4 ms·

1. It isn't 0-sum (see the effect of Henry Ford paying his workers more for 1 obvious example). 2. But that's irrelevant, because the reason some people are po

by ajuc 10mo ago

1. It isn't 0-sum (see the effect of Henry Ford paying his workers more for 1 obvious example). 2. But that's irrelevant, because the reason some people are poor is not lack of resources in the whole economy. We have way more stuff than we need even if it was 0-sum 3. Also I wasn't even talking about eliminating poor people, I was talking about ensuring poor people have a say in what the society does.

simianwords 10mo ago
It is zero sum unless you can prove that redistribution will increase productivity. If you can prove it then it is an obvious thing to do. It actually isn't that obvious otherwise we would see more productivity from western Europe. >But that's irrelevant, because the reason some people are poor is not lack of resources in the whole economy. We have way more stuff than we need even if it was 0-sum What do you think is the real problem then?
- ajuc 10mo ago
  Redistribution doesn't need to increase productivity, it suffices that it increases consumption for the economy to grow, if that's your only goal (it isn't the main goal for me). I recommend reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money Basically if you have the same amount of money in economy, but you double the number of transactions - economy will double too (assuming same distribution). Money naturally accumulate. If you redistribute it - it starts moving again, and with each transaction something is produced. That's why redistribution usually increases GDP. But - the goal shouldn't be growing economy. The goal should be preventing oligarchy.
  - Jensson 10mo ago
    > That's why redistribution usually increases GDP. It also raises prices until the same amount is done. A plumber might work extra hard when he gets more work than normal, but will burn out if he continues to work like that so he raises his prices until he has to work just like before.
    - ajuc 10mo ago
      Which increases how much people can import and invest into R&D and automation (fixed vs variable costs with regards to number of menial workers). Which again grows the economy in real terms. The worst thing for the economy is slave labour. The thing that forces innovation is labour shortage.
Jensson 10mo ago
> 1. It isn't 0-sum (see the effect of Henry Ford paying his workers more for 1 obvious example). What is that effect? He just made a silly joke comment, but there is no way paying his workers more made him any money.

by ajuc 10mo ago

simianwords 10mo ago

It is zero sum unless you can prove that redistribution will increase productivity. If you can prove it then it is an obvious thing to do. It actually isn't that obvious otherwise we would see more productivity from western Europe. >But that's irrelevant, because the reason some people are poor is not lack of resources in the whole economy. We have way more stuff than we need even if it was 0-sum What do you think is the real problem then?

ajuc 10mo ago
Redistribution doesn't need to increase productivity, it suffices that it increases consumption for the economy to grow, if that's your only goal (it isn't the main goal for me). I recommend reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money Basically if you have the same amount of money in economy, but you double the number of transactions - economy will double too (assuming same distribution). Money naturally accumulate. If you redistribute it - it starts moving again, and with each transaction something is produced. That's why redistribution usually increases GDP. But - the goal shouldn't be growing economy. The goal should be preventing oligarchy.
- Jensson 10mo ago
  > That's why redistribution usually increases GDP. It also raises prices until the same amount is done. A plumber might work extra hard when he gets more work than normal, but will burn out if he continues to work like that so he raises his prices until he has to work just like before.
  - ajuc 10mo ago
    Which increases how much people can import and invest into R&D and automation (fixed vs variable costs with regards to number of menial workers). Which again grows the economy in real terms. The worst thing for the economy is slave labour. The thing that forces innovation is labour shortage.

Jensson 10mo ago

> 1. It isn't 0-sum (see the effect of Henry Ford paying his workers more for 1 obvious example). What is that effect? He just made a silly joke comment, but there is no way paying his workers more made him any money.