Wealth distribution

[Ironside]

Why must the money supply be ever growing? What is the result when it stops?

If you have an increase in total wealth, then you'll need more money to facilitate it. Inflation is prefered since spending is prefered. One meassurement of how much money exists are how fast the money changes hands. The more hands, the more people has actually done something with the money.

A stopped growth would be problematic yeah. But that isn't exactly helped by the gold standard. The big flaw with gold standard are that it's a limited resource. That means two things. First, without finding more gold, the amount of money can't increase. That means that for me to get more money, someone else has to lose money. A 0 sum game instead of growth. The second is that gold may have a fixed price in that standard, but that doesn't mean that gold has a fixed price in reality.

Say that Indian gold jewellry is going up (again). Then you can get the funny situation that none wants to sell gold to the US for money, because Indian jewellry gives twice as much. Or the Swedish goverment sells the gold reserve to India for jewellry and gets payed twice as much. Then they'll ask the US to trade that money for gold. Repeat until the gold market breaks or people shuts down the market because you're breaking the system.

To put it simple. It's very easy to break the gold standard nowadays. Spain broke their own silver market historically. By finding too much silver in the new world.

[HoreTore]

If you have an increase in total wealth, then you'll need more money to facilitate it. Inflation is prefered since spending is prefered. One meassurement of how much money exists are how fast the money changes hands. The more hands, the more people has actually done something with the money.

A stopped growth would be problematic yeah. But that isn't exactly helped by the gold standard. The big flaw with gold standard are that it's a limited resource. That means two things. First, without finding more gold, the amount of money can't increase. That means that for me to get more money, someone else has to lose money. A 0 sum game instead of growth. The second is that gold may have a fixed price in that standard, but that doesn't mean that gold has a fixed price in reality.

Say that Indian gold jewellry is going up (again). Then you can get the funny situation that none wants to sell gold to the US for money, because Indian jewellry gives twice as much. Or the Swedish goverment sells the gold reserve to India for jewellry and gets payed twice as much. Then they'll ask the US to trade that money for gold. Repeat until the gold market breaks or people shuts down the market because you're breaking the system.

To put it simple. It's very easy to break the gold standard nowadays. Spain broke their own silver market historically. By finding too much silver in the new world.

To add to that: George Soros sure taught you Swedes how much fun it is with fixed values on currency....

[Myth]

Having worked for a US company in the past, and currently employed in a subsidiary of a pretty big corporation now ($2 billion annual turnover) I see this time and again - growth, growth, growth! Always growth. Growth is to be expected. 10% growth year-over-year. No growth? Manager's heads start rolling.

But you see, growth can't come faster than what the limits are of our physical planet and the finite resources we are exploiting. Sooner or later we will hit a wall, and some corporate douches will insist on more growth. It's going to be sad and funny at the same time.

[rvg]

But you see, growth can't come faster than what the limits are of our physical planet and the finite resources we are exploiting. Sooner or later we will hit a wall, and some corporate douches will insist on more growth. It's going to be sad and funny at the same time.

Even if the economy is stagnating doesn't mean that an individual company cannot keep growing. You can always take the business away from the competition and grow that way.

[Myth]

Doesn't change the fact that at some point we won't be able to grow because there won't be more resources to transform in actual goods/services. The artificial growth because of fake money can never be matched by actual goods produced. Even if you oust every other competitor and just have Megacorp PLC as the supplier of EVERYTHING they will still want growth.

[rvg]

Doesn't change the fact that at some point we won't be able to grow because there won't be more resources to transform in actual goods/services. The artificial growth because of fake money can never be matched by actual goods produced. Even if you oust every other competitor and just have Megacorp PLC as the supplier of EVERYTHING they will still want growth.

I doubt we need to worry about this scenario. While theoretically possible it is practically unattainable.

[Fisherking]

LOL and the liquidity disappears where?

What part of the lending process negates the 0 sum game?

The gold standard was only a means of international money transfer. It was fixed by governments to a fixed amount in gold. But in order to increase money supply, reserves had to be increased.

Fait money is not the problem, as long as people have confidence in the value of the currency.

The system is not the same as it always was. The Banking systems of the past were not in control of currency. Governments were.

The problem is when banks create the money (or credit/debt). Repaying the loans result in no loss to the economy. Interest =Bank profits spent on operating costs and dividends put some of the interest payments back into circulation.

Bank investment, however, acquires real property (wealth) and concentrates it into fewer hands. In the past investment banks and lending banks were separate. That has also changed.

Simple taxation can not reasonably make up the difference. Governments too are borrowers. Their taxation merely goes to service their debt. Governments don’t control their currencies today, Central Banks do.

At some point the whole thing has to tumble down. Be it governments defaulting or banks defaulting or both.

It produces inequities but it has worked to some degree for over 300 years.

Sure it has.

There have been collapses too in the past. Something left out of HT’s “it’s just the way its always been“.
These were just extremes in the cycle.
Too in the past everything was more localized. A particular bank might default depriving a community. Then it was whole nations. Today we have a globally interconnected system. What happens when it reached the breaking point. Do we need to test it?

We just need to find a better way of doing things.

Can’t we find a means to enrich those who produce wealth rather than those who simply make money available? Otherwise, we all become slaves to debt, if not on a personal level, at least on a governmental one.

Because if we don’t, we will surely end up with a barter system again.

[HoreTore]

LOL and the liquidity disappears where?

Once again.

[Husar]

A 0 sum game instead of growth.

It's still a zero sum game even with growth because if you gain money, the other person's money is now worth less even if you didn't take any of it away nominally. It's called inflation. That's why, when a bank gets your money and gives you 1% interest p.a. and there is an inflation of 2% p.a., the bank isn't really giving you money, it only compensates 50% of your loss.

[Beskar]

Please keep posts to an intelligible level above quoting an entire post and simply reply with "lol" or baseless answers or attacks. Thank you.

[Ironside]

It's still a zero sum game even with growth because if you gain money, the other person's money is now worth less even if you didn't take any of it away nominally. It's called inflation. That's why, when a bank gets your money and gives you 1% interest p.a. and there is an inflation of 2% p.a., the bank isn't really giving you money, it only compensates 50% of your loss.

There's quite a difference between growth and inflation. Since wiki gave me the numbers to calculate with. USA got about 30% more money between 2005-2009, while the combined inflation was about 10%.

The situation you describe can happen when the banking Prime rate is low and you have high inflation.

[Husar]

There's quite a difference between growth and inflation. Since wiki gave me the numbers to calculate with. USA got about 30% more money between 2005-2009, while the combined inflation was about 10%.

The situation you describe can happen when the banking Prime rate is low and you have high inflation.

I actually mistook growth in general with just growth of the available money. If the money is invested and the investment provides a proper value, then the inflation won't be as high as the percentage of new money. I was still aiming at the fact though, that humans usually do not compare themselves with others in absolutes but see how they do relative to others and in that sense the growing wealth gap means that while some are getting richer, others become poorer, relatively speaking. It may not be great but as Fragony likes to say, it is how it is.

[Andres]

I'm not an economist, but what little I do know about money is, that it is created when needed. When there's a high demand, money will be created. Banks will lend out more than they have. The difference between the interests they charge and the interests they give, is also creation of money. Fractional reserve banking is as old as banking itself, nothing evil or conspiracy about it. It's just one of the key elements of banking.

Concerning weatlh distribution, some random thoughts or ideas:

1) in our current system, shareholders own the company. However, shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Wouldn't it be more fair to make the workers in the company co-owners and let them have a say in the decision making process? Wouldn't it be more fair to let all workers combined be co-owner of the business they work in? Or even further: once the investor has earned his money back, with a certain compensation (profits): shouldn't it then be so that the labourers get ownership of the entire company?

2) when we talk about countries, we all say that democracy is the way to go. Quid with multinationals who are, in reality, mightier than countries and who are able to influence governments? Shouldn't we install a certain system of democracy when a certain treshold is reached? Should this be government control or more a combination of 1) together with a say in how it's run by either a democratically elected body or a union of consumers?

3) Alternative for 2): when companies get too much power, shouldn't they be forced to shrink (split)? Shouldn't we make it forbidden for companies to grow beyond a certain treshold, since that would give them too much power; power that has no democratic legitmacy at all and which democratically elected bodies cannot control? Do such powerful multinationals belong in a democracy? If our governments become a joke compared to their power, are we then still living in democracies? Shouldn't we let go of our self-righteous attitude and our superiority complex vs. those parts of the world that are not, on paper, democracies "like us" (but we aren't!), and admit that we have a problem?

4) continuing on the line of thought of 3): is it ok for somebody to have so much wealth that he can exercise, de facto, power over thousands of people; power he didn't get from the people, but he simply has because he is wealthy? Shouldn't there be a treshold, a certain cap on how much wealth (=power, but not given by the people) one individual can obtain?

5) Meritocracy: does the possibility to inherit wealth belong in a meritocracy? Shouldn't we get rid of inheritance laws? Whatever you leave after your death, gets redistributed instead of handed over to the lucky bastard who came out of the right vagina? Kings and Queens get this critique, but doesn't that go up for sons and daughters of billionaires?

6) On top of 5): free education for everybody and banning of private schools. No more quality labels and "best schools"; all education public and of the same quality. Wouldn't that be more in the line of equal chances for everybody?

7) a basic income for everybody. We live in times of overproduction and technological innovation which leads to the disappearence of jobs. Is it still morally justifiable to let people rot, whatever their attitude in life (as if being poor is an attitude problem )? If we have the means to guarantee every human shelter, food, water, heating and education, then shouldn't we consider reaching that goal a priority above all?

[Montmorency]

1) in our current system, shareholders own the company. However, shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Wouldn't it be more fair to make the workers in the company co-owners and let them have a say in the decision making process? Wouldn't it be more fair to let all workers combined be co-owner of the business they work in? Or even further: once the investor has earned his money back, with a certain compensation (profits): shouldn't it then be so that the labourers get ownership of the entire company?

What if the investor is also 'the/a boss', such as in most small businesses? Does he retain his stake as technically a worker in the company? Does he under any circumstances retain some majority stake and therefore authority, or must he pass elections by the workers?

What are the mechanisms of divesting laborers of their shares if they are "fired"? What are the mechanisms of firing? Who does the firing? Is it down to a vote by all of the companies laborers? In large companies this would be both inefficient and unfair. It seems to me that there are some functions (such as hiring and firing) that work better when centralized in one position or set of positions. Currently, in small businesses it is typically the management that performs this function, while in large companies it is contracted out, so to speak, to HR departments. And yet, in terms of co-ownership of and stakes in a company, hiring and firing is one of the most crucial powers, and centralizing it automatically creates a huge divide between those who have the power and those who lack it. (Though of course in large companies there are various tiers to these functions, since a low-level manager can't ever fire an executive, and while an executive often can't personally fire a low-level manager, he can easily have him fired by whoever manages that manager.) Bottom line, centralization and hierarchization seem to be structurally integral to business, yet also difficult to reconcile with democratic ownership of a company.

A preferable solution would be less extreme, since the proposal you present seems to bring us full-circle eventually: better to heavily check the excesses of bosses in companies of any size, while giving workers small or low-level financial and ownership stakes in the company, as well as both the privilege and responsibility of regulating their local work environments in conjunction with both their superiors and colleagues, and some mechanism for mobility through the hierarchy at-least-mostly independent from the existing top-level.

As to the specifics, I declare myself incompetent to postulate.

4) continuing on the line of thought of 3): is it ok for somebody to have so much wealth that he can exercise, de facto, power over thousands of people; power he didn't get from the people, but he simply has because he is wealthy? Shouldn't there be a treshold, a certain cap on how much wealth (=power, but not given by the people) one individual can obtain?

How do you manage that without encouraging, say, Mafias and other shady power-brokers who don't necessarily have a huge amount of explicit wealth or at least don't wield it explicitly?

5) Meritocracy: does the possibility to inherit wealth belong in a meritocracy? Shouldn't we get rid of inheritance laws? Whatever you leave after your death, gets redistributed instead of handed over to the lucky bastard who came out of the right vagina? Kings and Queens get this critique, but doesn't that go up for sons and daughters of billionaires?

What about sons and daughters of life-time millionaires? As in, a person who accumulated a million in liquid currency or whatever, over a lifetime? That's not really so much to pass on, right? Or, what about next-of-kin? Say, a single mother dies and her juvenile is taken in by grandparents - should the grandparents receive some of the mother's assets, especially if there was a will or other evidence that the mother would have wished for that to happen? (the transfer of assets, not the death :P)

A progressive inheritance-tax seems to make most sense, though loopholes that allow shuffling of properties and assets and so on between numerous hands in order to bypass taxes and eventually arrive relatively unmolested in the hands of some individual must be caught somehow.

However, I suppose you could argue that any minimum income or enforced living-standard should be enough for anyone under any circumstances (with extenuating circumstances such as chronic illness increasing the baseline for that individual), in which case you might as well redistribute all assets upon death, no matter how meager. On the other hand, you must then deal with people trying to, say, gift away or "invest" huge sums in their old age or decrepitude.

all education public and of the same quality.

Better to make private education more affordable and improve public education overall; the best way to make it affordable though, is not vouchers or whatever, but higher incomes across the board. Also, keep in mind that even among public schools there is an elite class, and we can not hope to have all schools, public or private, match that elite class. Should existing top-quality public schools be disbanded?

If we have the means to guarantee every human shelter, food, water, heating and education, then shouldn't we consider reaching that goal a priority above all?

A higher priority is to provide for the future and monitor our civilization's and planet's condition and take 'necessary measures' in order that such a goal could be continuously met over time. "The higher they are, the harder they fall", so it's only good sense to ensure that we have a solid foundation to rise from, rather than a flimsy Jenga tower, in the first place.

[Andres]

What if the investor is also 'the/a boss', such as in most small businesses? Does he retain his stake as technically a worker in the company? Does he under any circumstances retain some majority stake and therefore authority, or must he pass elections by the workers?

What are the mechanisms of divesting laborers of their shares if they are "fired"? What are the mechanisms of firing? Who does the firing? Is it down to a vote by all of the companies laborers? In large companies this would be both inefficient and unfair. It seems to me that there are some functions (such as hiring and firing) that work better when centralized in one position or set of positions. Currently, in small businesses it is typically the management that performs this function, while in large companies it is contracted out, so to speak, to HR departments. And yet, in terms of co-ownership of and stakes in a company, hiring and firing is one of the most crucial powers, and centralizing it automatically creates a huge divide between those who have the power and those who lack it. (Though of course in large companies there are various tiers to these functions, since a low-level manager can't ever fire an executive, and while an executive often can't personally fire a low-level manager, he can easily have him fired by whoever manages that manager.) Bottom line, centralization and hierarchization seem to be structurally integral to business, yet also difficult to reconcile with democratic ownership of a company.

A preferable solution would be less extreme, since the proposal you present seems to bring us full-circle eventually: better to heavily check the excesses of bosses in companies of any size, while giving workers small or low-level financial and ownership stakes in the company, as well as both the privilege and responsibility of regulating their local work environments in conjunction with both their superiors and colleagues, and some mechanism for mobility through the hierarchy at-least-mostly independent from the existing top-level.

As to the specifics, I declare myself incompetent to postulate.

Why are you so opposed to changing the system? The problems you name exist now too, yet no opposition.

Anyway, if the investor works himself, then obvioulsy, he can keep a vote in his company. As a labourer. Like the rest of the people working.

Are we looking for an ideal system for maximum and thus ipso fact ice cold efficiency or do we aim for fairness?

Will the decison making process become harder? Perhaps. So what? Can't labourers elect their own CEO? Why not? Can't I at least elect the (wo)man who I work for? When it comes to countries, everybody cheers when wars are waged against countries that don't know our type of "democracy" (we don't have it either, but who cares)? But for labourers electing their own boss, oh no, that's dirty communism talking here, the idiot needs to be burned him at the stake or put in a mental facility.

What are the chances people will get fired just like that for maximimsing profit for the benefit of people who are not working at all in the company, but just own a piece of paper, sit on their butt and want to squeeze the maximum out of it, when the workers themselves own the company?

You also ignore my point 3). When the company gets too big, democratic processes become different and more difficult. And less democratic. Then just don't let companies become too big.

You need to change your aim. The aim is not maximum growth, maximum profits at the cost of all. The aim is not "the economy". The aim is letting people who work have a say in the matters. We call ourselves a democracy, yet we have this system of wage labour in which you do what you are told or you get the sack; which means you'll have no means to live if you don't accept somebody playing boss over you.

That's not a democracy, that's a hypocrisy.

How do you manage that without encouraging, say, Mafias and other shady power-brokers who don't necessarily have a huge amount of explicit wealth or at least don't wield it explicitly?

Excellent. You put wealthy people with way too much non-democratically legitimated power on the same line as professional criminals. That's a very correct comparison and a correct analysis. What do we do with scum? We put them in jail. Instead of putting the poor in prison, we have to put the white collar criminals in jail. Not giving them a free pass like we do now.

What about sons and daughters of life-time millionaires? As in, a person who accumulated a million in liquid currency or whatever, over a lifetime? That's not really so much to pass on, right? Or, what about next-of-kin? Say, a single mother dies and her juvenile is taken in by grandparents - should the grandparents receive some of the mother's assets, especially if there was a will or other evidence that the mother would have wished for that to happen? (the transfer of assets, not the death :P)

A progressive inheritance-tax seems to make most sense, though loopholes that allow shuffling of properties and assets and so on between numerous hands in order to bypass taxes and eventually arrive relatively unmolested in the hands of some individual must be caught somehow.

However, I suppose you could argue that any minimum income or enforced living-standard should be enough for anyone under any circumstances (with extenuating circumstances such as chronic illness increasing the baseline for that individual), in which case you might as well redistribute all assets upon death, no matter how meager. On the other hand, you must then deal with people trying to, say, gift away or "invest" huge sums in their old age or decrepitude.

Do you want a true meritocracy or not?

One million to pass on is not so much? Tell that to the son of a drug addict and a prostitue living in a ghetto.

What difference does it make for the son or daughter of a billionaire if his father or mother acquired it by work or inheritance. The son or daughter didn't; his or her only merit is to be born in the right family. Bravo, what an accomplishment.

No inheritances anymore. Period.

Everybody needs to start with the same weapons: education wise and wealth wise. And welfare state wise.

Better to make private education more affordable and improve public education overall; the best way to make it affordable though, is not vouchers or whatever, but higher incomes across the board. Also, keep in mind that even among public schools there is an elite class, and we can not hope to have all schools, public or private, match that elite class. Should existing top-quality public schools be disbanded?

I basically said: no more distinctions. That's not so hard to understand. Screw your "elite" schools. They are nothing more but a tool to institutionalise inequality.

A higher priority is to provide for the future and monitor our civilization's and planet's condition and take 'necessary measures' in order that such a goal could be continuously met over time. "The higher they are, the harder they fall", so it's only good sense to ensure that we have a solid foundation to rise from, rather than a flimsy Jenga tower, in the first place.

You make it sound as if there's a choice to make. A much better ambition would be an "and" "and" story. Whoever gives you the idea that that isn't possible, lies.