Comment by robertlagrant
2 days ago
> the alternative is basically to impose artificial scarcity to force people to work
No, the alternative is reality: people pay each other to do things they want done and for things they want to buy from them. There's no artificial scarcity. There's a vast amount of intricate, well-priced effort to reduce or remove scarcity.
this ignores that the role of some players in this current monetary game is to print new money in their basement...
Yes, inflation is a big problem. You want the people who get to take your money to have a well-defined role that doesn't grow over time.
Yet all the money belongs to Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk...
No it doesn't. Can you say a true statement that contradicts what I said?
They objectively do not have all the money, or even a particularly significant share of the money, so you're starting off with a falsehood.
In a communist economy, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk still exist. The difference is that instead of getting their money/power from providing value to people by selling things, they got it from political connections and corruption. They would also have a larger share of the pie, and living conditions would be significantly worse for everyone in the classes below them. This is easy to see if you have any knowledge of present and prior communist regimes.
I think it's rather humorous to say they don't have "even a particularly significant share of the money" about the two richest people in the world.
I think you'd have a point if what they had wasn't a "particularly significant share of the money" more than others. Like... being the richest person in a subway car isn't that impressive. It's not that much more. Being the richest person at Cipriani's in midtown during lunch... now we're talking. But the two richest people in the world don't have "a particularly significant share of the money"?
What planet do you live on?
1 reply →