato to frown upon usury, but I take http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0048%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D42 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... as implying that he smiles upon clipping coupons: Sed ut pecuniae non quaerendae solum ratio est, verum etiam collocandae, quae perpetuos sumptus suppeditet... [the distinction between ownership and benefit in both code and common law jurisdictions has its roots in roman law, but unless either of you are really interested I'm not going to delve in that graveyard] EDIT: HF? Our Ford? EDIT2: for an SAP advertorial, I like TLTF! pigs acorns etc.