3 ms·
this argument rests on the condition that the rich store their wealth in some Scrooge McDuckian vault, away from the economy. This isn't true - usually, wealth
by beaconstudios 8y ago
this argument rests on the condition that the rich store their wealth in some Scrooge McDuckian vault, away from the economy. This isn't true - usually, wealth is either spent on luxury items (so the money goes back into the economy) or it is invested (funding economic growth). If that weren't the case, wealth would be eroded via inflation. Now, there's a good argument to be made that many modern investment vehicles don't actually contribute to growth - and if that can be proven to be the case, these vehicles should be delegitimised.
> Furthermore, the more people who have enough money to take opportunities for education and entrepreneurship, the more likely we are to have good new small businesses and innovative ideas.
This is returning to the argument that we should raise living standards, not penalise wealth. I'm on board with that.
- IntelMiner 8y ago>usually, wealth is either spent on luxury items (so the money goes back into the economy) or it is invested (funding economic growth). These are things that don't scale however. A CEO does not eat a thousand meals a day, or buy a thousand cars a year, or do any of the infinite number of things that circulate money into the economy on the scale of an equal number of poor people
- beaconstudios 8y agoyou've missed the second half of the sentence. The rest goes into investment.
- anonuser123456 8y agoA CEO might host a 2K dinner per day. Give 1K people 2$ and they will be able to buy a McBurger. In case A) you have a chef,sous chef, sommolier etc. all making reasonable money. In case B) you have capital investor making 1.95$/ unit and some kid making 7.95/hr. In aggregate, who spends what does not have a clearly predictable path through the economy.