>It is interesting to see that even inequality is the default outcome, the natural order of things, even when we start from equality. It seem the law of physics and the law of this world converges toward inequality.

The natural order of things? Is this some kind of joke? Since when are humans golems? A truly natural economic order looks like this: https://www.naturalmoney.org/NaturalEconomicOrder.pdf

>It seem the law of physics and the law of this world converges toward inequality.

No, you are mistaken again, the money and land system converge toward inequality. After all, time does not stand still, humans are faced with a perpetual increase in entropy, but the banker and the saver, with their eternal money and claims to land, do not have to fear the laws of physics, instead, they get to use the laws of physics as weapons, to extract "concessions" from the people around them. The people that do not have money or land end up subsidizing those who do.

>The only way to fight against inequality aggressively is to do the unnatural things, that is, to redistribute wealth aggressively.

That honestly is completely irrelevant. This wealth redistribution nonsense is just another bandaid to subsidize the rich. When I said subsidy I mean it. Negative interest rates make the whole argument about wealth redistribution completely irrelevant. The moment people have to be responsible for the costs that their capital incurs nobody is going to envy them for their wealth. It's only because those costs have been forbidden by law/decree and secretly passed onto the rest of society that we even want to be wealthy ourselves.

Think about how much maintenance a single family home requires. In an economy with no growth, capital depreciation is just a pure loss. If you have idle capacity, you will have to pay to keep the factory well maintained. No, a negative interest rate isn't some kind of financial repression or wealth redistribution scheme. Your house isn't trying to steal your wealth by depreciating. It's recognizing the fact that almost nothing on this planet lasts forever. If physical capital depreciates, then money must represent that depreciation. If it does not, then either abundant capital must be destroyed or the economy must be forced to grow.

Imagine you have a banana. It will spoil within a week or two. Now imagine having a banana coupon that does not spoil. If the super market orders bananas and can't sell them, it will have to take the loss, effectively subsidizing the holder of the banana coupon by letting him avoid the spoilage of bananas. The actual banana is not exploitative, the banana coupon is exploitative. This is because the holder of the banana coupon has no obligation to tell the super market when he is going to buy the banana, so the supermarket must keep guessing when he is going to buy a banana. This is the root of speculation.

Have you ever wondered why permanent inflation is the norm? It's precisely because money must spoil at the rate labor spoils. Capital depreciation is represented by a permanent decline of the unit of account aka inflation.

Welfare in the form of unemployment benefits is quite frankly a direct subsidy to the owners of money. It's so painfully obvious. Our society has an incredibly high degree of the division of labor. You cannot just farm your own food, you must buy it from specialized "dealers" aka supermarkets. To buy food you need to get money from someone else first. During a depression, there is capital abundance, meaning the owners of capital would have to pay for capital depreciation, as I said, they prefer removing or preventing abundant capital which means firing people. This means you cannot get money through employment, forcing you to go into debt. Borrowing would raise the interest rate above 0% again. However, since 2008 banks refuse to lend money to risky borrowers. This means that direct borrowing isn't possible. Instead, the government must borrow on behalf of all those people that were fired. That borrowing then forcibly raises the interest rate back to 0% or higher again. If you were offered a -3% interest rate due to capital depreciation and the government were to step in and give you a 0% interest rate, what else could this be other than a subsidy? Of course, since money cannot represent capital depreciation, we are forced to play this stupid game no matter what.