๐ณ๐ฑ
Just a reminder, wealth is **not** a zero sum game. If it were we would still be living in caves.
in this game there's always new pie beeing created and the rich fags get their fingers on them first when they are still fresh and warm !
---
what is the cantillon effect?
"wealthy people having money doesn not mean there's less money for you."
1. wealthy people control the monetary system
2. wealthy people print money
3. printing money decreases the value of money
4. if the wage of ordinary people doesn't rise with inflation, they got less purchasing power...or simple..less money.
Ok, 4 points that have nothing to do with the fact I stated, and doesnt change the fact that what I said is true.
To your 4 points I am not saying they arent real concerns, they are conversations in and of themself worth having.. But you, as people often do, are blinded by trying to argue "Wealthy people are bad" which just pushes you onto unrelated topics since my argument is not "wealthy people are good".
00:04:09 usa printed more than a third of the active money supply in the economy today in 2020/2021
---
Hyperinflation is Already Here โ You Just Haven't Realised It Yet.
Ok, not sure why you keep insisting on a topic that isnt what the OP is about.
Ok. still not related to the OP though.
my position is:
you CAN NOT have working freemarket capitalism if you don't fix the monetary system first.
what should happen:
switching back to gold backed paper (like the BRICS does)
what is going to happen:
a totalitarian cbdc nightmare
@mk Regardless if thats true or not, it still isnt about the OP. I have no objection discussing the bigger problem, but that would deserve its own thread, not hijacking one of an unrelated topic.
ok..whats the original post about then?
@mk The original post is about wealth not being a 0-sum game. No matter how much some have that does not imply others had to have less for them to have more.
To put that in simple language. If the whole world had only two people, and one had X wealth, the other Y wealth, it is possible (and in fact fairly common ) that both values can increase over time. In otherwords, everyone can get more wealth without anyone loosing wealth. Over time that has overwhelmingly been the case as is evident by the fact that we arent still living in caves.
"world had only two people[..]possible[..]that both values can increase[..]everyone can get more wealth without anyone loosing wealth."
yes, but we're not living in caves anymore. we're living in a hyper competitive world.
every cmยฒ an this planet belongs to somebody..the top 1% own most of the wealth..there's no such thing anymore as free land / free resources..
if person A earns 1 dollar, you're taking it away from person B. ones value increases and the others decreases..
here's andrew #tate talking about it this subject.
00:00:12 "you cannot make money. you're not the Federal Reserve[..]all of us take money from somebody else[..]next time you buy a coffee. don't just buy the coffee[..]why am I buying this coffee?[..]why am I buying here?[..]is there any competition around?"
@mk Again posting this just shows you need tor ead up ont he base concepts first... see how your quote doesnt have the word "wealth" anywhere in it... that should be a clue to you. Wealth is NOT money.
"Wealth is NOT money."
we are not living in your lalal land. everything in our current world is priced in some kind of currency.
if the court comes to you and wants to know what your wealth is, they are expecting you to come up with a number..
they will not accept your perceived wealth...you will just go straight to jail.
@mk Nop im sorry that is not how wealth works.. you are thinking int erms of "1 dollar".. dollars are paper, they are money, they arent wealth. If you want to understand these base ideas so you can understand the bigger one, you first need a better understanding of what wealth is. You can probably understand that best when you think in terms of one or two people, but you are right in larger populations it gets more complex, but the same principles still hold.
why can't you answer this?
@mk What are you talking about, I answered this already here as a reply:
@mk @freemo
you CAN NOT have working freemarket capitalism if you don't fix the monetary system first.
switching back to gold backed paper (like the BRICS does)
It doesn't matter, inflation was still a problem with the gold standard, and capital still attracts capital whenever the goverment prints money or not
"It doesn't matter, inflation was still a problem with the gold standard"
yes..when you're a lying faggot country like the usa that has the monopoly on printing the globale reserve currency.
---
1971
Richard #Nixon
https://mastodon.satoshishop.de/@mk/110070357003195891
---
but what happens when multiple countries print the same gold backed currency?
when one of them fucks up and prints too much. they will get in trouble with the other ones.
I mostly agree with your original point that on the macro level that wealth isnโt a zero sum game (though it can certainly be a lot closer to one within a company).
Saying that the existence of rich people isnโt a red flag is a different and interesting argument, but I donโt want to hijack your thread
Honestly even within a company it isnt a 0-sum game, it just might be hard to see. I think it is most obvious (though not limited to) companies that sell a product, particularly when manufactured from raw products.
If I am a lumber company then cut and cured lumber has more value than a tree the dead trees I buy.. so generation of new wealth is clear and easy to quantify,
Itโs might not strictly be a zero sum within a company (presumably itโs value goes up and down) and sure, a company can increase its value and we would typically expect that gain (or loss) to be sent to the owners of that company.
On the employee level it feels like itโs closer to zero sum though, and maybe thatโs just a perception thing. While relative CEO pay has gone up over the years I guess you canโt necessarily disentangle whether that increase comes out of the pool of wages available to all employees or whether itโs coming out of the pool of money that could be going back to investors. I guess I should go see if economists have any papers on that
"I should go see if economists have any papers on that"
at first we should start at the beginning and find out what the definition of a women...*รคhm.. wealth is..
@freemo @mk Yeah, I always wondered why there was so much emphasis recently (like the last 15 years) on wealth disparity in the US rather than quality of life for lowest X% of wealth.