4 ms·

Some selected nitpicks with what you have said. > The least we can do is Putting it like that implies that there's a direction we should all be moving in. Pre

Some selected nitpicks with what you have said. > The least we can do is Putting it like that implies that there's a direction we should all be moving in. Presumably you have determined what this direction is and have determined that it is right for humanity. Others may disagree. > agree that money is a societal construct, and Money is a simple technology that has gained wide... currency, but that doesn't mean it's an airy concept that can pop out of existence at any moment. It represents energy, effort, ingenuity, work. > if money grows all by itself You ever done a day's work? You ever start a business, make an investment, borrow or lend money? Nothing related to money happens by itself, except decay. > then the gains should be fully taxed and Again with the direction that you have determined that we should all go towards. Maybe not everybody wants a government with absolute power? > given back to society. Huge leap of faith here to suggest that taxes = giving back to society. The government certainly represent a good chunk of society in the form of numberless bureaucrats (some of whom are needed and useful) employed, and of the voters who are happy with the government. But there's a significant conflict of interest here; not one government has ever distributed its budgets perfectly. There's always the desire to increase headcount, to allocate more power to itself, to further its own goals.

rstuart4133 3y ago
> You ever done a day's work? You ever start a business, make an investment, borrow or lend money? Nothing related to money happens by itself, except decay. Aggressive. The OP would be in a very unusual position if they haven't done most of those things. You don't have to do much to make money grow at about 8% per year on average, if "not much" is defined as something else you can do while maintaining a full time job and raise a family. That's faster than wages grow, so get enough of it you can literally stop working. Granted "not much" is not the same as money growing on it's own, but it's a good enough approximation. > But there's a significant conflict of interest here; not one government has ever distributed its budgets perfectly. I don't think that was the claim. The claim is that governments distribute wealth more evenly that a corporation would, which I consider to be self evident. Also I notice you mentioned government money paying bureaucrats, but didn't mention it spends money building roads, hospitals and running schools. In fact the vast bulk of the money goes to the latter. If a democracy is functioning well, meaning it has an informed electorate and fair voting, the governments are under considerable pressure to deliver as many of those services as they can for the dollar. You do that by shrinking the bureaucracy as much as possible. I suspect you also believe corporations do things more efficiently that governments. In reality study after study has shown government bureaucracies are about as efficient as corporate ones. About the only thing that clearly does better than both is a competitive market (as opposed to a free market). One outstanding example of this comes from comparing the cost of going to a USA hospital versus one in just about every other country on the planet. It's an interesting comparison between hospitals in the USA are invariably run privately, whereas in the rest of the world they are partially funded by governments to varying extents. Turns out in just about all systems where the government has a say in how hospitals are run, they delivery more services for less cost.
quantified 3y ago
It's not a technology, is it? It's absolutely a social construct, a deeply embedded social convention. The bills in my wallet are a technology only if the words printed on the side of a soda can are also technology. The bits on some storage somewhere denoting my bank balance likewise.
- ajdjujjeizncaaa 3y ago
  [dead]
- detourdog 3y ago
  I think the can that word are printed on is technology the same way a currency that may have writing on it is a technology. The words dontt make the money valuable.
  - quantified 3y ago
    Right, only a shared belief in its value and provenance makes it money.
- FredPret 3y ago
  Representing something abstract like value with physical objects like shells, gold, paper, or bits is absolutely a technology. It has caught on to the point where it's completely assumed, like internet connectivity, but it's not a "social construct" like whatever's in fashion this year. It's part of our technological infrastructure; it's not something that's going to evaporate next year. None of this means OP has grounds to argue for economic totalitarianism.
  - haynow 3y ago
    [dead]
  - quantified 3y ago
    Social construct has zero to do with current fashion. Marriage is a social construct and it's pretty solidly entrenched.

rstuart4133 3y ago

> You ever done a day's work? You ever start a business, make an investment, borrow or lend money? Nothing related to money happens by itself, except decay. Aggressive. The OP would be in a very unusual position if they haven't done most of those things. You don't have to do much to make money grow at about 8% per year on average, if "not much" is defined as something else you can do while maintaining a full time job and raise a family. That's faster than wages grow, so get enough of it you can literally stop working. Granted "not much" is not the same as money growing on it's own, but it's a good enough approximation. > But there's a significant conflict of interest here; not one government has ever distributed its budgets perfectly. I don't think that was the claim. The claim is that governments distribute wealth more evenly that a corporation would, which I consider to be self evident. Also I notice you mentioned government money paying bureaucrats, but didn't mention it spends money building roads, hospitals and running schools. In fact the vast bulk of the money goes to the latter. If a democracy is functioning well, meaning it has an informed electorate and fair voting, the governments are under considerable pressure to deliver as many of those services as they can for the dollar. You do that by shrinking the bureaucracy as much as possible. I suspect you also believe corporations do things more efficiently that governments. In reality study after study has shown government bureaucracies are about as efficient as corporate ones. About the only thing that clearly does better than both is a competitive market (as opposed to a free market). One outstanding example of this comes from comparing the cost of going to a USA hospital versus one in just about every other country on the planet. It's an interesting comparison between hospitals in the USA are invariably run privately, whereas in the rest of the world they are partially funded by governments to varying extents. Turns out in just about all systems where the government has a say in how hospitals are run, they delivery more services for less cost.

quantified 3y ago

It's not a technology, is it? It's absolutely a social construct, a deeply embedded social convention. The bills in my wallet are a technology only if the words printed on the side of a soda can are also technology. The bits on some storage somewhere denoting my bank balance likewise.

ajdjujjeizncaaa 3y ago
[dead]
detourdog 3y ago
I think the can that word are printed on is technology the same way a currency that may have writing on it is a technology. The words dontt make the money valuable.
- quantified 3y ago
  Right, only a shared belief in its value and provenance makes it money.
FredPret 3y ago
Representing something abstract like value with physical objects like shells, gold, paper, or bits is absolutely a technology. It has caught on to the point where it's completely assumed, like internet connectivity, but it's not a "social construct" like whatever's in fashion this year. It's part of our technological infrastructure; it's not something that's going to evaporate next year. None of this means OP has grounds to argue for economic totalitarianism.
- haynow 3y ago
  [dead]
- quantified 3y ago
  Social construct has zero to do with current fashion. Marriage is a social construct and it's pretty solidly entrenched.