5 ms·

So wealth is meaningless and the rich hoarding tons of it aren't materially better off than the homeless sleeping in your doorway? If there isn't a single limi

So wealth is meaningless and the rich hoarding tons of it aren't materially better off than the homeless sleeping in your doorway? If there isn't a single limited pile of wealth, then why can't we helicopter drop on everyone millions of dollars, and raise all boats to American lifestyle level.

jasonkester 10y ago
If it really isn't limited then why don't we give everyone a million dollars. In effect, we have. I work, earn a dollar and put it in the bank... who lends it to a company who pays it to somebody else... who puts it in the bank... There's orders of magnitude less pie to go around than has in fact gone around. That's essentially the basis for the world economy.
- kashkhan 10y ago
  you don't make the dollar. You get it from someone else. You can't arbitrarily make assets. The total capital in the world grows but grows slowly. And doubly slowly for you if you are poor. I think Piketty wrote something about that.
  - jasonkester 10y ago
    You're mistaken on this point as well. You absolutely can make assets. You can create wealth. For an example, I live off the profits of a SaaS business that I built myself. In addition to creating wealth for me, it is in fact an asset that I can sell if ever I want. It genuinely is "money" poofed into existence out of nowhere. All we've actually done is add an extra zig in to the capital flow I described above. So before, we had Joe earning a dollar, using it to buy a donut from the grocer who puts it in to the bank. Now, Joe gives that dollar to me in exchange for my service, and I use it to buy that donut. No central authority decided to increase the wealth supply. I did it myself.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- labster 10y ago
  Don't worry, it's turtles all the way down.
LukaAl 10y ago
We could give everyone a million making everyone a millionaire. But the value of that million will be pretty low or, put in another way, this will generate a lot of inflation basically returning at the starting point. The thing is that the dollar as no value by itself, its value derives from what it could buy. If the economic activity increases generating more value, the value of the dollar will increase. And that's not just theory, that's what happened in the last 20 years were a large number of population in developing countries were raised out of poverty. Check the Milanovic chart for seeing it [1]. The second problem is that it is not necessary that a society that has an unequal wealth distribution is also unjust. Suppose to have a society where everybody between 20 and 60 years old works for 1K a month. Before 20 years old the could use debt to leave, after 60 years old to their death (let's say 80 years old) they live with the savings. You would agree that this society is just, everybody makes the same amount of money. And yet there is inequality in wealth distribution. Youngs just before turning 20 will have a huge debt, people turning 60 will be, conversely, in the top 1%. This example could sound naïve, replace it with student loan and pension funds and you will see that is pretty much the status of US economy. [1] http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/files/2013/10/Change-in-real-income-between-1988-and-2008-at-various-percentiles-of-global-income-distribution-calculated-in-2005-international-dollars-Branko-Milanovic.jpg http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/files/2013/10/Change-in-real...
- kashkhan 10y ago
  Yes there will be inflation but it will hurt the rich much more than the poor. Assuming the real world value of dollar goes down by 10x due to inflation, the median would still be the equivalent of $100k, while the top guys will go from $100B to $10B. As opposed to today's $2k median and $100B top.
  - JLK_121416 10y ago
    If bread becomes 10x as expensive, who will be hurt more?
    - kashkhan 10y ago
      The homeless guy has no money to buy a $3 loaf today. After he gets a million dollars he will have money to buy a $30 loaf of bread.

jasonkester 10y ago

If it really isn't limited then why don't we give everyone a million dollars. In effect, we have. I work, earn a dollar and put it in the bank... who lends it to a company who pays it to somebody else... who puts it in the bank... There's orders of magnitude less pie to go around than has in fact gone around. That's essentially the basis for the world economy.

kashkhan 10y ago
you don't make the dollar. You get it from someone else. You can't arbitrarily make assets. The total capital in the world grows but grows slowly. And doubly slowly for you if you are poor. I think Piketty wrote something about that.
- jasonkester 10y ago
  You're mistaken on this point as well. You absolutely can make assets. You can create wealth. For an example, I live off the profits of a SaaS business that I built myself. In addition to creating wealth for me, it is in fact an asset that I can sell if ever I want. It genuinely is "money" poofed into existence out of nowhere. All we've actually done is add an extra zig in to the capital flow I described above. So before, we had Joe earning a dollar, using it to buy a donut from the grocer who puts it in to the bank. Now, Joe gives that dollar to me in exchange for my service, and I use it to buy that donut. No central authority decided to increase the wealth supply. I did it myself.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
labster 10y ago
Don't worry, it's turtles all the way down.

LukaAl 10y ago

We could give everyone a million making everyone a millionaire. But the value of that million will be pretty low or, put in another way, this will generate a lot of inflation basically returning at the starting point. The thing is that the dollar as no value by itself, its value derives from what it could buy. If the economic activity increases generating more value, the value of the dollar will increase. And that's not just theory, that's what happened in the last 20 years were a large number of population in developing countries were raised out of poverty. Check the Milanovic chart for seeing it [1]. The second problem is that it is not necessary that a society that has an unequal wealth distribution is also unjust. Suppose to have a society where everybody between 20 and 60 years old works for 1K a month. Before 20 years old the could use debt to leave, after 60 years old to their death (let's say 80 years old) they live with the savings. You would agree that this society is just, everybody makes the same amount of money. And yet there is inequality in wealth distribution. Youngs just before turning 20 will have a huge debt, people turning 60 will be, conversely, in the top 1%. This example could sound naïve, replace it with student loan and pension funds and you will see that is pretty much the status of US economy. [1] http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/files/2013/10/Change-in-real-income-between-1988-and-2008-at-various-percentiles-of-global-income-distribution-calculated-in-2005-international-dollars-Branko-Milanovic.jpg http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/files/2013/10/Change-in-real...

kashkhan 10y ago
Yes there will be inflation but it will hurt the rich much more than the poor. Assuming the real world value of dollar goes down by 10x due to inflation, the median would still be the equivalent of $100k, while the top guys will go from $100B to $10B. As opposed to today's $2k median and $100B top.
- JLK_121416 10y ago
  If bread becomes 10x as expensive, who will be hurt more?
  - kashkhan 10y ago
    The homeless guy has no money to buy a $3 loaf today. After he gets a million dollars he will have money to buy a $30 loaf of bread.