3 ms·

You are replying to every single comment - you seem really upset about this. I never said anything was stolen from me. I said wealth inequality is the result

You are replying to every single comment - you seem really upset about this. I never said anything was stolen from me. I said wealth inequality is the result of rich people holding money, because by definition there can be no wealth inequality without rich people. It's an objective statement and you're projecting so much political vitriol onto it.

WalterBright 1y ago
I'm not upset at all. My question to you was a fair one. You did say "less" money for the poor. That implies the wealth is being transferred from them. > by definition there can be no wealth inequality without rich people That doesn't all mean they are "holding" money. Money is not the same thing as wealth. Personally, I don't have any money other than pocket change. > you're projecting so much political vitriol onto it. Am I? I thought my statements were objective facts, and not at all political.
- MegaButts 1y ago
  > That doesn't all mean they are "holding" money. Money is not the same thing as wealth. Personally, I don't have any money other than pocket change. I'm using money and wealth interchangeably here because there is no meaningful distinction in this context. I cannot take you seriously when you keep bringing up irrelevant things. It's obvious you don't understand my point. And I've had enough arguments with you on this site over the years to know it's a waste of my time to engage with you more than I already have.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    The dictionary defines "hoard" as: "a stock or store of money or valued objects, typically one that is secret or carefully guarded." An investment in a company is not a "hoard". You're free to make up your own definitions of words, but it doesn't work to expect others to adhere to them. > it's a waste of my time to engage with you I'm definitely the wrong person if you want to only engage with people who agree with you.
    - MegaButts 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        It would be absurd to expect to change anyone's core beliefs with a couple of HN posts. I'm satisfied just letting you know there is a case for free markets. I also admit that it is not an easy thing to understand. How can a chaotic system possibly work?
        MegaButts 1y ago
        > It would be absurd to expect to change anyone's core beliefs with a couple of HN posts. I 100% agree. > I'm satisfied just letting you know there is a case for free markets. I'm a believer in free markets. You just cannot stop projecting assumptions onto me. I've clarified my point multiple times already so I'm not going to bother repeating myself again. I think we can both agree it's okay to be misunderstood by people on the internet.
        sach1 1y ago
        > How can a chaotic system possibly work? For a given definition, it doesn't. At least, not without vastly understating the gov's role (some might say responsibility) to step in and monopoly bust, regulate strategically important sectors of the economy, and generally try to provide human-scale stability to a system that tends to want to burn itself and polite society down more than a caffeinated toddler with an outlet, a fork, and a dream.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        That's debatable. The US economy grew spectacularly in its first century, pulling scores of millions of poor people up into the middle class and beyond. Regulation along the lines of enforcing contracts, protecting rights, and internalizing exernalities are the proper role of government. Governments have never managed to make economies stable.

WalterBright 1y ago

I'm not upset at all. My question to you was a fair one. You did say "less" money for the poor. That implies the wealth is being transferred from them. > by definition there can be no wealth inequality without rich people That doesn't all mean they are "holding" money. Money is not the same thing as wealth. Personally, I don't have any money other than pocket change. > you're projecting so much political vitriol onto it. Am I? I thought my statements were objective facts, and not at all political.

MegaButts 1y ago
> That doesn't all mean they are "holding" money. Money is not the same thing as wealth. Personally, I don't have any money other than pocket change. I'm using money and wealth interchangeably here because there is no meaningful distinction in this context. I cannot take you seriously when you keep bringing up irrelevant things. It's obvious you don't understand my point. And I've had enough arguments with you on this site over the years to know it's a waste of my time to engage with you more than I already have.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  The dictionary defines "hoard" as: "a stock or store of money or valued objects, typically one that is secret or carefully guarded." An investment in a company is not a "hoard". You're free to make up your own definitions of words, but it doesn't work to expect others to adhere to them. > it's a waste of my time to engage with you I'm definitely the wrong person if you want to only engage with people who agree with you.
  - MegaButts 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      It would be absurd to expect to change anyone's core beliefs with a couple of HN posts. I'm satisfied just letting you know there is a case for free markets. I also admit that it is not an easy thing to understand. How can a chaotic system possibly work?
      - MegaButts 1y ago
        > It would be absurd to expect to change anyone's core beliefs with a couple of HN posts. I 100% agree. > I'm satisfied just letting you know there is a case for free markets. I'm a believer in free markets. You just cannot stop projecting assumptions onto me. I've clarified my point multiple times already so I'm not going to bother repeating myself again. I think we can both agree it's okay to be misunderstood by people on the internet.
      - sach1 1y ago
        > How can a chaotic system possibly work? For a given definition, it doesn't. At least, not without vastly understating the gov's role (some might say responsibility) to step in and monopoly bust, regulate strategically important sectors of the economy, and generally try to provide human-scale stability to a system that tends to want to burn itself and polite society down more than a caffeinated toddler with an outlet, a fork, and a dream.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        That's debatable. The US economy grew spectacularly in its first century, pulling scores of millions of poor people up into the middle class and beyond. Regulation along the lines of enforcing contracts, protecting rights, and internalizing exernalities are the proper role of government. Governments have never managed to make economies stable.