7 ms·

Perhaps, instead of printing more money, we could redistribute the existing wealth. But no, the wealth class cries foul in either case, you're either diluting

Perhaps, instead of printing more money, we could redistribute the existing wealth. But no, the wealth class cries foul in either case, you're either diluting their wealth or you're stealing it. I know, we can tell the poor to pull harder on their bootstraps, yup, that's the answer around here.

proc0 5y ago
Yeah because the redistribution is not just from the rich downwards. It's from the middle class to the rich. Communism is a trojan horse for the rich to get richer. If it weren't, then the rich people who promote communism, would be the first to donate their wealth, and we wouldn't even need a discussion.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  Ah yes, the old "actually the billionaires get richer when you nationalize their companies" You sir are confusing the bandaid that is socialism for communism, because the former is what the non-republican rich people cry out for, because it maintains the capitalist system. Very very few people with wealth support ditching the capitalist system.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Wasn't it Karl Marx himself that said that Socialism is a pit stop on the road to Communism?
    - pope_meat 5y ago
      "Democracy is the road to socialism" -Karl Marx Only thing I found. Personally my favorite Marx quote is: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"
    - proc0 5y ago
      That was Lenin, I think.
  - keneda7 5y ago
    I agree with you socialism on paper is great and probably the best system there could be. However IMO people are greedy by nature and without a complete nationwide zeitgeist change, it will never be properly implemented. Someone in power will always get greedy and ruin it for everyone else.
    - proc0 5y ago
      That should be obvious. Who else would implement it? Even if it starts off well, the system of redistribution is easily corrupted and taken over because it is all centralized.
  - proc0 5y ago
    Socialism = communism. I won't into details, it is easily searchable, many big proponents of those systems said so themselves. > Very very few people with wealth support ditching the capitalist system. I also agree with this... they want capitalism, FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. In order to achieve that, they promote socialism/communism for everyone else. This is achieved by imposing regulations and taxes on small businesses, effectively crippling them, while the large corporations enjoy all the loopholes and benefits of a global market. In order to fix capitalism, it must work for everybody equally. No bailouts, for starters, and you still need regulations to avoid the big guy from completely dominating the game. Redistribution of wealth, by definition requires centralization of resources. Resources (money, assets, etc) must flow towards a single point, and then flow back to a different location... this is a HUGE point of failure, that can be easily controlled and corrupted. The alternative is to do the opposite, and decentralize resources as much as possible.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Ok, here is a starting point: https://youtu.be/TwlvEKxbdVo https://youtu.be/TwlvEKxbdVo
      - proc0 5y ago
        Watched it. Thanks for sharing. I just disagree that publicly owned means what it's supposed to mean. The public cannot own anything as it is not an individual. Someone else has to manage what is collectively owned, and these individuals that represent the public, effectively become the rich people that so many say are the problem with capitalism. In other words, while I agree that monopolizing land and resources is a problem, making these resources public is actually exacerbating the problem because it further concentrates the power and wealth into the hands of even fewer number of individuals. It goes from a thousands of rich people owning things, to the government "publicly owning" it, except we're in fact talking about a handful of politicians controlling all of that wealth. Europe takes this approach much more than America, where government is not trusted, but I think history is very clear as to which place has had the most problems with government abuse of power. Europe was a mess in the 20th century, while America grew to a super power, and I firmly believe this is because of the distrust in government. Again I don't know what is the best solution to fix a handful of rich people owning the majority of wealth, but it is definitely not further concentrating that wealth into an even smaller number of individuals that are notorious for lying and manipulating the public (politicians). Trusting politicians is incredibly naive, and at the moment it seems the best solutions involve voting for those people that can prove they will use the power to SHRINK government, such that wealth returns back to the rest of population (but not via public ownership which is really politicians playing the role of the rich people).
keneda7 5y ago
They need those billions of dollar so they can have pissing matches about who gets to space first or who has the bigger yacht. I would like to see some stats at the end of the year on the average pay increase in the US. I have a strong suspicion the increase in good will be much higher than the average page increase.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I think there is a big difference between buying ever bigger yachts and the sort of things Musk has managed with space and electric cars. Think what you want about them as people but the likes of Musk, Gates and Buffett but they're filling a huge gap that governments (our whole western civilisation really) are badly neglecting.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  I don't think Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Branson have any influence on how much money gets printed.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Of course they do. The rich have oversized influence on all areas of politics, including monetary policy.
- TOSSAWAY_1 5y ago
  What's wrong with crafting yachts?
mywittyname 5y ago
Saying this is the result of "printing" money is really disingenuous. The country is facing major supply and labor constraints in many industries. Most companies would happily sell more of their products at a lower price, but they are kind of stuck producing what they can, and are auctioning it off to the highest bidder.
- BadCookie 5y ago
  The money supply has certainly jumped: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL We can debate whether the increase in money supply is causing inflation, but calling the claim “really disingenuous” doesn’t seem fair to me.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    A huge chunk of it is QE and everyone knows QE is a meaningless operation. Here is a simplified example. Banks grant $4 trillion in credit (mortgages and other loans). They also create bonds worth $4 trillion. The central bank does QE and buys $4 trillion of bonds. This entire process injected $4 trillion into the economy through loans but it increased the supply of credit by $8 trillion. Of course from the perspective of the bank its better to mix the urine in a huge pool...
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    It's disingenuous because there's so much evidence that QE doesn't impact consumer prices. The money supply has been increasing like mad for a decade now, and in that time consumer prices have both crashed and exploded at various times. It's also disingenuous because there are so many reports of shortages across tons of sectors. Which is the most obvious and immediate cause of price increases. Demand is staying the same or increasing while supply has plummeted. Prices are going to spike in that situation regardless of QE or other money supply increases. We aren't even insulated from this. There are bidding wars for everything now. Lots of people here have direct experience with difficulty sourcing components and customers who are willing to pay crazy prices for what limited capacity their companies have.
murgindrag 5y ago
No, you're not diluting wealth unless you're sitting on a Scrooge McDuck pile of cash. If you have investments or property, they go up with inflation. If you're leveraged, inflation is a huge win. Inflation is a massive redistribution of wealth, but it's more complex than that. The debt-ridden lower classes benefits. The non-debt-ridden renter class is harmed. The mortgage-holding class benefits. And so on. Inflation is good for folks with student debt too.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Money isn't wealth. It really isn't. Anyone who thinks money is wealth is denying the existence of reality. After all, if money were truly wealth then we should try to contact aliens and sell the entire earth to them. We'd have all the wealth according to that logic.
  - mycall 5y ago
    Wealth is money made while sleeping.
rkk3 5y ago
Redistributions have some benefits but they don't have as large of an impact as is portrayed in American Politics or Media [1]. The best thing is to focus on growth, so that the pie that is split is larger. 1. https://ifstudies.org/blog/even-denmarks-welfare-state-cant-make-life-fair https://ifstudies.org/blog/even-denmarks-welfare-state-cant-...

proc0 5y ago

Yeah because the redistribution is not just from the rich downwards. It's from the middle class to the rich. Communism is a trojan horse for the rich to get richer. If it weren't, then the rich people who promote communism, would be the first to donate their wealth, and we wouldn't even need a discussion.

pope_meat 5y ago
Ah yes, the old "actually the billionaires get richer when you nationalize their companies" You sir are confusing the bandaid that is socialism for communism, because the former is what the non-republican rich people cry out for, because it maintains the capitalist system. Very very few people with wealth support ditching the capitalist system.
- ghoward 5y ago
  Wasn't it Karl Marx himself that said that Socialism is a pit stop on the road to Communism?
  - pope_meat 5y ago
    "Democracy is the road to socialism" -Karl Marx Only thing I found. Personally my favorite Marx quote is: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"
  - proc0 5y ago
    That was Lenin, I think.
- keneda7 5y ago
  I agree with you socialism on paper is great and probably the best system there could be. However IMO people are greedy by nature and without a complete nationwide zeitgeist change, it will never be properly implemented. Someone in power will always get greedy and ruin it for everyone else.
  - proc0 5y ago
    That should be obvious. Who else would implement it? Even if it starts off well, the system of redistribution is easily corrupted and taken over because it is all centralized.
- proc0 5y ago
  Socialism = communism. I won't into details, it is easily searchable, many big proponents of those systems said so themselves. > Very very few people with wealth support ditching the capitalist system. I also agree with this... they want capitalism, FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. In order to achieve that, they promote socialism/communism for everyone else. This is achieved by imposing regulations and taxes on small businesses, effectively crippling them, while the large corporations enjoy all the loopholes and benefits of a global market. In order to fix capitalism, it must work for everybody equally. No bailouts, for starters, and you still need regulations to avoid the big guy from completely dominating the game. Redistribution of wealth, by definition requires centralization of resources. Resources (money, assets, etc) must flow towards a single point, and then flow back to a different location... this is a HUGE point of failure, that can be easily controlled and corrupted. The alternative is to do the opposite, and decentralize resources as much as possible.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Ok, here is a starting point: https://youtu.be/TwlvEKxbdVo https://youtu.be/TwlvEKxbdVo
    - proc0 5y ago
      Watched it. Thanks for sharing. I just disagree that publicly owned means what it's supposed to mean. The public cannot own anything as it is not an individual. Someone else has to manage what is collectively owned, and these individuals that represent the public, effectively become the rich people that so many say are the problem with capitalism. In other words, while I agree that monopolizing land and resources is a problem, making these resources public is actually exacerbating the problem because it further concentrates the power and wealth into the hands of even fewer number of individuals. It goes from a thousands of rich people owning things, to the government "publicly owning" it, except we're in fact talking about a handful of politicians controlling all of that wealth. Europe takes this approach much more than America, where government is not trusted, but I think history is very clear as to which place has had the most problems with government abuse of power. Europe was a mess in the 20th century, while America grew to a super power, and I firmly believe this is because of the distrust in government. Again I don't know what is the best solution to fix a handful of rich people owning the majority of wealth, but it is definitely not further concentrating that wealth into an even smaller number of individuals that are notorious for lying and manipulating the public (politicians). Trusting politicians is incredibly naive, and at the moment it seems the best solutions involve voting for those people that can prove they will use the power to SHRINK government, such that wealth returns back to the rest of population (but not via public ownership which is really politicians playing the role of the rich people).

keneda7 5y ago

They need those billions of dollar so they can have pissing matches about who gets to space first or who has the bigger yacht. I would like to see some stats at the end of the year on the average pay increase in the US. I have a strong suspicion the increase in good will be much higher than the average page increase.

LatteLazy 5y ago
I think there is a big difference between buying ever bigger yachts and the sort of things Musk has managed with space and electric cars. Think what you want about them as people but the likes of Musk, Gates and Buffett but they're filling a huge gap that governments (our whole western civilisation really) are badly neglecting.
missedthecue 5y ago
I don't think Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Branson have any influence on how much money gets printed.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Of course they do. The rich have oversized influence on all areas of politics, including monetary policy.
TOSSAWAY_1 5y ago
What's wrong with crafting yachts?

mywittyname 5y ago

Saying this is the result of "printing" money is really disingenuous. The country is facing major supply and labor constraints in many industries. Most companies would happily sell more of their products at a lower price, but they are kind of stuck producing what they can, and are auctioning it off to the highest bidder.

BadCookie 5y ago
The money supply has certainly jumped: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL We can debate whether the increase in money supply is causing inflation, but calling the claim “really disingenuous” doesn’t seem fair to me.
- imtringued 5y ago
  A huge chunk of it is QE and everyone knows QE is a meaningless operation. Here is a simplified example. Banks grant $4 trillion in credit (mortgages and other loans). They also create bonds worth $4 trillion. The central bank does QE and buys $4 trillion of bonds. This entire process injected $4 trillion into the economy through loans but it increased the supply of credit by $8 trillion. Of course from the perspective of the bank its better to mix the urine in a huge pool...
- mywittyname 5y ago
  It's disingenuous because there's so much evidence that QE doesn't impact consumer prices. The money supply has been increasing like mad for a decade now, and in that time consumer prices have both crashed and exploded at various times. It's also disingenuous because there are so many reports of shortages across tons of sectors. Which is the most obvious and immediate cause of price increases. Demand is staying the same or increasing while supply has plummeted. Prices are going to spike in that situation regardless of QE or other money supply increases. We aren't even insulated from this. There are bidding wars for everything now. Lots of people here have direct experience with difficulty sourcing components and customers who are willing to pay crazy prices for what limited capacity their companies have.

murgindrag 5y ago

No, you're not diluting wealth unless you're sitting on a Scrooge McDuck pile of cash. If you have investments or property, they go up with inflation. If you're leveraged, inflation is a huge win. Inflation is a massive redistribution of wealth, but it's more complex than that. The debt-ridden lower classes benefits. The non-debt-ridden renter class is harmed. The mortgage-holding class benefits. And so on. Inflation is good for folks with student debt too.

imtringued 5y ago
Money isn't wealth. It really isn't. Anyone who thinks money is wealth is denying the existence of reality. After all, if money were truly wealth then we should try to contact aliens and sell the entire earth to them. We'd have all the wealth according to that logic.
- mycall 5y ago
  Wealth is money made while sleeping.

rkk3 5y ago

Redistributions have some benefits but they don't have as large of an impact as is portrayed in American Politics or Media [1]. The best thing is to focus on growth, so that the pie that is split is larger. 1. https://ifstudies.org/blog/even-denmarks-welfare-state-cant-make-life-fair https://ifstudies.org/blog/even-denmarks-welfare-state-cant-...