5 ms·

> If I have shillings equal to 5% of GDP, and I put myself into cryosleep for 100 years, there is no reason I should expect my uninvested shillings to still hav

by vrotaru 14y ago

> If I have shillings equal to 5% of GDP, and I put myself into cryosleep for 100 years, there is no reason I should expect my uninvested shillings to still have 5% of GDP. This is a child's view of an economy. Can your elaborate? Actually it an argument against the idea that hoarding gives some kind rent. It doesn't. But again, can you elaborate? If own 5% of land and go to a cryosleep for a hundred years, how much of that do you expect to own when you wake up?

danielweber 14y ago
(I'm going to have to stop with this comment. Maybe you can find someone else willing to go over the basics of wealth with you.) If you were to just abandon your land, there is no reason to expect it to belong to you when you come back 100 years later. Instead, say you set up a corporation and hire people to use the money made renting it out to pay for taxes and management on it. You might still own the land in 100 years. Or not, if the people you left in charge of it couldn't manage it well enough. But people got to use the land in the meantime, so there was economic activity being assisted by your asset. This would not, of course, give you any claim on any new land that is made, like new landfill in Boston. Bitcoins sitting out on the chain while you are sleep do not provide any benefit to growing the economy. They have not bought any factory equipment. They have not trained any workers. They have not invented any new technology. Any system in which people can end up with the same portion of an economy after sitting both their labor and their capital out on the sidelines for 100 years is fundamentally broken. Exactly how is an exercise for the reader, but like anyone purporting to have a perpetual motion machine, while the exact problem may be different from machine to machine, the laws of physics mean that there is some definite failure in it.
- vrotaru 14y ago
  > Any system in which people can end up with the same portion of an economy after sitting both their labor and their capital out on the sidelines for 100 years is fundamentally broken. Assertions. Words. Some of those strong.. To be frank, I'm disappointed, but.. I'll manage that, no need to worry.

by vrotaru 14y ago

danielweber 14y ago

(I'm going to have to stop with this comment. Maybe you can find someone else willing to go over the basics of wealth with you.) If you were to just abandon your land, there is no reason to expect it to belong to you when you come back 100 years later. Instead, say you set up a corporation and hire people to use the money made renting it out to pay for taxes and management on it. You might still own the land in 100 years. Or not, if the people you left in charge of it couldn't manage it well enough. But people got to use the land in the meantime, so there was economic activity being assisted by your asset. This would not, of course, give you any claim on any new land that is made, like new landfill in Boston. Bitcoins sitting out on the chain while you are sleep do not provide any benefit to growing the economy. They have not bought any factory equipment. They have not trained any workers. They have not invented any new technology. Any system in which people can end up with the same portion of an economy after sitting both their labor and their capital out on the sidelines for 100 years is fundamentally broken. Exactly how is an exercise for the reader, but like anyone purporting to have a perpetual motion machine, while the exact problem may be different from machine to machine, the laws of physics mean that there is some definite failure in it.

vrotaru 14y ago
> Any system in which people can end up with the same portion of an economy after sitting both their labor and their capital out on the sidelines for 100 years is fundamentally broken. Assertions. Words. Some of those strong.. To be frank, I'm disappointed, but.. I'll manage that, no need to worry.