3 ms·
I think this is a confusing/misleading way to frame it. Instead of saying: > some people earn more money than others whilst providing less value; even negative
by valenterry 4y ago
I think this is a confusing/misleading way to frame it.
Instead of saying:
> some people earn more money than others whilst providing less value; even negative value
It's more precise to say:
> some entities (people, companies, ...) give money to some people whilst those people provide less value than others
This turns the passive language (receiving) into active language (giving) which requires a subject. Now immediately a question appears: why would the subject do that if they receive comparably little value?
In other words, this doesn't really have to do much with the monetary system at all. The same would be true without any money.
- jongjong 4y agoThe difference is that if somebody or an institution earned their money fair and square, then they are entitled to give it to anyone they want. The problem is that the monetary system itself creates the inequality via artificial means (which falls on the shoulders of taxpayers and citizens via inflation) which means that big institutions did not earn much of the money that they're giving out; it was handed out to them through money printing. It's a systemic issue.
- valenterry 4y agoJust to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the point you are making now, but it's clearly different from your original post which was all about "creating value".