4 ms·

I mean, another way to look at this is that wealth, assuming it’s reasonably liquid, can be exchanged for other goods (that is, after all, the only real point o

I mean, another way to look at this is that wealth, assuming it’s reasonably liquid, can be exchanged for other goods (that is, after all, the only real point of wealth in the first place). Surely you wouldn’t think it’s absurd to expect that if someone dies with some extra food, that other people ought to make use of that food, even if they hadn’t made a formal last will.

brigandish 5y ago
On the other hand, if money is destroyed and not replaced that then makes everyone else's money more valuable as no one else's wealth (and hence overall wealth) has been affected.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I doubt that’s true in any meaningful sense. You could say the same thing for food: if you make it more scarce at some point you will probably observe an increase in price of existing food. And yet you could have eaten the food instead of destroyed it.
  - neilknowsbest 5y ago
    I believe the parent here is making a distinction between "capital" and "money"; "money" being a claim against real physical "capital". When a pile of "capital" is destroyed (i.e. a bushel of wheat spoils, or a factory burns to the ground, or the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody are somehow lost forever) then this is a loss to society in general and to the owner of that "capital" in particular. If a pile of "money" is destroyed (i.e. Pablo Escobar burns $2MM in currency, private key to crypto wallet is lost) there is no corresponding loss of real physical "capital". There is simply a reduction in aggregate outstanding claims against the unchanged real physical "capital". So the unaffected holders of the other claims see their purchasing power increase, i.e. they no longer have to outbid the person whose "money" was destroyed, they have now "cut out" the loser from claims against "capital".
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      This is why I added "assuming it’s reasonably liquid" to my initial comment. If one's wealth is reasonably liquid, then I don't think it makes much sense to make a distinction between whether it's "capital" or "money." For the vast majority of people, I think this is a reasonable assumption. If you could liquidate the deceased person's estate and exchange it for consumables or capital and donate those to a good cause, is that really worse for society than the nebulous idea of increasing the value of everyone's money by destroying the deceased person's money? I guess I'm having trouble seeing the distinction between "destroying existing capital is bad" and "destroying money that could have been exchanged for capital or used to create capital is good."
      - nybble41 5y ago
        > If you could liquidate the deceased person's estate and exchange it for consumables or capital and donate those to a good cause, is that really worse for society than the nebulous idea of increasing the value of everyone's money by destroying the deceased person's money? That would depend on who gets to decide what counts as "a good cause". I can think of worse ways the purchasing power could be employed than distributing it widely among other users of the currency. Even assuming the best of intentions, you're still directing resources rather arbitrarily away from other goals in favor of the selected cause, which is not necessarily a net benefit to society. In general it makes sense to follow the wishes of the deceased, if they are known—it serves no good purpose to distinguish between gifts made just before death vs. ones made at the time of death via a will, and doing so penalizes those who die unexpectedly before making their bequests. Beyond that, I see no reason why relatives of the deceased should have an automatic claim in the absence of a will—but their claim is stronger at least than any the state might make, so given the choice I'd rather see the property go to the heirs than the state. Personally, though, in the absence of a will I would just consider the property abandoned and available for anyone to freely use and thus claim for themselves via homesteading. In some cases that process may have already begun—for example, if the owner of a house dies without leaving a will then anyone else who was already living there (presumably the deceased's family) would have priority to assume ownership once the deceased's claim was abandoned. Their prior investment in the home didn't matter as long as it had an owner, but with that owner gone it should count in their favor for the homesteading process.

brigandish 5y ago

On the other hand, if money is destroyed and not replaced that then makes everyone else's money more valuable as no one else's wealth (and hence overall wealth) has been affected.

tshaddox 5y ago
I doubt that’s true in any meaningful sense. You could say the same thing for food: if you make it more scarce at some point you will probably observe an increase in price of existing food. And yet you could have eaten the food instead of destroyed it.
- neilknowsbest 5y ago
  I believe the parent here is making a distinction between "capital" and "money"; "money" being a claim against real physical "capital". When a pile of "capital" is destroyed (i.e. a bushel of wheat spoils, or a factory burns to the ground, or the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody are somehow lost forever) then this is a loss to society in general and to the owner of that "capital" in particular. If a pile of "money" is destroyed (i.e. Pablo Escobar burns $2MM in currency, private key to crypto wallet is lost) there is no corresponding loss of real physical "capital". There is simply a reduction in aggregate outstanding claims against the unchanged real physical "capital". So the unaffected holders of the other claims see their purchasing power increase, i.e. they no longer have to outbid the person whose "money" was destroyed, they have now "cut out" the loser from claims against "capital".
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    This is why I added "assuming it’s reasonably liquid" to my initial comment. If one's wealth is reasonably liquid, then I don't think it makes much sense to make a distinction between whether it's "capital" or "money." For the vast majority of people, I think this is a reasonable assumption. If you could liquidate the deceased person's estate and exchange it for consumables or capital and donate those to a good cause, is that really worse for society than the nebulous idea of increasing the value of everyone's money by destroying the deceased person's money? I guess I'm having trouble seeing the distinction between "destroying existing capital is bad" and "destroying money that could have been exchanged for capital or used to create capital is good."
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > If you could liquidate the deceased person's estate and exchange it for consumables or capital and donate those to a good cause, is that really worse for society than the nebulous idea of increasing the value of everyone's money by destroying the deceased person's money? That would depend on who gets to decide what counts as "a good cause". I can think of worse ways the purchasing power could be employed than distributing it widely among other users of the currency. Even assuming the best of intentions, you're still directing resources rather arbitrarily away from other goals in favor of the selected cause, which is not necessarily a net benefit to society. In general it makes sense to follow the wishes of the deceased, if they are known—it serves no good purpose to distinguish between gifts made just before death vs. ones made at the time of death via a will, and doing so penalizes those who die unexpectedly before making their bequests. Beyond that, I see no reason why relatives of the deceased should have an automatic claim in the absence of a will—but their claim is stronger at least than any the state might make, so given the choice I'd rather see the property go to the heirs than the state. Personally, though, in the absence of a will I would just consider the property abandoned and available for anyone to freely use and thus claim for themselves via homesteading. In some cases that process may have already begun—for example, if the owner of a house dies without leaving a will then anyone else who was already living there (presumably the deceased's family) would have priority to assume ownership once the deceased's claim was abandoned. Their prior investment in the home didn't matter as long as it had an owner, but with that owner gone it should count in their favor for the homesteading process.