LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Genivaria]

i am not sure what this means.



it leads to economic stagnation and inequality, which in turns leads to lower quality of life and instability. government has to regularly bully people into spending money instead of having it cooped up in banks doing nothing.

Now you are falling victim to the "pie" fallacy. Hint: there is no pie. One person's accumulation of wealth in no way bothers you, because wealth is not a fixed share.

There is actually a finite amount of money and wealth, to say otherwise would be supporting just printing more money.

[Great Minarchistan]

Yes which an 'unrestrained wealth concentration' would conflict with.

A government that intervenes less in the society has lower social progress as a result, then?

Yes government should be small enough to give tax breaks to the rich and cut funding for public schools.

Now you're incarnating the absolute spirit of Reagan

[Great Minarchistan]

Now you are falling victim to the "pie" fallacy. Hint: there is no pie. One person's accumulation of wealth in no way bothers you, because wealth is not a fixed share.

There is actually a finite amount of money and wealth, to say otherwise would be supporting just printing more money.

A finite amount of wealth in the universe that we increasingly have more access to.

[Kvatchdom]

There is actually a finite amount of money and wealth, to say otherwise would be supporting just printing more money.

A finite amount of wealth in the universe that we increasingly have more access to.

Not with price manipulation and wage stagnation.

[Genivaria]

Yes which an 'unrestrained wealth concentration' would conflict with.

A government that intervenes less in the society has lower social progress as a result, then?

Yes government should be small enough to give tax breaks to the rich and cut funding for public schools.

Now you're incarnating the absolute spirit of Reagan

A government that intervenes less in the society has lower social progress as a result, then?

Social progress? What doe that have to do with social mobility?

Now you're incarnating the absolute spirit of Reagan

Make America Dumb Again! Reagan 2020 probably.

[Genivaria]

There is actually a finite amount of money and wealth, to say otherwise would be supporting just printing more money.

A finite amount of wealth in the universe that we increasingly have more access to.

Who is 'we' here?

[Great Minarchistan]

Social progress? What doe that have to do with social mobility?

Social progress is the easiness to achieve progress regardless of past generation incomes.

Make America Dumb Again! Reagan 2020 probably.

Oy gevalt trillion dollar deficits

[Souseiseki]

i am not sure what this means.



it leads to economic stagnation and inequality, which in turns leads to lower quality of life and instability. government has to regularly bully people into spending money instead of having it cooped up in banks doing nothing.

Now you are falling victim to the "pie" fallacy. Hint: there is no pie. One person's accumulation of wealth in no way bothers you, because wealth is not a fixed share.

i mean if consumer spending plummeted we'd probably be pretty fucked so it seems like there's a clear baseline of how much hoarding wealth is bad. it's just a matter of how much specifically.

aren't you one of those guys that advocates for the pie standard? doesn't seem like the best idea if your plan is to let increasing amounts of pie rot in some guys basement.

Since they are a general set of failures, it's not that hard to find out notable examples of such failure, right?

i suppose the most obvious example would be the privatization of rail in the UK and how it doesn't work

So does bigger government.

but why is bigger government inherently bad, to employ your own rhetorical tic

Social mobility anyone?

to use an example from now, it's hard to have social mobility when the poor have nothing and a select group of rich have everything. you need to go into massive debt to have a real chance at it, all because of how the system has been set up to extract as much wealth from you as possible and funnel into the hands of those that are already wealthy. maybe that'd bad idk.

[Great Minarchistan]

A finite amount of wealth in the universe that we increasingly have more access to.

Who is 'we' here?

We the people?

[Genivaria]

Social progress? What doe that have to do with social mobility?

Social progress is the easiness to achieve progress regardless of past generation incomes.

Make America Dumb Again! Reagan 2020 probably.

Oy gevalt trillion dollar deficits

By progress you mean improving your lot economically? Then no I see no correlation between 'small government' and 'social progress'.

[Souseiseki]

Social progress? What doe that have to do with social mobility?

Social progress is the easiness to achieve progress regardless of past generation incomes.

Make America Dumb Again! Reagan 2020 probably.

Oy gevalt trillion dollar deficits

hey duder quick question the UK and US despite supposedly having smaller governments and less interventions than europe and having more wealth concentration that europe also seem to have significantly stronger correlated between past generation incomes and next generation incomes

why is that

is it actually the governments fault somehow

i bet it is

[Genivaria]

Who is 'we' here?

We the people?

Considering that wages have stagnated while productivity continues to grow I'd strongly disagree.

[The Liberated Territories]

Now you are falling victim to the "pie" fallacy. Hint: there is no pie. One person's accumulation of wealth in no way bothers you, because wealth is not a fixed share.

There is actually a finite amount of money and wealth, to say otherwise would be supporting just printing more money.

There is a potential to create an unlimited amount of wealth, just that it cannot be created by printing it.

[Souseiseki]

There is actually a finite amount of money and wealth, to say otherwise would be supporting just printing more money.

There is a potential to create an unlimited amount of wealth, just that it cannot be created by printing it.

how

[Genivaria]

There is actually a finite amount of money and wealth, to say otherwise would be supporting just printing more money.

There is a potential to create an unlimited amount of wealth, just that it cannot be created by printing it.

There is no such thing.

[Great Minarchistan]

but why is bigger government inherently bad, to employ your own rhetorical tic

Bigger government is associated to generate slower GDP growth, crowd out investment (and increase unemployment as a result, John B. Taylor has already proven the government spending effect on unemployment either), create less social mobility and increase corruption. Unless if you are an amoral pretentious person, I don't think you'll disagree to view those side effects as bad.

to use an example from now, it's hard to have social mobility when the poor have nothing and a select group of rich have everything.

:thronking:

you need to go into massive debt to have a real chance at it, all because of how the system has been set up to extract as much wealth from you as possible and funnel into the hands of those that are already wealthy. maybe that'd bad idk.

You can lift your living conditions pretty easily by having higher education and delaying your spending spree (living the American Dream for those more intimate with the concept) to your 30s instead of 20s as exposed by me and some seven sources used by me here.

[The Liberated Territories]

There is a potential to create an unlimited amount of wealth, just that it cannot be created by printing it.

There is no such thing.

OKAY, as much wealth as is possible within human capacity. Better?

[Genivaria]

There is no such thing.

OKAY, as much wealth as is possible within human capacity. Better?

And how much is going to actually reach the hands of the majority?

[The Liberated Territories]

There is a potential to create an unlimited amount of wealth, just that it cannot be created by printing it.

how

Whenever you decide to open a store for example, and employ people, or sell a product, or whatever...you are creating value, and wealth. Had wealth been actually a fixed pie, and we were still in cave-man times, we'd be fighting over the wealth to maybe have three goats and a warm fur coat, as opposed to having nothing.

It's better to see wealth as a pie that can be expanded in size than portion tbh tbh

[Kvatchdom]

how

Whenever you decide to open a store for example, and employ people, or sell a product, or whatever...you are creating value, and wealth. Had wealth been actually a fixed pie, and we were still in cave-man times, we'd be fighting over the wealth to maybe have three goats and a warm fur coat, as opposed to having nothing.

You are not creating more money when you do that. It's a pie that you puke out in bits and then it goes around.

[Great Minarchistan]

OKAY, as much wealth as is possible within human capacity. Better?

And how much is going to actually reach the hands of the majority?

Quite a lot, apparently.

[The Liberated Territories]

OKAY, as much wealth as is possible within human capacity. Better?

And how much is going to actually reach the hands of the majority?

Eventually, everything does. Hence why the poorest people can have chairs with back supports these days, as opposed to the 1500s when that was a luxury for the rich.

Edit: a more recent example would be something like plastic surgery...in the 70s it was seen as a thing exclusive to the 1%, and now is leaking to the middle class.

[Great Minarchistan]

Whenever you decide to open a store for example, and employ people, or sell a product, or whatever...you are creating value, and wealth. Had wealth been actually a fixed pie, and we were still in cave-man times, we'd be fighting over the wealth to maybe have three goats and a warm fur coat, as opposed to having nothing.

You are not creating more money when you do that. It's a pie that you puke out in bits and then it goes around.

Correct: You are creating more wealth, appreciating the value of the money, had the supply been stable.

[New Emeline]

And how much is going to actually reach the hands of the majority?

Eventually, everything does. Hence why the poorest people can have chairs with back supports these days, as opposed to the 1500s when that was a luxury for the rich.

oh yeah, the poor just have to wait for a couple hundred years

[Kvatchdom]

And how much is going to actually reach the hands of the majority?

Quite a lot, apparently.

Why do eight people own more than the poorest 50% of the planet?