3 ms·
There are certainly ways of spending money that are more clearly productive than others. But no, the money isn't pissed away just because what is purchased gets
by vannevar 9y ago
There are certainly ways of spending money that are more clearly productive than others. But no, the money isn't pissed away just because what is purchased gets consumed. That just means that the path it's on may not be very efficient. It's that path efficiency that ultimately matters, not the value of any one stop. It's a harder thing to measure, because a short, fast path with a few low-productivity stops may be better than a longer, slower path with higher productivity stops, simply because the money gets somewhere else (with a much higher productivity use) faster.
- weberc2 9y agoIt absolutely is pissed away. Going back to the beer metaphor, at one time, the economy contained the (let's say) $8 used to create the beer and the $10 to buy the beer. After the beer is consumed, only the $10 remains, so the economy is $8 smaller. $8 was pissed away. My whole point is that economics isn't zero-sum, which appears to contradict your point, although I'm confused by your path efficiency remarks.
- vannevar 9y agoNo. The $8 that was 'used' to create the beer passes through the hands of the brewer's suppliers and their suppliers, back into the wider economy. It is a medium of exchange, not a consumable. It does not leave the system, short of someone literally destroying it. Economically, the only question is how fast it moves and how many productive assets it leaves behind as it travels its path through the economic network.
- cam_l 9y agoyes..and the economy is much more complex than that. even if I just take the eight bucks and burn it, the exchange value of the rest of the money in society increases. ..because both wealth and money only really exist in relation to the people that use it.