4 ms·

Your reasoning may hold true in many cases. Just please don't follow this "resources are allocated according to wealth, full stop" line to the absurd as you did

Your reasoning may hold true in many cases. Just please don't follow this "resources are allocated according to wealth, full stop" line to the absurd as you did. You'll get revolts by the have-nots. They will go get what they need from the haves. Money is not just an abstract store of wealth. It's a store of wealth backed by state violence.

throwaway09223 5y ago
I haven't followed anything to the absurd. This is how things currently are as a matter of fact. Using the above example, wealthy people will be able to get gas for their cars during a shortage, regardless of whether there's rationing in place. Whether we like it or not, this is trivially observable. People don't revolt because wealthy people can gas their cars. They revolt when they don't have what they need. Again using the above example, the vehicles of wealthy people simply don't represent a significant consumption of gas. It's not reasonable to talk of revolts or other such nonsense in this context.
hooande 5y ago
The pointless throwaway account is right. Even if the have-nots revolt, they will immediately go back to using some form of money to exchange goods with each other. We can debate how wealthy individuals should become or how high tax rates can be, but wealth will always be how resources are ultimately allocated
- danielheath 5y ago
  When a mob, driven by ongoing deprivation, smashes your window and takes your goods - it may be a stretch to say money was the cause of the redistribution.
nostrademons 5y ago
Revolts by the have-nots are pretty common in world history. Revolts by the have-nots where they actually succeed in displacing the haves are rare; I can only think of the French and Russian revolutions. Revolts where everybody suddenly has enough without creating new classes of haves and have-nots are unheard of. Most revolts end up with poor people killing other poor people, or at "best", everybody killing everybody. When "money" (distinct from wealth) ceases to have the backing of state violence, it's replaced by private violence, backed by other forms of wealth.

throwaway09223 5y ago

I haven't followed anything to the absurd. This is how things currently are as a matter of fact. Using the above example, wealthy people will be able to get gas for their cars during a shortage, regardless of whether there's rationing in place. Whether we like it or not, this is trivially observable. People don't revolt because wealthy people can gas their cars. They revolt when they don't have what they need. Again using the above example, the vehicles of wealthy people simply don't represent a significant consumption of gas. It's not reasonable to talk of revolts or other such nonsense in this context.

hooande 5y ago

The pointless throwaway account is right. Even if the have-nots revolt, they will immediately go back to using some form of money to exchange goods with each other. We can debate how wealthy individuals should become or how high tax rates can be, but wealth will always be how resources are ultimately allocated

danielheath 5y ago
When a mob, driven by ongoing deprivation, smashes your window and takes your goods - it may be a stretch to say money was the cause of the redistribution.

nostrademons 5y ago

Revolts by the have-nots are pretty common in world history. Revolts by the have-nots where they actually succeed in displacing the haves are rare; I can only think of the French and Russian revolutions. Revolts where everybody suddenly has enough without creating new classes of haves and have-nots are unheard of. Most revolts end up with poor people killing other poor people, or at "best", everybody killing everybody. When "money" (distinct from wealth) ceases to have the backing of state violence, it's replaced by private violence, backed by other forms of wealth.