3 ms·

> People who have earned money are perfectly entitled to have their earned economic power, they just aren't entitled to keep getting more powerful off everyone

by runeks 13y ago

> People who have earned money are perfectly entitled to have their earned economic power, they just aren't entitled to keep getting more powerful off everyone else's back simply by sitting on cash. Sitting on cash is not an economically useful activity, it's a null operation, and setting a system up to reward it is foolish. So tell me. If I work for a year and save up $10,000, and when 10 years have passed a car can be made using only 50% of the labor that was required 10 years ago - and, consequently, the car is cheaper than it was 10 years ago - who is more entitled to this increased in wealth than me? The increased productivity has to benefit someone. I don't think money producers deserve the benefit more than the saver.

Nursie 13y ago
That's entirely different from gaining purchasing power by sitting on a fixed proportion of the currency supply, and you know it.
- runeks 13y ago
  I disagree. That's exactly what happens when you sit on money: because productivity increases, the same amount of money will buy more in the future. Again, if the saver is not the appropriate recipient of the added purchasing power that an increase in productivity leads to, who is?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    No, it's not. Not all goods become cheaper over time, productivity gains do not magically make everything cheaper, only some items. Economic growth is not purely based on making stuff cheaper or more efficiently, it is also based on increased economic activity. With a fixed supply currency a hoarder gets richer in the absolute, not just where efficiency gains are made on particular products, they become richer directly because other people are working harder. This is not the case in the situation you seek to describe. Not something I'm willing to sign up for.
    - runeks 13y ago
      Right. There are plenty of situations where a saver becomes richer, one of them is if an employer can make his employees work the same for less. But you still haven't answered my question: why is the money producer - who makes sure we have inflation - a more deserving recipient of the increase in wealth from increased productivity than the money saver?
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> Right. There are plenty of situations where a saver becomes richer, one of them is if an employer can make his employees work the same for less. That's certain goods getting cheaper, not an appreciating hold over the economy in general that a deflating currency represents. >> But you still haven't answered my question: why is the money producer - who makes sure we have inflation - a more deserving recipient of the increase in wealth from increased productivity than the money saver? Deserve? That sounds awfully like a moral judgement... But I don't think you'll find I said that either one deserves it. I said that I'm not going to, by choice, buy into an economy where my effort enriches currency-squatters. That's not my idea of fun. A currency that inflates roughly in line with economic expansion is more pragmatic. And frankly, if it goes to the money-printers, well that's the government and in theory they get to use it to build useful stuff we all use. I have no issue with reasonable taxes.

by runeks 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

That's entirely different from gaining purchasing power by sitting on a fixed proportion of the currency supply, and you know it.

runeks 13y ago
I disagree. That's exactly what happens when you sit on money: because productivity increases, the same amount of money will buy more in the future. Again, if the saver is not the appropriate recipient of the added purchasing power that an increase in productivity leads to, who is?
- Nursie 13y ago
  No, it's not. Not all goods become cheaper over time, productivity gains do not magically make everything cheaper, only some items. Economic growth is not purely based on making stuff cheaper or more efficiently, it is also based on increased economic activity. With a fixed supply currency a hoarder gets richer in the absolute, not just where efficiency gains are made on particular products, they become richer directly because other people are working harder. This is not the case in the situation you seek to describe. Not something I'm willing to sign up for.
  - runeks 13y ago
    Right. There are plenty of situations where a saver becomes richer, one of them is if an employer can make his employees work the same for less. But you still haven't answered my question: why is the money producer - who makes sure we have inflation - a more deserving recipient of the increase in wealth from increased productivity than the money saver?
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> Right. There are plenty of situations where a saver becomes richer, one of them is if an employer can make his employees work the same for less. That's certain goods getting cheaper, not an appreciating hold over the economy in general that a deflating currency represents. >> But you still haven't answered my question: why is the money producer - who makes sure we have inflation - a more deserving recipient of the increase in wealth from increased productivity than the money saver? Deserve? That sounds awfully like a moral judgement... But I don't think you'll find I said that either one deserves it. I said that I'm not going to, by choice, buy into an economy where my effort enriches currency-squatters. That's not my idea of fun. A currency that inflates roughly in line with economic expansion is more pragmatic. And frankly, if it goes to the money-printers, well that's the government and in theory they get to use it to build useful stuff we all use. I have no issue with reasonable taxes.