4 ms·

Based on my limited knowledge and biases I obtained over time, I am going to blame Wall street and bankers for such issues. We will see more and even worse situ

Based on my limited knowledge and biases I obtained over time, I am going to blame Wall street and bankers for such issues. We will see more and even worse situation. Why bankers and wall street? Because these guys optimize only for making money, demanding infinite revenues and growth, why? To make couple of people even more rich.

thebigwinning 3y ago
Can you explain how these are related at all? It seems you think economics is zero sum, so if that if these guys win, others must be losing.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Well, they do seem to be winning, and look no further than this article we're discussing to see people losing.
  - thebigwinning 3y ago
    So how does one cause the other? The banking industry mostly supplies these people with retirement services.
- tuyguntn 3y ago
  > It seems you think economics is zero sum, so if that if these guys win, others must be losing. Yes, this is my primitive understanding of economics. just like first law of thermodynamics, which states: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form". I do believe economics is not different. There is a limited set of value in the world created by humans (service, knowledge) and Universe (minerals on Earth, energy coming from Sun and so on). We give price for the value using currency. If currency moves to a limited set of people, it should be taken away from others. When bank hands off mortgage, it expects something in return, which is an interest. To pay interest you need to provide service for someone, more scalable your service is, more you can earn, but not all services are scalable, for example teaching at schools, it doesn't scale, because it has physical constraints, like having a teacher who can engage with kids, whose primary concern is not meeting ends in their private life.
  - tuyguntn 3y ago
    in other words, when couple of people get ultra rich, some other people should become poor, e.g. you might still earn 100k/year, but you won't be able to afford 1M$ house, because ultra rich is buying all available land and converting it to estate for business to earn even more. You might think it should stop at some point, but when you stop cycle of growth, wallstreet punishes you with -25% in your stock price and depending on your business model and situation you will layoff more people, in some cases, even if you are profitable company. which gains another +10% to your stock.
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      This is called "the fixed pie fallacy". There is not a finite amount of dollars to made. There is more money now in the world than there was in 1990 or 1970, and more total value too, adjusted for population. Wallstreet also has nothing to do with Australian teachers.
      - ShroudedNight 3y ago
        There is a rather fixed amount of land, which seems to be a large part of the problem.
        cycrutchfield 3y ago
        There is plenty of land. There are not enough houses, apartments, condos, etc.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Yes, this is my primitive understanding of economics. just like first law of thermodynamics, which states: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form". How do you explain the insane growth in wealth from a few hundred years ago, where we lacked indoor plumbing to today where everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket? Clearly, wealth isn't something that's zero sum, and I'd rather live in a world where I owned 0.0001% of all the wealth and have an iPhone, than one where I owned 0.001% of all the wealth but I'm dying of cholera because I don't have a clean source of water.

thebigwinning 3y ago

Can you explain how these are related at all? It seems you think economics is zero sum, so if that if these guys win, others must be losing.

Buttons840 3y ago
Well, they do seem to be winning, and look no further than this article we're discussing to see people losing.
- thebigwinning 3y ago
  So how does one cause the other? The banking industry mostly supplies these people with retirement services.
tuyguntn 3y ago
> It seems you think economics is zero sum, so if that if these guys win, others must be losing. Yes, this is my primitive understanding of economics. just like first law of thermodynamics, which states: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form". I do believe economics is not different. There is a limited set of value in the world created by humans (service, knowledge) and Universe (minerals on Earth, energy coming from Sun and so on). We give price for the value using currency. If currency moves to a limited set of people, it should be taken away from others. When bank hands off mortgage, it expects something in return, which is an interest. To pay interest you need to provide service for someone, more scalable your service is, more you can earn, but not all services are scalable, for example teaching at schools, it doesn't scale, because it has physical constraints, like having a teacher who can engage with kids, whose primary concern is not meeting ends in their private life.
- tuyguntn 3y ago
  in other words, when couple of people get ultra rich, some other people should become poor, e.g. you might still earn 100k/year, but you won't be able to afford 1M$ house, because ultra rich is buying all available land and converting it to estate for business to earn even more. You might think it should stop at some point, but when you stop cycle of growth, wallstreet punishes you with -25% in your stock price and depending on your business model and situation you will layoff more people, in some cases, even if you are profitable company. which gains another +10% to your stock.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    This is called "the fixed pie fallacy". There is not a finite amount of dollars to made. There is more money now in the world than there was in 1990 or 1970, and more total value too, adjusted for population. Wallstreet also has nothing to do with Australian teachers.
    - ShroudedNight 3y ago
      There is a rather fixed amount of land, which seems to be a large part of the problem.
      - cycrutchfield 3y ago
        There is plenty of land. There are not enough houses, apartments, condos, etc.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Yes, this is my primitive understanding of economics. just like first law of thermodynamics, which states: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form". How do you explain the insane growth in wealth from a few hundred years ago, where we lacked indoor plumbing to today where everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket? Clearly, wealth isn't something that's zero sum, and I'd rather live in a world where I owned 0.0001% of all the wealth and have an iPhone, than one where I owned 0.001% of all the wealth but I'm dying of cholera because I don't have a clean source of water.