5 ms·

I just want to point out that pretty much every natural economic condition is beneficial for the rich. The thing about money is it’s very flexible. You can hoar

I just want to point out that pretty much every natural economic condition is beneficial for the rich. The thing about money is it’s very flexible. You can hoard it in deflationary cycles, spend it on assets in inflationary cycles, grow it in economically good times and buy cheap property and goods in economically bad times.

seizethecheese 4y ago
The gap between living standard of poor and rich is much smaller than a few hundred years ago. What you claim cannot possibly be correct.
- miohtama 4y ago
  The gap was lowest in 70s, has widened since then and is now as wide in 40s https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
- pastor_bob 4y ago
  A few hundred years ago, the vast majority of people lived under Autocracies. The elite could simply dictate how societies would operate.
Silverback_VII 4y ago
It's like Monopoly, at some point there is just nothing you can do. The resets are probably the collapses of civilizations.
- mycodebreaks 4y ago
  good point, assets aren't infinite.
- _yb2s 4y ago
  Money isn’t fundamentally a zero sum game like it seems on the surface… rich peoples wealth is invested, and gets used by less wealthy people to also create value - they might say draw a salary supported by a business loan, or mortgage a house.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    You're quite correct - but poor people's money also does that. Rich people's wealth is generally less productive in being accessible for loans since it's generally tied up in speculative investments... compared to less well off folks that are more likely to have a pile of cash in a bank account.
- stuaxo 4y ago
  That is exactly the point "the landlords game" - the original monopoly was made to demonstrate.
ak_111 4y ago
Thing is inflation isn't 'natural' economic condition, it is mostly a product of economic policy according to a very respected school of thought (monetarism). In other words it is as natural as slapping a wealth tax of 80% on the super wealthy, which is definitely not beneficial for the rich.
- astrange 4y ago
  Wealth taxes, unlike most taxes, would be inflationary because they force selling assets and therefore increase monetary velocity.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    Both income and point of sale taxes definitely feed into inflation so I'm not certain why you're trying to draw a distinction between those taxes on productive money and taxes on accumulated wealth (generally unproductive money).
    - astrange 4y ago
      Those are deflationary. They reduce transactions (because you want to spend less) and they reduce the money supply. Wealth taxes reduce the money supply as well, but they increase transactions because you have to buy the currency to pay them in by selling your assets. That's because you still have to pay wealth taxes in currency, not just by giving up your "wealth". You can't pay taxes in 1/4 of a house or painting. Although I'm pretty sure an 80% wealth tax would just collapse the economy because people wouldn't own their homes or businesses anymore. Maybe you could take 80% of their debt too?
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Basically, when times are bad, the rich are solvent enough to afford to just "buy the dip", and sit on it to appreciate during the good times when rates will be low enough again, then rinse and repeat between the boom-bust cycles to increase wealth. Inflation helps them as their assets are inflation-proof and it helps wipe out their debd.
G3rn0ti 4y ago
Correct. Being rich is always better than being poor no matter what the economic context is. Even Marxists should be able to understand that. Although, to be precise: Inflation hurts everybody maintaining their savings in some form of cash. Rich people with a large pile of cash also have a lot to lose. In the medium term current retail prices will be offset by wage increases as long as inflation does not become a galloping inflation.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  In fact, Marxists understand this point most of all. Which is why the moral impetus is to remove the possibility of being individually rich, in order to bring a more beautiful wealth to all. Individual "wealth" is so boring and flat and uninspired. Just Scrooge McDucks everywhere. Doesn't it feel like an archaic concept at this point? Such a narrow instantiation of humanity, can't die soon enough.
  - mech7654 4y ago
    It sure is boring. We probably should eliminate all boring things from the world.
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      Just this particular one is sufficient to me. But I'll support you!
      - etothepii 4y ago
        Who gets to decide what is "boring?"
  - goostavos 4y ago
    I dunno. I'm kinda enjoying the billionaire space race. Some of those McDucks moved us off of 60+ year old launch systems for funzies.
stuaxo 4y ago
There is nothing natural about any system. The system is organised as it is entirely by choice - though only a small minority get to choose how it is. The system benefits those who get choose how it operates.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  That's a bit extreme and relativistic. If by "natural" we mean somehow rooted in or consequent to human nature, then economies are very much natural. Human beings are social animals, and within this social context, we exchange goods and services for mutual benefit and for the sake of the common good. Economies become unnatural to the degree that they are detrimental and depart from human nature, in which case they cease to be economies to the degree that they fail. The details of economic practices are subject to a great deal of prudential judgement, and regulation is but a prudential determination of general principles of human nature to specific circumstances. Economies don't live in some abstract realm, of course. They are the sum of human exchanges which themselves are a product of individual choices themselves influenced by culture and law. When the law is used by those in power to exploit everyone else for their own (myopically understood) benefit, we call that a tyranny. But to be able to judge any of this requires a clear grasp of what is just. Recall that justice consists in rendering onto others what is their due.
miohtama 4y ago
Many, but not all: an example of unfavorable economic conditions for rich is real estate bubble burst (2008). Rich own real estate disproportionally to low and middle class.
- chr-s 4y ago
  How many rich people were foreclosed upon? The poor always feel the real brunt of any unfavorable economic conditions. The rich will stay rich and likely become even richer because they can take advantage of the recovery.

seizethecheese 4y ago

The gap between living standard of poor and rich is much smaller than a few hundred years ago. What you claim cannot possibly be correct.

miohtama 4y ago
The gap was lowest in 70s, has widened since then and is now as wide in 40s https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
pastor_bob 4y ago
A few hundred years ago, the vast majority of people lived under Autocracies. The elite could simply dictate how societies would operate.

Silverback_VII 4y ago

It's like Monopoly, at some point there is just nothing you can do. The resets are probably the collapses of civilizations.

mycodebreaks 4y ago
good point, assets aren't infinite.
_yb2s 4y ago
Money isn’t fundamentally a zero sum game like it seems on the surface… rich peoples wealth is invested, and gets used by less wealthy people to also create value - they might say draw a salary supported by a business loan, or mortgage a house.
- munk-a 4y ago
  You're quite correct - but poor people's money also does that. Rich people's wealth is generally less productive in being accessible for loans since it's generally tied up in speculative investments... compared to less well off folks that are more likely to have a pile of cash in a bank account.
stuaxo 4y ago
That is exactly the point "the landlords game" - the original monopoly was made to demonstrate.

ak_111 4y ago

Thing is inflation isn't 'natural' economic condition, it is mostly a product of economic policy according to a very respected school of thought (monetarism). In other words it is as natural as slapping a wealth tax of 80% on the super wealthy, which is definitely not beneficial for the rich.

astrange 4y ago
Wealth taxes, unlike most taxes, would be inflationary because they force selling assets and therefore increase monetary velocity.
- munk-a 4y ago
  Both income and point of sale taxes definitely feed into inflation so I'm not certain why you're trying to draw a distinction between those taxes on productive money and taxes on accumulated wealth (generally unproductive money).
  - astrange 4y ago
    Those are deflationary. They reduce transactions (because you want to spend less) and they reduce the money supply. Wealth taxes reduce the money supply as well, but they increase transactions because you have to buy the currency to pay them in by selling your assets. That's because you still have to pay wealth taxes in currency, not just by giving up your "wealth". You can't pay taxes in 1/4 of a house or painting. Although I'm pretty sure an 80% wealth tax would just collapse the economy because people wouldn't own their homes or businesses anymore. Maybe you could take 80% of their debt too?

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

Basically, when times are bad, the rich are solvent enough to afford to just "buy the dip", and sit on it to appreciate during the good times when rates will be low enough again, then rinse and repeat between the boom-bust cycles to increase wealth. Inflation helps them as their assets are inflation-proof and it helps wipe out their debd.

G3rn0ti 4y ago

Correct. Being rich is always better than being poor no matter what the economic context is. Even Marxists should be able to understand that. Although, to be precise: Inflation hurts everybody maintaining their savings in some form of cash. Rich people with a large pile of cash also have a lot to lose. In the medium term current retail prices will be offset by wage increases as long as inflation does not become a galloping inflation.

beepbooptheory 4y ago
In fact, Marxists understand this point most of all. Which is why the moral impetus is to remove the possibility of being individually rich, in order to bring a more beautiful wealth to all. Individual "wealth" is so boring and flat and uninspired. Just Scrooge McDucks everywhere. Doesn't it feel like an archaic concept at this point? Such a narrow instantiation of humanity, can't die soon enough.
- mech7654 4y ago
  It sure is boring. We probably should eliminate all boring things from the world.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    Just this particular one is sufficient to me. But I'll support you!
    - etothepii 4y ago
      Who gets to decide what is "boring?"
- goostavos 4y ago
  I dunno. I'm kinda enjoying the billionaire space race. Some of those McDucks moved us off of 60+ year old launch systems for funzies.

stuaxo 4y ago

There is nothing natural about any system. The system is organised as it is entirely by choice - though only a small minority get to choose how it is. The system benefits those who get choose how it operates.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago
That's a bit extreme and relativistic. If by "natural" we mean somehow rooted in or consequent to human nature, then economies are very much natural. Human beings are social animals, and within this social context, we exchange goods and services for mutual benefit and for the sake of the common good. Economies become unnatural to the degree that they are detrimental and depart from human nature, in which case they cease to be economies to the degree that they fail. The details of economic practices are subject to a great deal of prudential judgement, and regulation is but a prudential determination of general principles of human nature to specific circumstances. Economies don't live in some abstract realm, of course. They are the sum of human exchanges which themselves are a product of individual choices themselves influenced by culture and law. When the law is used by those in power to exploit everyone else for their own (myopically understood) benefit, we call that a tyranny. But to be able to judge any of this requires a clear grasp of what is just. Recall that justice consists in rendering onto others what is their due.

miohtama 4y ago

Many, but not all: an example of unfavorable economic conditions for rich is real estate bubble burst (2008). Rich own real estate disproportionally to low and middle class.

chr-s 4y ago
How many rich people were foreclosed upon? The poor always feel the real brunt of any unfavorable economic conditions. The rich will stay rich and likely become even richer because they can take advantage of the recovery.