3 ms·
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 li
by 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.