3 ms·

just a random thought....wouldn't this also increase equality? I essentially devalues the currency by increasing supply, but distributing the supply evenly acro

just a random thought....wouldn't this also increase equality? I essentially devalues the currency by increasing supply, but distributing the supply evenly across the population. Maybe that's a problem for the rich and influential, although that sound too much like a conspiracy.

bluecalm 5y ago
Rich people don't hold much of their wealth in cash and would hold even less if such policy were in place. You would just inflate asset prices (what rich people hold) and dilute cash (what poorer/less educated people hold). If you give everyone a million dollars and it doesn't mean everyone can now afford a house in a sunny state. It just means houses will be more expensive as no one is going to give them away for worthless cash.
- Pokepokalypse 5y ago
  The way housing supply seems to be a major driver here, has me pretty well convinced that the only way out of this, eventually, is a stable population growth. (ie. restrictions on reproduction). (Not like China - but this implies apocalyptic levels of resistance from groups that traditionally don't like people being able to choose their reproductive habits).
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Some people like being able to choose their reproductive habits, and like being able to choose differently than you think they should. You're right that you should expect apocalyptic levels of resistance from them, though.
- imtringued 5y ago
  > Rich people don't hold much of their wealth in cash and would hold even less if such policy were in place. You would just inflate asset prices (what rich people hold) and dilute cash (what poorer/less educated people hold). Please explain how this works. If I buy stocks then the money goes to the seller of the stock. Most of the time that is another rich person because rich people own a lot of stocks. Then it's companies issuing new shares and finally it's some retail investor owning an irrelevant fraction of a company. So, how do I as the class of rich people protect myself against inflation/negative interest rates/wealth tax on money? I can't. Rich person -> Rich person is net zero. Rich person -> company is net zero because I own the company and thereby own the money it has in its bank account. Worse, if that company employs people the peasants get my money. Rich person -> retail investor. I lose every time. If anything, rich people massively benefit from 0% inflation or even deflation. As a millionaire you can afford to throw $100k into Bitcoin and get another million out of it with zero work done, meanwhile those stupid stocks have to employ peasants and pay them. Here is another paradox: If the rich have very little money and the poor have most of it, why are they poor?
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    Cash is just means to provide liquidity when trading assets for assets. When someone sells stocks it's almost always to quickly spend it on something else. I am not rich but quite well off. What has recent policy of pumping cash as loans and handouts done to me? My assets (mainly stocks) skyrocketed. My less fortunate friends complaining that prices of everyday items has gone up? I haven't noticed, I can buy more fresh produce or housing or electronics with my Google or Amazon stock that I could have before the pandemics and way way more than a few years ago. It seems to me you're confusing money with wealth. Money doesn't matter, assets do. It's just convenient to price assets in money as long as the currency is stable. If you give everyone a house you solve a huge problem. If you give everyone a freshly printed million dollars you don't solve anything. Rich people still live in big houses and own companies. It will just be a temporary inconvenience to find some way to trade. No one is buying anything of value with that million.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > If the rich have very little money and the poor have most of it, why are they poor? There are a lot more poor people than there are rich people. Collectively they have most of the cash, but no one individual has very much. More importantly, though, one's wealth is not dictated by the amount of cash one owns. If you're rich and in need of cash you have plenty of assets you can trade for it. If you're poor then cash makes up a larger portion of your assets, and the part that isn't cash (your home, car, etc.) is both non-liquid and painful to part with. The first bit, incidentally, is part of the reason why redistribution doesn't help: there are a lot fewer rich than there are poor, and even if you seized all the assets of the rich and spread them around it wouldn't add up to much on an individual basis. (And then secondary effects kick in: production capacity collapses due to consuming capital, prices skyrocket, etc.) And then you have the fact that the rich end up rich as a result of various combinations of preferences, habits, and connections which distinguish them from the general population—not merely their bank accounts—and since those underlying factors shaping the flow of wealth aren't likely to change you'll soon end up back where you started.

bluecalm 5y ago

Rich people don't hold much of their wealth in cash and would hold even less if such policy were in place. You would just inflate asset prices (what rich people hold) and dilute cash (what poorer/less educated people hold). If you give everyone a million dollars and it doesn't mean everyone can now afford a house in a sunny state. It just means houses will be more expensive as no one is going to give them away for worthless cash.

Pokepokalypse 5y ago
The way housing supply seems to be a major driver here, has me pretty well convinced that the only way out of this, eventually, is a stable population growth. (ie. restrictions on reproduction). (Not like China - but this implies apocalyptic levels of resistance from groups that traditionally don't like people being able to choose their reproductive habits).
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Some people like being able to choose their reproductive habits, and like being able to choose differently than you think they should. You're right that you should expect apocalyptic levels of resistance from them, though.
imtringued 5y ago
> Rich people don't hold much of their wealth in cash and would hold even less if such policy were in place. You would just inflate asset prices (what rich people hold) and dilute cash (what poorer/less educated people hold). Please explain how this works. If I buy stocks then the money goes to the seller of the stock. Most of the time that is another rich person because rich people own a lot of stocks. Then it's companies issuing new shares and finally it's some retail investor owning an irrelevant fraction of a company. So, how do I as the class of rich people protect myself against inflation/negative interest rates/wealth tax on money? I can't. Rich person -> Rich person is net zero. Rich person -> company is net zero because I own the company and thereby own the money it has in its bank account. Worse, if that company employs people the peasants get my money. Rich person -> retail investor. I lose every time. If anything, rich people massively benefit from 0% inflation or even deflation. As a millionaire you can afford to throw $100k into Bitcoin and get another million out of it with zero work done, meanwhile those stupid stocks have to employ peasants and pay them. Here is another paradox: If the rich have very little money and the poor have most of it, why are they poor?
- bluecalm 5y ago
  Cash is just means to provide liquidity when trading assets for assets. When someone sells stocks it's almost always to quickly spend it on something else. I am not rich but quite well off. What has recent policy of pumping cash as loans and handouts done to me? My assets (mainly stocks) skyrocketed. My less fortunate friends complaining that prices of everyday items has gone up? I haven't noticed, I can buy more fresh produce or housing or electronics with my Google or Amazon stock that I could have before the pandemics and way way more than a few years ago. It seems to me you're confusing money with wealth. Money doesn't matter, assets do. It's just convenient to price assets in money as long as the currency is stable. If you give everyone a house you solve a huge problem. If you give everyone a freshly printed million dollars you don't solve anything. Rich people still live in big houses and own companies. It will just be a temporary inconvenience to find some way to trade. No one is buying anything of value with that million.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > If the rich have very little money and the poor have most of it, why are they poor? There are a lot more poor people than there are rich people. Collectively they have most of the cash, but no one individual has very much. More importantly, though, one's wealth is not dictated by the amount of cash one owns. If you're rich and in need of cash you have plenty of assets you can trade for it. If you're poor then cash makes up a larger portion of your assets, and the part that isn't cash (your home, car, etc.) is both non-liquid and painful to part with. The first bit, incidentally, is part of the reason why redistribution doesn't help: there are a lot fewer rich than there are poor, and even if you seized all the assets of the rich and spread them around it wouldn't add up to much on an individual basis. (And then secondary effects kick in: production capacity collapses due to consuming capital, prices skyrocket, etc.) And then you have the fact that the rich end up rich as a result of various combinations of preferences, habits, and connections which distinguish them from the general population—not merely their bank accounts—and since those underlying factors shaping the flow of wealth aren't likely to change you'll soon end up back where you started.