3 ms·

No, not good. It doesn't make sense to destroy wealth. If you want to transfer wealth from one party (land owners) to another (renters) that's fine. The land it

by rcme 4y ago

No, not good. It doesn't make sense to destroy wealth. If you want to transfer wealth from one party (land owners) to another (renters) that's fine. The land itself has intrinsic value. It's fine to transfer that value from one party to another. But it's absolutely not fine to destroy it. Everyone is worse off. Your argument is basically that we should start salting farm land to decrease its value.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
Nah, that's ridiculous and you know it. Destroying wealth because you've lowered the price of goods and make them more accessible, is not the same thing as destroying wealth by actually destroying the utility of something. If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. Truth be told, the value of the land itself in these cities, I don't think will change very much. The value of the property on top of that land though, that'll probably change, as the total housing supply increases.
- rcme 4y ago
  > If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. No, no wealth would be destroyed. Some of the old agricultural sector's wealth would be transferred to you. The rest would stay with the purchasers of food. Again, no wealth is destroyed when you make something more productive. In fact, your food replicator creates wealth because people get the same amount of food and have more money. Again, I think you're getting confused by the concepts of destroying wealth and transferring wealth. In your scenario, you're transferring and creating wealth through innovation. In my anecdote, wealth was destroyed. It didn't go anywhere. It just ceased to exist.

by rcme 4y ago

TulliusCicero 4y ago

Nah, that's ridiculous and you know it. Destroying wealth because you've lowered the price of goods and make them more accessible, is not the same thing as destroying wealth by actually destroying the utility of something. If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. Truth be told, the value of the land itself in these cities, I don't think will change very much. The value of the property on top of that land though, that'll probably change, as the total housing supply increases.

rcme 4y ago
> If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. No, no wealth would be destroyed. Some of the old agricultural sector's wealth would be transferred to you. The rest would stay with the purchasers of food. Again, no wealth is destroyed when you make something more productive. In fact, your food replicator creates wealth because people get the same amount of food and have more money. Again, I think you're getting confused by the concepts of destroying wealth and transferring wealth. In your scenario, you're transferring and creating wealth through innovation. In my anecdote, wealth was destroyed. It didn't go anywhere. It just ceased to exist.