3 ms·

> We can—and we will—redistribute wealth... Please, someone explain to me how wealth can be re-distributed? I know how money can be re-distributed (and in-tur

> We can—and we will—redistribute wealth... Please, someone explain to me how wealth can be re-distributed? I know how money can be re-distributed (and in-turn made less effective - i.e., more is required to purchase less), but how exactly do you either a) create "wealth" (via government policy or law) or b) take someone else's wealth, split it up into smaller peaces, and make the end-recipients more "wealthy"? The reason I ask is because wealth is an effect of X, not a cause of X, just like gravity is an effect of mass, and not the cause of mass. And that X tends to be all the things 97% of the population is either not willing to invest it, or does not have the capacity for... So when you re-distribute money (as and from "wealth"), you also remove any motivation from anyone to actually create more wealth. And now you have a society that is fundamentally broken on both an economic and personal self-worth level.

michaelchisari 12y ago
Currency represents wealth. You redistribute currency.
svachalek 12y ago
You seem to be implying that only individuals may have wealth.
lukeschlather 12y ago
Mass is probably a poor analogy, but let's take it a bit further. Let's say you have a sun about to collapse into a black hole under its own weight, and some lifeless rocks elsewhere. You could, perhaps, skim off some of the sun to stop it from collapsing, and use the mass to create a thousand new suns, and breathe life into those lifeless rocks far from the main sun's light. To be more literal, when someone has no wealth, they have no capability to create wealth. You're simply incorrect that wealth is simply an effect and not its own cause. Like matter, wealth draws wealth to itself. Unlike matter, wealth can be used to create more wealth.
- powertower 12y ago
  > Mass is probably a poor analogy, but let's take it a bit further. That would be even more wrong then. > You're simply incorrect that wealth is simply an effect and not its own cause. I'm not arguing that wealth does not generate more wealth, it does. I'm arguing that wealth cannot be created by policy change nor re-distribution - of money. Because money, when it's relative in amounts person to person, is neither wealth, nor does anything to help create more wealth... That is, handing out relative amounts of money to everyone does not also hand out the drive and motivation and the needed hard-work to create more wealth; it does just the opposite. As all those things are more of a product of lack of wealth, than having a comfortable living existence. > Like matter, wealth draws wealth to itself. Unlike matter, wealth can be used to create more wealth. Gravity is what draws things in. Mass just creates that gravity. Without gravity, you just have static and stale things.
Phlarp 12y ago
Perhaps all these wealth creators you speak of will abscond from the fundamentally broken world the rest of us live in and be together in peace and harmony with John Galt.

michaelchisari 12y ago

Currency represents wealth. You redistribute currency.

svachalek 12y ago

You seem to be implying that only individuals may have wealth.

lukeschlather 12y ago

Mass is probably a poor analogy, but let's take it a bit further. Let's say you have a sun about to collapse into a black hole under its own weight, and some lifeless rocks elsewhere. You could, perhaps, skim off some of the sun to stop it from collapsing, and use the mass to create a thousand new suns, and breathe life into those lifeless rocks far from the main sun's light. To be more literal, when someone has no wealth, they have no capability to create wealth. You're simply incorrect that wealth is simply an effect and not its own cause. Like matter, wealth draws wealth to itself. Unlike matter, wealth can be used to create more wealth.

powertower 12y ago
> Mass is probably a poor analogy, but let's take it a bit further. That would be even more wrong then. > You're simply incorrect that wealth is simply an effect and not its own cause. I'm not arguing that wealth does not generate more wealth, it does. I'm arguing that wealth cannot be created by policy change nor re-distribution - of money. Because money, when it's relative in amounts person to person, is neither wealth, nor does anything to help create more wealth... That is, handing out relative amounts of money to everyone does not also hand out the drive and motivation and the needed hard-work to create more wealth; it does just the opposite. As all those things are more of a product of lack of wealth, than having a comfortable living existence. > Like matter, wealth draws wealth to itself. Unlike matter, wealth can be used to create more wealth. Gravity is what draws things in. Mass just creates that gravity. Without gravity, you just have static and stale things.

Phlarp 12y ago

Perhaps all these wealth creators you speak of will abscond from the fundamentally broken world the rest of us live in and be together in peace and harmony with John Galt.