4 ms·

> ...as the strong, fiscally-responsible states bail out the weaker ones, they get to dictate policies in those states as conditions of the bailouts. Politicall

> ...as the strong, fiscally-responsible states bail out the weaker ones, they get to dictate policies in those states as conditions of the bailouts. Politically, the bailed-out states will start aligning more with European interests compared to purely self-interested ones. History has shown us that wealth is transferred, not created. And sometimes it's multiplied (when we switched from gold to debt / fractional reserves), but again, never created. Due to this, the stronger players tend to import the benefit from and export the pain into the weaker players, as that is the only play there is to make. And then the cycle repeats itself where the rich players get richer and the poor players get poorer until some major event happens (global war, industrial revolution, energy discovery) and things get shuffled a bit).

protomyth 15y ago
> History has shown us that wealth is transferred, not created I'm not sure that part is true. I do believe there is more wealth today worldwide then say in 1700.
- powertower 15y ago
  Where did it come from? What is it backed with? If you can't answer that, then it is a result of multiplication rather than creation. Wealth is a relative term and has remained about the same through time... There are those that are "rich", there are those that are "somewhat comfortable", and there are those that are "poor"... The amount each group has is irrelevant. Wealth is about the purchasing power of relative standards of living (between the different groups).
  - adamjernst 15y ago
    Wikipedia: Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions There are ~750 million automobiles in the world today. In 1700, there were none. Thus there is more wealth in the world today (on that one dimension; others similarly). The amount each group has is irrelevant. Umm.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - drusenko 15y ago
    This is false. Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time today than we were in the past. Let me explain: Imagine the edge case at the very beginning of civilization. There are two families, and for illustrative purposes they both spend 100% of their time farming without tools, and live in caves. One day, someone invents the hoe. Let's imagine that this saves both families 50% of their farming time. Now they are each able to build a home, instead of living in a cave. The families use a currency to trade crops, and there is a total of $100 in the world, $50 for each family's output. One of two things happened here, but they're pretty much the same thing: - If we hold the money supply as fixed (saying wealth is zero-sum), then the price of the crops would go down, since we can now buy houses with our money too. - If we hold the price of the crops fixed, then there is now more money/wealth that exists in the world. It doesn't really make sense for the price of crops to go down -- they're the same thing that existed yesterday. It makes much more sense to say that there is more money in the world. Regardless, wealth was created. It's a lot more complicated in our currently economy because there are a lot more moving parts, but the fundamentals still apply. Take something that used to take a lot of time and make it take less time and you'll have created wealth. People can now use the extra time they have to go be productive elsewhere in a way that benefits people. Going back to your comparison about rich/comfortable/poor, you're not arguing that wealth is zero-sum, you're arguing that there has always been wealth inequality. But the presence of wealth inequality doesn't imply that wealth is zero-sum: wouldn't you say that even today's poor Americans are wealthier than the richest Sumerians?
    - powertower 15y ago
      > Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time today than we were in the past. If you want to go that route then boil it down even further and you'll get "well-being" and/or "self-validation". > wouldn't you say that even today's poor Americans are wealthier than the richest Sumerians In my argument wealth has always been a relative term, never absolute. It is about what you are trying to achieve for yourself/ego, which in the human psyche is always relative to the other person. This connection cannot be disputed, you can only dispute the first part... So is wealth an extension of the ego, or is it a database entry? I'm claiming that it is the former, since so many people experience it as such. You are claiming it is the latter.
- jackfoxy 15y ago
  I think it makes sense if you change not created to not created by government or reserve bank fiat.

protomyth 15y ago

> History has shown us that wealth is transferred, not created I'm not sure that part is true. I do believe there is more wealth today worldwide then say in 1700.

powertower 15y ago
Where did it come from? What is it backed with? If you can't answer that, then it is a result of multiplication rather than creation. Wealth is a relative term and has remained about the same through time... There are those that are "rich", there are those that are "somewhat comfortable", and there are those that are "poor"... The amount each group has is irrelevant. Wealth is about the purchasing power of relative standards of living (between the different groups).
- adamjernst 15y ago
  Wikipedia: Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions There are ~750 million automobiles in the world today. In 1700, there were none. Thus there is more wealth in the world today (on that one dimension; others similarly). The amount each group has is irrelevant. Umm.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- drusenko 15y ago
  This is false. Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time today than we were in the past. Let me explain: Imagine the edge case at the very beginning of civilization. There are two families, and for illustrative purposes they both spend 100% of their time farming without tools, and live in caves. One day, someone invents the hoe. Let's imagine that this saves both families 50% of their farming time. Now they are each able to build a home, instead of living in a cave. The families use a currency to trade crops, and there is a total of $100 in the world, $50 for each family's output. One of two things happened here, but they're pretty much the same thing: - If we hold the money supply as fixed (saying wealth is zero-sum), then the price of the crops would go down, since we can now buy houses with our money too. - If we hold the price of the crops fixed, then there is now more money/wealth that exists in the world. It doesn't really make sense for the price of crops to go down -- they're the same thing that existed yesterday. It makes much more sense to say that there is more money in the world. Regardless, wealth was created. It's a lot more complicated in our currently economy because there are a lot more moving parts, but the fundamentals still apply. Take something that used to take a lot of time and make it take less time and you'll have created wealth. People can now use the extra time they have to go be productive elsewhere in a way that benefits people. Going back to your comparison about rich/comfortable/poor, you're not arguing that wealth is zero-sum, you're arguing that there has always been wealth inequality. But the presence of wealth inequality doesn't imply that wealth is zero-sum: wouldn't you say that even today's poor Americans are wealthier than the richest Sumerians?
  - powertower 15y ago
    > Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time today than we were in the past. If you want to go that route then boil it down even further and you'll get "well-being" and/or "self-validation". > wouldn't you say that even today's poor Americans are wealthier than the richest Sumerians In my argument wealth has always been a relative term, never absolute. It is about what you are trying to achieve for yourself/ego, which in the human psyche is always relative to the other person. This connection cannot be disputed, you can only dispute the first part... So is wealth an extension of the ego, or is it a database entry? I'm claiming that it is the former, since so many people experience it as such. You are claiming it is the latter.
jackfoxy 15y ago
I think it makes sense if you change not created to not created by government or reserve bank fiat.