4 ms·
> I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar t
by Ma8ee 7y ago
> I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer.
Is this really true? Aren't you mixing up production growth with production?
Imagine I live alone on my small farm in the middle of nowhere. I produce 20 bags of wheat every year. I eat 19 and save one. So every year I add one bag of wheat to my pile. No one else gets poorer. Or does the existence of the wheat in my barn somehow decrease the value of all other wheat in the world?
- pjc50 7y ago> Or does the existence of the wheat in my barn somehow decrease the value of all other wheat in the world? If you are so remote that the wheat is guaranteed to remain off the market forever, no matter if your starving neighbour comes and offers you a fortune for it? Perhaps. Otherwise the answer has to be yes. It's not just me saying it, it was one of the more important cases the US Supreme Court heard in the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- Ma8ee 7y ago> It's not just me saying it, it was one of the more important cases the US Supreme Court They might be the authority on who can tax who, but I don't trust them to know how the economy "really" works.
- chkaloon 7y agoYour growing pile of wheat incurs increasing storage and maintenance costs over time. This will be measured as positive growth, and if growth is 0 in the overall system, by definition it needs to be negative in some other locality.
- Ma8ee 7y ago> Your growing pile of wheat incurs increasing storage and maintenance costs over time. That is quite neglible. The barn will stand there wether there's any wheat in it or not.
- burntoutfire 7y agoI think more accurate assumption would be that any increase of productivity on your farm (say going from producting 20 to 25 bags per year) would need to be met with a corresponding decrease of productivity somewhere else in the economy - it's the only way to maintain zero growth.
- Ma8ee 7y agoYes, that is obviously true. But that is not what was claimed in the comment I answered too.