Its kind of sad how many people dont get this. Its like the first thing you learn when you study economics at any level.

@freemo anything that teaches you this is untrue is propaganda you fell for

@penny Its hardly something I accept at face value. The examples and arguments made are easily understood and it becomes common sense with even a little bit of time and understanding.

I gave specific examples in this thread already, feel free to add where you see holes in those examples.

@freemo I found all of them irrelevant, the sign says money, which is finite.

@penny No money isnt finite either. Money is printed all the time and supply goes up as well as down. It tends to be on lab behind the wealth generation. As wealth is generated the value of the dollar increases, this is offset by printing more dollars. If you over print you get inflation, if you underprint you get deflation. But in the end money is no more a fixed quantity than wealth.

@freemo it is finite, the finite amount available fluctuating is not at odds with it's finiteness

@penny That misses the whole point.. money like wealth is generated, and as such one does not need to take from someone else to be wealthy or have money, if they generate wealth over long term the end result is generating money

@freemo I refuse to acknowledge your point on the grounds that it's based on something undeniably false. There is a finite amount of money in the world and the more people have of that money, the less other people have, full stop, no matter who prints it or who burns it or whatever

@penny being finite isnt the point, so no it isnt based on that. It is based on the fact that money and wealth are generated. The amount is finite, but it is not **fixed**, it is constantly created and destroyed.

@freemo The sign said money, it is objective truth that there is a finite money, and money can either be possessed by an entity or lost, and every entity that possess any changes the ratio

@penny Yes, but again the point your missing is that money follows wealth. Wealth can be generated, and when it is money is generated as well.

Ergo the amount of money is not fixed. People can generate wealth, and thus money.

by not finite I basically meant "it grows without bounds"

@freemo I don't care about any of that because I think it's based on false pretenses, and it's wrong anyway. Even in your perfect world we can observe wealth inequalities by observing spending, as time goes on and the ratio changes, fewer and fewer entities spend more and more money, the finite capacity of money allows concentration. Perhaps you say, anyone can be the person who does it, join that smaller and smaller caste, but this is a lie, the slots are limited, the people did not choose this.

@penny

I never claimed wealth inequality doesnt exist. Your arguing against something I never said now.

@freemo Inequality is a nature of the limited nature of wealth. You'll notice in this doomsday scenario, which exists in our world, these bigger and bigger entities make sure to only spend with each other, and buy out any new competition for themselves.

What there is is a distribution and limited amount of spending power which controls who and how wealth can be "generated", even if the wealth itself isn't "limited"

@penny Again your arguing a topic that is not what I am asserting..

You can have evil billionaires who steal from people and generate no wealth or money. You can also have billionaires who generate significant wealth and steal from no one.

The point is only that someone having more money doesn't mean you have less. It is not a pie, when one person has more it doesn't mean some had to be taken from someone else, it could be generated wealth (and thus money).

On the topic of if the billionaire we have are generating wealth or stealing it is a valuable topic to discuss, but not something I made any assertion on.

@freemo Stop ignoring MY point, because I just said that even if wealth isn't a pie, spending power is and spending power controls who is able to generate wealth. And do you know what gives you spending power? Excess wealth.

@penny I'm not ignoring your point. I am simply saying it is arguing against a case that I am not asserting either way.

But to address your point, it depends on the country. In the USA for example the majority of the top 500 richest people in the USA started as middle class or below. So clearly its not nearly as much of a closed club as people may think. With that said its hardly perfect. We absolutely need to make that easier for people, for example free education at all levels would go a long way to help leveling the playing field.