4 ms·
The money supply doesn't go down, but the distribution of that wealth matters a lot. The 0.01%ers don't spend the same way everyone else does. They hoard. The m
by i_haz_rabies 6y ago
The money supply doesn't go down, but the distribution of that wealth matters a lot. The 0.01%ers don't spend the same way everyone else does. They hoard. The more they get, the more they will hoard and for the rest of society, that means there will be less to go around.
- hhjj 6y agoIf the money is never spent, it is worth 0 and doesn't effect the rest of economy. If Mr Bezos begins to buy every yellow plastic duck at $100, you surely will see their price spiking, until then nothing happens. Same goes with whole economy. Another way to see it: if Jeff is only allowed to spend $100K/$1M/$10M a day, how his total worth is effecting the whole economy ?
- throwaway2245 6y agoBut it's not the this level of wealth is never spent - it is being ("invested") used in hoarding valuable resources, that others cannot then use.
- chii 6y agoHe's not hoarding anything. People who claim the rich "hoard" wealth is under a misconception that investing wealth takes away wealth from other people. It doesn't. Investing wealth creates more wealth. Of course, the instigator of the investment gets a disproportionate reward for such investment, but taxation, and the general increase in technology level due to such investments will benefit society at large, even if the poor is an unrelated party to the investment.
- i_haz_rabies 6y agoIf Bezos actually paid taxes, your argument would be more convincing.
- opo 6y agoWhy do you think Bezos doesn't pay taxes?
- throwaway2245 6y agoLiterally anything you do with wealth can be described as "investing". Therefore it's implausible that investing innately creates more wealth - there is an opportunity cost. (In this case: the opportunity cost is first giving everyone a decent standard of living, so that everyone can have wealth and invest wealth and create more wealth, as you say)
- chii 6y ago> Literally anything you do with wealth can be described as "investing". except for spending it on consumption. > ... implausible that investing innately creates more wealth - there is an opportunity cost. the _only_ thing investing wealth does (or hopes to achieve) is to increase the amount of wealth that exist, and most importantly, capture that increase as much as possible. "giving everyone a decent standard of living" is indeed an increase in wealth, but this increase is uncaptureable by the investor. Therefore, i will say that this sort of "investment" is more closely described as charity than investment.