3 ms·
That is only true if you are not simultaneously creating new money to replace the money that has been effectively been withdrawn from the system - which is prec
by madaxe_again 11y ago
That is only true if you are not simultaneously creating new money to replace the money that has been effectively been withdrawn from the system - which is precisely what the fed, the Bank of England, etc., do when they churn out new currency.
If there were a constant and fixed supply of money, what you say would be true - but there is not, and therefore what you say is false.
Cars in driveways will not explode, crops will not catch on fire, but the incremental benefit from increased efficiency will never be realised in any tangible fashion.
Also, nice stoop to the ad-hominem - I'm no communist. Are you a primitive randroid?
- Frozenlock 11y agoNo, you are trying to move the goalpost. You try to move away from "hiding money destroy wealth" and establish the ground to go to something like "printing money steals value". It is absolutely NOT the same thing. I explained your logic was erroneous. Hiding money away does not destroy wealth. By the way, printing money doesn't destroy wealth either, it transfers it. You can argue that it's evil all you want (and I would agree), but that's NOT the same thing as saying that destroying money destroys wealth.