3 ms·

> Yes it does. No, it doesn't. It doesn't actually matter how much money Bill Gates has sitting in the bank; there's still the same number of bananas on the ba

> Yes it does. No, it doesn't. It doesn't actually matter how much money Bill Gates has sitting in the bank; there's still the same number of bananas on the banana trees and the same number of mouths that want to eat bananas. The price of a banana is set by supply and demand, so unless Bill chose to buy up an unusually large number of bananas for himself, the real cost of a banana is unaffected by Bill having a lot more money than you. If money is held but not invested, effectively it doesn't exist. If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank. If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected. This isn't my field, but I would guess that concentrating on the disparity in purchasing power of the middle 90% would be far more instructive.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
It does create some problems, in particular when wealth buys politicians and laws to feather its own nest. There is also some evidence that more equal societies tend to be healthier, even for the wealthiest.
- sjwright 8y ago
  I agree there; economic disparity is bad insofar as it can be spent in ways that could manipulate the overall system. However that is really the fault of an imperfect political system with broken incentives, not a fault of wealthy people being wealthy. (It always amazes me how politicians manage to forget that they represent their constituents, not corporations or their lobbyists. It has gotten to the point where pointing this out is somehow seen as socialist or anti-business. But it's plain fact. Politicians are there to literally represent people.)
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank. While I can agree with the basic premise that the rich being richer doesn't necessarily make the poor poorer, I think the issue boils down to where that money is invested and whether that is to the detriment of other people. While money itself is essentially amoral, it can be used in ways that certainly aren't.
pjc50 8y ago
Think houses rather than bananas. Or treasuries. That money isn't sitting idle, it's raking in interest payments which ultimately come from the public. > If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected. This is essentially the claim that central bank debt doesn't matter, which is .. controversial.
- sjwright 8y ago
  I wouldn't for a moment say central bank debt doesn't matter. What I would say that there's not a massive economic difference between money created as central bank debt and money invested by the uber-wealthy. Remember, Apple's excess money isn't in a mattress; they will have invested it in various boring and sensible things like corporate securities. This investment has a comparable impact to central bank activity.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Sorry, should have written "government debt" rather than "central bank". The thing is that investments aren't just a "stock" they're a "flow"; they don't just sit there they cause a real transfer of income in the form of dividends, bond coupons, and "rent" generally.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

It does create some problems, in particular when wealth buys politicians and laws to feather its own nest. There is also some evidence that more equal societies tend to be healthier, even for the wealthiest.

sjwright 8y ago
I agree there; economic disparity is bad insofar as it can be spent in ways that could manipulate the overall system. However that is really the fault of an imperfect political system with broken incentives, not a fault of wealthy people being wealthy. (It always amazes me how politicians manage to forget that they represent their constituents, not corporations or their lobbyists. It has gotten to the point where pointing this out is somehow seen as socialist or anti-business. But it's plain fact. Politicians are there to literally represent people.)

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

> If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank. While I can agree with the basic premise that the rich being richer doesn't necessarily make the poor poorer, I think the issue boils down to where that money is invested and whether that is to the detriment of other people. While money itself is essentially amoral, it can be used in ways that certainly aren't.

pjc50 8y ago

Think houses rather than bananas. Or treasuries. That money isn't sitting idle, it's raking in interest payments which ultimately come from the public. > If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected. This is essentially the claim that central bank debt doesn't matter, which is .. controversial.

sjwright 8y ago
I wouldn't for a moment say central bank debt doesn't matter. What I would say that there's not a massive economic difference between money created as central bank debt and money invested by the uber-wealthy. Remember, Apple's excess money isn't in a mattress; they will have invested it in various boring and sensible things like corporate securities. This investment has a comparable impact to central bank activity.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Sorry, should have written "government debt" rather than "central bank". The thing is that investments aren't just a "stock" they're a "flow"; they don't just sit there they cause a real transfer of income in the form of dividends, bond coupons, and "rent" generally.