Comment by WalterBright
3 hours ago
> a long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands.
You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.
3 hours ago
> a long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands.
You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.
> You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.
That assumption does not follow from my statement.
What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get richer and the poor get poorer. We've already seen that the rise of billionaires correlatives with an increase in wealth inequality and poverty.
Gambling is zero sum, so it does follow from your statement.
> the rise of billionaires correlatives with an increase in wealth inequality and poverty
The rise of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with scores of millions of people rising out of poverty into the middle class and beyond.
> What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get richer and the poor get poorer.
Creating value does not make the poor poorer.
Consider the wealth in America today. Compare it with the wealth in America in 1800. Where did all that wealth come from? Rich European immigrants?
Did you know that when Rockefeller built Standard Oil, the price of kerosene dropped 70%. Just who exactly was he "robbing"?