3 ms·
That's exactly the problem. At the end of the day, unless you increase production of "stuff" (or coconuts), there isn't going to be magically more "stuff" (or c
by gruez 10mo ago
That's exactly the problem. At the end of the day, unless you increase production of "stuff" (or coconuts), there isn't going to be magically more "stuff" (or coconuts) to go around just because people are shuffling "stuff" (or coconuts) around.
- uoaei 10mo agoI don't understand what compels you to continue down this line of thought when its obvious flaws have been so clearly elaborated by other commenters.
- mitthrowaway2 10mo agoNot for coconuts, but in the real world, most products have economies of scale. If one rich guy has 99% of the money, the entire economy will be structured to serve his needs and yet nothing he buys will reach economies of scale. He just doesn't care to have that many Rolexes. So production methods will be fairly inefficient. But if everyone has a bit of money, stuff can get mass produced, which actually makes for much greater total welfare, because the production methods are just a lot more efficient.
- majormajor 10mo agoNobody will increase production of stuff if all the money is increasingly concentrated into a shrinking percentage of people who have far more than they can spend on stuff. That's how you get high asset inflation and "K-shaped" stuff as the rich increasingly look for any value-storage vehicle to "invest" in, since they can't get a return on producing stuff to sell to the people with less money...