4 ms·

> wealth destruction on a gigantic scale. Who gives a damn about destroying the master's wealth if you're a slave? That's the problem. To be clear, I'm not sa

by glesica 13y ago

> wealth destruction on a gigantic scale. Who gives a damn about destroying the master's wealth if you're a slave? That's the problem. To be clear, I'm not saying it's that bad, but things sure seem to be moving in that direction.

bdcravens 13y ago
Who gives a damn about destroying the master's wealth if you're a slave? In this situation, even the slaves are pretty damned wealthy.
- glesica 13y ago
  Like I said, not that bad yet but moving in that direction. There are plenty of people already, I suspect, who feel as though they have basically nothing, especially if they face some sort of ruinous expense like getting sick while uninsured. If you have a negative net worth, you have less than nothing, in some sense. As long as the credit markets keep working, even people with negative net worth feel like they have something, but if those markets were to freeze up or otherwise become unavailable you would have a whole lot of people no better off than slaves in terms of "wealth".
maxk42 13y ago
In this case we're speaking more of the slaves' wealth than the masters'. e.g. the housing crisis, credit crisis, student loan crisis, quantitative easing, increased cost of living, etc.
swombat 13y ago
As others have pointed out, it's not just the master's wealth, but everyone's wealth. If anything, I'd suspect the "masters" would be better at protecting their relative wealth in such a "burn it to the ground" scenario than the slaves. At least they have the wealth to move out of the country when it erupts. Most people don't, and would just lose everything - possessions, family, life... Burning things to the ground doesn't leave much above the ground. Best be able to afford an airship.
- glesica 13y ago
  Physical assets are hard to move, and those are the ones we would want to keep. Who cares if they move their cash, see how long it's worth anything after the government stops standing behind it. And if it continues to be valuable (for whatever reason) then fine, they can be rich somewhere else.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  Exactly. Wealth, if you're smart, see what's coming, and know how to prepare, brings you options others simply don't have. I'm not talking in the SHTF / survivalist sense, either, though it's true there, too ... simply stating that wealth allows you to do things you couldn't without it. This is similar to how every time politicians salivate over some new scheme to "tax the rich", the rich - being smart, motivated, and having the option to do so - find ways to avoid paying more than they have to. The middle & lower class, on the other hand, are either no better off, or are actually screwed.

by glesica 13y ago

bdcravens 13y ago

Who gives a damn about destroying the master's wealth if you're a slave? In this situation, even the slaves are pretty damned wealthy.

glesica 13y ago
Like I said, not that bad yet but moving in that direction. There are plenty of people already, I suspect, who feel as though they have basically nothing, especially if they face some sort of ruinous expense like getting sick while uninsured. If you have a negative net worth, you have less than nothing, in some sense. As long as the credit markets keep working, even people with negative net worth feel like they have something, but if those markets were to freeze up or otherwise become unavailable you would have a whole lot of people no better off than slaves in terms of "wealth".

maxk42 13y ago

In this case we're speaking more of the slaves' wealth than the masters'. e.g. the housing crisis, credit crisis, student loan crisis, quantitative easing, increased cost of living, etc.

swombat 13y ago

As others have pointed out, it's not just the master's wealth, but everyone's wealth. If anything, I'd suspect the "masters" would be better at protecting their relative wealth in such a "burn it to the ground" scenario than the slaves. At least they have the wealth to move out of the country when it erupts. Most people don't, and would just lose everything - possessions, family, life... Burning things to the ground doesn't leave much above the ground. Best be able to afford an airship.

glesica 13y ago
Physical assets are hard to move, and those are the ones we would want to keep. Who cares if they move their cash, see how long it's worth anything after the government stops standing behind it. And if it continues to be valuable (for whatever reason) then fine, they can be rich somewhere else.
BrandonMarc 13y ago
Exactly. Wealth, if you're smart, see what's coming, and know how to prepare, brings you options others simply don't have. I'm not talking in the SHTF / survivalist sense, either, though it's true there, too ... simply stating that wealth allows you to do things you couldn't without it. This is similar to how every time politicians salivate over some new scheme to "tax the rich", the rich - being smart, motivated, and having the option to do so - find ways to avoid paying more than they have to. The middle & lower class, on the other hand, are either no better off, or are actually screwed.