Do you think there is a finite amount of wealth?

[Conaeolos]

That’s your problem, you’re conflating a higher dollar value due to scarcity with an increase in wealth. But the higher value is, again, higher due to scarcity which is basically the opposite of infinite. The value goes up because there isn’t enough of it!

Currency is a metric of value not scarcity.
So your widget verse my sprocket’s value is effected by scarcity sure, but even with equal supply(scarcity) my demand could be much higher and hence carry a much higher value. Value remains a practical infinite as does wealth.

You’re thinking in Econ 101 terms, so I’ll oversimplify for you. If supply were infinite, the cost would approach zero. Agree?

Yes, but then in such a simplified hypothetical societal-wealth would also be infinite as there would be no practical scarcity only choice.

There is not infinite energy. There is not infinite anything

Counting is an infinite system, yet as you get higher the practical applications reduce. Just because something is infinite doesn’t mean it’s fully realized beyond the current conditions.

When you invent a hypothetical..

I sorry you never found the hypothetical relevant. Yes, I realize we’re talking two different things. This thread also has a direct context(kyle’s video): does immense wealth at the top come at the cost of the poor because as we live in a closed loop of wealth? If you’re frustrated at rectifying abstracts pick any real world variable and go to town to show kyle’s point.

You made a number of assertions in the OP that are straight up contradicted by reality. You made these assertions based on principles you believe to be true, not actual data.

Every one I used is based on a lot of data nor are they contradicted by reality. If I’m wrong, pick the weakest and go to town. You don’t need to prove much to pushback - just show the missing complexity, context, misapplications, counter forces or what have you. I’m quite likely to know where your coming from and if not I’ll ask for you to expand. This isn’t about changing your mind. It’s about challenging mine. Kyle to me seems very low-information. One does need to challenge these assumptions now and again.

 

[Deuce]

Currency is a metric of value not scarcity.
So your widget verse my sprocket’s value is effected by scarcity sure, but even with equal supply(scarcity) my demand could be much higher and hence carry a much higher value. Value remains a practical infinite as does wealth.


Yes, but then in such a simplified hypothetical societal-wealth would also be infinite as there would be no practical scarcity only choice.


Counting is an infinite system, yet as you get higher the practical applications reduce. Just because something is infinite doesn’t mean it’s fully realized beyond the current conditions.



I sorry you never found the hypothetical relevant. Yes, I realize we’re talking two different things. This thread also has a direct context(kyle’s video): does immense wealth at the top come at the cost of the poor because as we live in a closed loop of wealth? If you’re frustrated at rectifying abstracts pick any real world variable and go to town to show kyle’s point.


Every one I used is based on a lot of data nor are they contradicted by reality. If I’m wrong, pick the weakest and go to town. You don’t need to prove much to pushback - just show the missing complexity, context, misapplications, counter forces or what have you. I’m quite likely to know where your coming from and if not I’ll ask for you to expand. This isn’t about changing your mind. It’s about challenging mine. Kyle to me seems very low-information. One does need to challenge these assumptions now and again.

The low hanging fruit is your claim that yacht building is better than “redistribution.” That is laughably false. The strongest economic stimulus comes from giving money to the poor, not the rich. The best of all is food stamps.

If you give an extra billion to one rich person, they don’t buy five yachts instead of one. They might get a bigger yacht. A lot of it they will just sit on.

If you give an extra billion to a bunch of poor people, they do buy more televisions and cars and eat at more restaurants and go on more vacations. The reason is obvious: removing the survival threat means the poor are more willing to spend the money they do have. Not only do they buy the food with the food stamps, they also buy the television because they are no longer worried about food on the table.

The Case for Boosting SNAP Benefits in Next Major Economic Response Package

Policymakers are appropriately considering additional stimulus measures in the face of mounting job losses and other dire economic signs due to COVID-19. A top item on their list should be raising SNAP (food stamp) benefits as a way of mitigating hardship and injecting fast, high...

www.cbpp.org

I would suggest learning more about the “velocity of money” concept. Rich people are the worst place to send money, not the best.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Deleted your post #50 to comply with site restrictions.

What makes you think I’m responsible for what you’re looking for. IF everything is so rosy then WTF are you guys “AGAINING” about?

A niche industry is just that it will make a very few rich, maybe; but it will never generate the economic engine that a strong middle class will … NEVER!
The 1% has gotten rich by eliminating competition. When I was young there was vastly greater choice of goods and company's making them, distributing them and selling them. Today choices are fewer, distributers have consolidated and retail is a stagnant few.

Unbridled Capitalism consolidates ownership, regulated capitalism did not. You’re a broken record, profits didn’t always go to the 1%. You’re too wet behind the ears to know differently. As I said in my first reply wealth, though not stagnant is finite; at least functionally finite.

“So, I agree inequality has increased, inequality is destabilizing, but if the poor is 10x richer and the wealthy 1000x more.”

Is an incomplete sentence that has no meaning.

“I am not actually seeing the issue, unless the reason with the higher rate was ill gotten and can be modified without making everyone start going in the opposite direction. (I do think there are ways, but they’re on for the most part on the right not left of the idea spectrum)”

Is a rambling collection of incomplete ??? thought's??? And that’s being generous.
Stocks are not where “their” wealth is stored. They have art they have real-estate, bonds, jewelry and jewels; they don’t manage wealth like you and I do.

You’re too naive and too illiterate to debate with. Bye now!

 

[Conaeolos]

The low hanging fruit is your claim that yacht building is better than “redistribution.” That is laughably false. The strongest economic stimulus comes from giving money to the poor, not the rich. The best of all is food stamps.

The first sentence in that statement makes clear only certain types of redistribution are bad: “takes from high-effective use to low-effective use.”

The second outlines it can be positive when used as “a safety-net for those who can not compete within the market”.
So economic stimulus (counter force to poverty cycles) redistribution to the poor I 100% agree is more-effective than economic stimulus to the rich. Any such things (quite common) practice should be routed out. This agreement with Kyle is even directly referenced in my initial post speaking about covid-19.

If you give an extra billion to one rich person, they don’t buy five yachts instead of one. They might get a bigger yacht.

In context, the example was speaking about a rich person voluntarily acquiring enough funds to buy a yacht in the market. This used instead of the more obvious examples like buying stocks or capital-investment exactly because it’s frivolous. A symbol of it in fact. The contrast was for the rich person to redistribute such frivolous spending to employees who’d spend the same on more food, cars & entertainment. This destroys wealth in the system as now there is no demand for yachts, the yacht industry disappears. The increased demand for food, cars & entertainment never birthing new industries. This is why say, abolishing slavery is a major factor in effective industrial innovation, if you don’t prevent distorted labor costs you prevent the birth of markets for labor-saving devices as you can outperform their often small gains with subsidized labor costs. Keeping in mind industrial innovation is about small firms beating larger more established ones. If all it takes to dominate a market is raw-capital because of regulations you don’t have competition and thus you don’t have a free-market your have a centralized one.

Now, that’s clarified you misread and we in fact agree. What’s next?

 

[Deuce]

The first sentence in that statement makes clear only certain types of redistribution are bad: “takes from high-effective use to low-effective use.”

The second outlines it can be positive when used as “a safety-net for those who can not compete within the market”.
So economic stimulus (counter force to poverty cycles) redistribution to the poor I 100% agree is more-effective than economic stimulus to the rich. Any such things (quite common) practice should be routed out. This agreement with Kyle is even directly referenced in my initial post speaking about covid-19.



In context, the example was speaking about a rich person voluntarily acquiring enough funds to buy a yacht in the market. This used instead of the more obvious examples like buying stocks or capital-investment exactly because it’s frivolous. A symbol of it in fact. The contrast was for the rich person to redistribute such frivolous spending to employees who’d spend the same on more food, cars & entertainment. This destroys wealth in the system as now there is no demand for yachts, the yacht industry disappears. The increased demand for food, cars & entertainment never birthing new industries. This is why say, abolishing slavery is a major factor in effective industrial innovation, if you don’t prevent distorted labor costs you prevent the birth of markets for labor-saving devices as you can outperform their often small gains with subsidized labor costs. Keeping in mind industrial innovation is about small firms beating larger more established ones. If all it takes to dominate a market is raw-capital because of regulations you don’t have competition and thus you don’t have a free-market your have a centralized one.

Now, that’s clarified you misread and we in fact agree. What’s next?

No, you’re wrong. You’re saying giving yacht money to workers instead destroys wealth when that is demonstrably untrue. It increases wealth for the same reason food stamps did. The poor will spend it, creating more economic activity therefore creating more wealth.

It doesn’t matter if they birth “new” industries. More activity in food or television production is still wealth creation.

 

[Conaeolos]

A niche industry is just that it will make a very few rich, maybe; but it will never generate the economic engine that a strong middle class will … NEVER!

Happens everyday all around the world. Niche industries are where competition and new wealth is birthed.

The 1% has gotten rich by eliminating competition. When I was young there was vastly greater choice of goods and company's making them, distributing them and selling them. Today choices are fewer, distributers have consolidated and retail is a stagnant few.

Maybe, if you look at a single industry or sector. That because innovation gets harder the more mature your industry which is exactly why you need new industries. This is all based on ‘evolution’ which requires both diversity & reproduction. You’re ignoring how new industries are created. Government creation is the exception not the rule. Stoping competition can only ever be regulatory be it de facto or de jure.

wealth, though not stagnant is finite; at least functionally finite.

Yes that’s why that is the topic at issue. That also appears wrong unless you measure categories other than wealth as I have been attempting to demonstrate.

And that’s being generous.
Stocks are not where “their” wealth is stored. They have art they have real-estate, bonds, jewelry and jewels; they don’t manage wealth like you and I do.

None of those are as liquid nor would selling them produce enough to pay wealth taxes. It would have to be majority stock. You did not provide a how on the slightest and may just not understand assets of high net worth people.

You’re too naive and too illiterate to debate with. Bye now!

My writing seems to bother you. So fair enough.

 

[Conaeolos]

It doesn’t matter if they birth “new” industries. More activity in food or television production is still wealth creation.

Maybe a little bit, but no not really. Top producers of those things are the current 1%. How do you get a seat at the table with less capital, less strategic relationships & less infrastructure?

I tell you how. You figure out how to sell them a your own version of a yacht, which is a new game where you have the advantages.

It increases wealth for the same reason food stamps did.

Your comparing the wealth crested by birthing new industries to compound effect of higher economic activities these are not equivalent. But okay, let say I agree and the opposite is true. How or why do you keep the capitalism part of equation within your hypothetical with more even distribution by owners and employees alike?

 

[Irwin Corey]

Happens everyday all around the world. Niche industries are where competition and new wealth is birthed.


Maybe, if you look at a single industry or sector. That because innovation gets harder the more mature your industry which is exactly why you need new industries. This is all based on ‘evolution’ which requires both diversity & reproduction. You’re ignoring how new industries are created. Government creation is the exception not the rule. Stoping competition can only ever be regulatory be it de facto or de jure.


Yes that’s why that is the topic at issue. That also appears wrong unless you measure categories other than wealth as I have been attempting to demonstrate.


None of those are as liquid nor would selling them produce enough to pay wealth taxes. It would have to be majority stock. You did not provide a how on the slightest and may just not understand assets of high net worth people.


My writing seems to bother you. So fair enough.

Your sentence structure, incomplete thought train, propensity to change the subject and immature and naive understanding of historical economics makes intelligent discussion impossible. You're only able to discuss now, not how we got here or when and why things were better or how they could be again.

But it's apparent you like to think of yourself as sophisticated so don't let me burst your bubble. Bye now.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Brazil & Nigeria are both large countries flush with natural resources. Both have similarly sized populations. Our typical quick measure of wealth(GDP) makes Brazil work with $1.8 trillion & Nigeria $448 billion. Brazil than is said to have 4.5x as much wealth. Are you saying this is due to the natural resources differences?

I can agree if you have 100 acres and 100 people. If one person has 2 acres the other 99 must have less. But if you have 100 acres and 1 person produces from it 1000x more food units per acre as the other 99. Even if that single person owns the 99 acres and the others share just one plot. Everyone is wealthier and better off than if had we split it evenly.

I am hence confused how some like kyle in the original post view wealth as finite even if the ‘means’ by which we can produce wealth is finite.

Your example only works if you assume that the person who owns the 99 acres is being generous enough to let everyone else benefit from that which he created. If that person is not that generous, then you have a problem, since the 99 others are now in a position of having to give the 1 person whatever he wants for the food from those acres coupled with the fact that there is no further room for growth for ANY of them if the 1 person doesn't let anyone else in on the other 99 acres.

Why do you think a game of Monopoly ends when one person has all the money and property? Because wealth is finite.

 

[Conaeolos]

Your example only works if you assume that the person who owns the 99 acres is being generous enough to let everyone else benefit from that which he created. If that person is not that generous, then you have a problem, since the 99 others are now in a position of having to give the 1 person whatever he wants for the food from those acres coupled with the fact that there is no further room for growth for ANY of them if the 1 person doesn't let anyone else in on the other 99 acres.

Why do you think a game of Monopoly ends when one person has all the money and property? Because wealth is finite.

That was the thinking of the inventor and certainly what you see when their are international borders. So how do you think we failing to create those relationships and monopolies which act as defacto governments?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

That was the thinking of the inventor and certainly what you see when their are international borders. So how do you think we failing to create those relationships and monopolies which act as defacto governments?

Care to try to ask that question again, but in a complete manor this time? I won't mock the post, as if I recall correctly, you stated you suffer from dyslexia, but I can't answer an incomplete question.

As to your statement about the end goal of Monopoly merely being the thinking of the inventor.....the game ends because there is no way for anyone to transfer funds, and because there is no transfer of funds, there is no wealth to be generated. The same thing happens in the real world....if the wealthy few at the top had ALL of the wealth, those at the bottom would starve to death first without money or outside help, and then those at the top would realize that there is no way that they are going to buy enough yachts and Bugattis to support and economy where they maintain thier current level of wealth, let alone increase it.

 

[Conaeolos]

Care to try to ask that question again, but in a complete manor this time? I won't mock the post, as if I recall correctly, you stated you suffer from dyslexia, but I can't answer an incomplete question.

As to your statement about the end goal of Monopoly merely being the thinking of the inventor.....the game ends because there is no way for anyone to transfer funds, and because there is no transfer of funds, there is no wealth to be generated. The same thing happens in the real world....if the wealthy few at the top had ALL of the wealth, those at the bottom would starve to death first without money or outside help, and then those at the top would realize that there is no way that they are going to buy enough yachts and Bugattis to support and economy where they maintain thier current level of wealth, let alone increase it.

Thanks. I am following everything in your post. I am curious to hear more and how you think these things can be addressed.

 

[Razoo]

Socialism and capitalism need each other???? Perhaps

• Move Your Money
  www.moveyourmoney.com
  1 Online Checking Account is a variable tiered interest rate account. The Annual Percentage Yield (APY) on this account works as follows; if the daily balance is $0 -2,499.99, the APY paid on the entire balance is 0.10%, and for balances $2,500.00 and higher, the APY paid on the entire balance is 0.60% The APY stated is accurate as of April 17, 2018 and is subject to change at any time without ...
• Move Your Money - Latest Updates for 2020
  moveyourmoneyproject.org/us
  Move Your Money – Latest Updates for 2020 Move Your Money 2020-12-23T12:38:26-05:00 Welcome to the new Move your Money Project! “Move your money to a small bank or credit union,” was the original spirit of the MoveYourMoneyProject.org website – a somewhat grassroots movement encouraging consumers, their friends and family, and even ...
• Move Your Money - HuffPost
  www.huffpost.com/topic/move-your-money
  Move Your Money. If your financial advisers are supposed to work as fiduciaries (that is, putting your interests ahead of their own), yet support presidential candidates who want to make us second class citizens again, are they really serving your best interests?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Thanks. I am following everything in your post. I am curious to hear more and how you think these things can be addressed.

For starters, we stop corporate welfare. I think its an absolute travesty that we find ourselves continually granting breaks to businesses for the purpose of them increasing salaries and they instead buyback stock. As I see it, if they arent going to use the break for the purpose it was given for, we may as well not give it to them and let the government cover the difference, right?

 

[Conaeolos]

For starters, we stop corporate welfare. I think it's an absolute travesty that we find ourselves continually granting breaks to businesses for the purpose of them increasing salaries and they instead buyback stock. As I see it, if they arent going to use the break for the purpose it was given for, we may as well not give it to them and let the government cover the difference, right?

Yes, I too would love to see universal rules and redistribution programs which only ever target people directly never corporations.
How to enforce such an improvement though I'd be clueless.