Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[Famine]

Welfare's welfare. How can you argue that it matters where the money comes from. It all comes from the same place (just takes different routes to get there).

Yeah... why would it matter if it's taken by force and swallowed up in bureaucracy or donated by free will and then distributed efficiently?

Capitalism is about profits, that's the problem with it, the planet seems to lose out in all this.

Do you know how you get the most profit? By being the best and by using less. The fewer resources you use - the more efficient you are - the more profit you make, so long as the product is worthwhile. Sounds like a win for the planet there.

You are an example of around three billion years of energy capitalism - of creatures who managed to thrive in their environments and spent less energy surviving.

 

[Enemem]

But they don't "built in obsolescence" makes sure of that. It's cheap but you need one every 2 years. How is that good?



As to your point regarding welfare. Paying tax sucks don't it? Only if you're a capitalist.

 

[Joel]

Capitalism is about profits, that's the problem with it, the planet seems to lose out in all this.

I'm out.

He says from the UK on a computer where he's linked to people from across the world to instantaneously debate this while sitting on luxurious furniture in a comfortable heated or air conditioned building.

All while living with the best medical care in the history of the species, with the ability to travel across the world for relatively cheap amounts of money, and being able to walk into a supermarket and leave with the kinds of foods that only kings could afford two hundred years ago.

 

[Azuremen]

But they don't "built in obsolescence" makes sure of that. It's cheap but you need one every 2 years. How is that good?

So use purchasing power to buy from companies that build products that last? Shocking what you can do in a market with options.

As to your point regarding welfare. Paying tax sucks don't it? Only if you're a capitalist.

Wait what? It isn't that the helping the needy is what bothers most of us in here, it is the extreme inefficiency common to government bureaucracy that is the issue. That, and how it is used - my federal taxes go into a massive pool that is then trickled down and depleted for all manner of things, including paying a bunch of poorly trained workers how to stamp papers and stick them in boxes, ultimately diluting down what money makes to the needy. On top of that, it may never even come back to my community.

 

[Famine]

Wait what? It isn't that the helping the needy is what bothers most of us in here, it is the extreme inefficiency common to government bureaucracy that is the issue. That, and how it is used - my federal taxes go into a massive pool that is then trickled down and depleted for all manner of things, including paying a bunch of poorly trained workers how to stamp papers and stick them in boxes, ultimately diluting down what money makes to the needy. On top of that, it may never even come back to my community.

Indeed it more likely won't ever come back to your community. And there's a reasonable chance it won't even be spent in your country...

Hurrah, tax!

 

[Dotini]

So, our taxes go to bail out too-big-to-fail transnational banks that have compounded and over-leveraged bad investments made in the US home market. The US consumer, writ large, is merely being punished for his part in the debacle/bubble.

 

[Danoff]

No workers - high wages. Lots of workers - low wages.

Absolutely true. Supply and demand. When you have lots of something (including workers) the price goes down. However, you don't have lots of people qualified for every job. So if you're qualified to be general legal counsel at Johnson and Johnson for example, well you won't have super stiff competition because not many people are.

However almost every time machines come along and make things easier to produce and reduce costs, something else opens up. The reason is because the reduced cost means that people can begin using things differently than they had been - and suddenly there are more jobs.

For example, a robot is invented to reduce solar panel manufacturing costs by substantially. Suddenly instead of the average homeowner or business owner needing 10 years to pay off their solar panel investment, it now takes 2 years. All of the sudden there is massive demand for solar panels. Everyone and their mom is lining up to get them. Guess who gets hired to be a solar panel installer? The guy who used to work the assembly line making them. Or he's a solar panel distributor. Or he goes to work for the battery manufacturer who is now hiring like crazy to keep up with the solar panel demand.

That scenario (and it is philosophically realistic), is good for everyone. It's good for the solar panel manufacturer, it's good for the guy who designed the robot, it's good for the environment, it's good for the consumer, it's good for the battery manufacturer, it's good for the economy, and it's even good for the guy who was working the assembly line - because now he's employed where he's needed.

America and the UK are both a cross between "socialism" and "crony capitalism".

Meaning that those economies are not good examples of why capitalism doesn't work.

Welfare's welfare. How can you argue that it matters where the money comes from. It all comes from the same place (just takes different routes to get there).

...and how the money is obtained, and whether there are any checks on how it is used, and whether there is any competition for it. So... a lot of difference.

Private charity isn't immoral, but it's also a lot more efficient. Government is just about the least efficient way to do anything.

Capitalism is about profits, that's the problem with it, the planet seems to lose out in all this.

Please explain.

So, our taxes go to bail out too-big-to-fail transnational banks that have compounded and over-leveraged bad investments made in the US home market. The US consumer, writ large, is merely being punished for his part in the debacle/bubble.

I don't think you'll find a lot of supporters for bank bailouts here.

 

[niky]

Bank bailouts. AKA: Welfare for the rich.

Welfare's welfare. How can you argue that it matters where the money comes from. It all comes from the same place.

The more steps your money takes to get someplace, the less of it gets there. This is equally true of governments and charity organizations, but charity organizations are answerable for their finances, and their books need to be audited.

Giving money to the government means paying the taxman, the accountants, the clerks, the police, congressional/parliamentary staff, the cooks in the Congressional/Parliamentary kitchens, security forces, the military, public school teachers, engineers, contractors. And to keep that all straight requires several levels of beaurecracy that require even more money to fund.

The bigger your government gets, the more money it takes to keep itself going, and the less efficient it gets.

If your taxes all went to welfare, then welfare would be a lot better where you are. But they don't. Only a piddling fraction does. Money given to local charities gets cut a whole lot less.

But they don't "built in obsolescence" makes sure of that. It's cheap but you need one every 2 years. How is that good?

How did I know you'd post a video of the Light Bulb Conspiracy when I saw the word "obsolescence"? I find it hard to take it seriously, considering I'm using LED bulbs that last longer and use a piddling fraction of the energy incandescents do. Swallowing the LBC requires a complete disregard of engineering realities, energy conservation and market dynamics.

Companies will, from time to time, give us the better lightbulb. Audi did it with the A1. Didn't sell. Why? Too expensive. There are companies making pens that last forever (alloy tip pens) and require no ink. They don't sell a lot of them. Why? Too expensive.

You want an incandescent that lasts longer? THEY ACTUALLY SELL THEM. We use them in hospitals, in factories and in places where a more complex CFL or LED would give out from the heat or humidity. Civilians don't buy them, because they're... you guessed it... too expensive.

I'd sooner believe the theory if I wasn't using LED light bulbs that last longer than CFLs or even heavy-duty incandescents, use a tenth of the electricity that incandescents do, and only cost a fraction more than brand-name CFL bulbs.

The LED bulb kicks the Light Bulb Conspiracy in the back-end and walks all over it. Who knows? Maybe the better lightbulb won't last and people will go back to poorly-made disposable bulbs. You can see it already. Manufacturers are starting to build cheaper, less durable LEDs. Why? People aren't buying their high-end bulbs. Because they're... dun dun dun... too expensive.

As to your point regarding welfare. Paying tax sucks don't it? Only if you're a capitalist.

Paying taxes sucks whoever you are. If you're gainfully employed and paying taxes, no matter how poor you are, you aren't receiving welfare benefits in return that balance those taxes out. If people could choose to pay taxes directly for the services they use, they'd be much, much happier.

 

[Enemem]

Ref: A1 - So we end up with inferior products. Paying taxes does not suck. You shold be happy to pay more tax. That way your making more money, some people don't have the joy of paying tax. Greedy ******s.

Bank Bailouts, not capitalism. So there are no capitalist economies ? So it doesn't work ?

 

[Azuremen]

Ref: A1 - So we end up with inferior products. Paying taxes does not suck. You shold be happy to pay more tax. That way your making more money, some people don't have the joy of paying tax. Greedy ******s.

How does paying more taxes lead to making more money?

Have ever studied economics? Or worked with, in any capacity, a government agency? The IRS took a month to cash a check sent in half a year after tax season. A month. And they screwed that up even. They still use a paper filing system despite having an online submission method. Countless dollars are wasted on mistakes that are entirely the result of human error.

On a different note, about how automation removes jobs, then how is it that the UK's unemployment rate hasn't changed much, barring global economic plummets (even then 5% to 11%) despite the fact the population has more than doubled over the last 100 years?

Honestly, are you just a Luddite?

 

[niky]

Ref: A1 - So we end up with inferior products. Paying taxes does not suck. You shold be happy to pay more tax. That way your making more money, some people don't have the joy of paying tax.

We end up with what we are willing to pay for. As I have stated: Companies DO make better light bulbs. They just don't sell as many of them as the companies that make cheap ones.

Let me ask you: What kind of lightbulbs do you have at home?

-----

Why should poor people have to pay money to support other poor people instead of being given the opportunity to create a better life for their children, and stop being poor? I've heard basic salaried workers complain lots of times about their taxes and mandatory social security contributions and medical coverage. Some of them actually ask if they can have it in cash, instead. Taxes may suck for the rich, but they suck even more for the poor.

Mind you I am not complaining about my personal tax, nor am I against having social support for the poor, and I donate in cash, goods and personal labor for poverty relief, disaster relief and medical missions (I am, after all, an honorary Rotarian). I am okay with donating. But neither you nor I should force others to donate. People, whatever their income level, do donate.

So why should it be made compulsory?

Greedy ******s.

Watch the language. Either let the swear filter do its job, or use the 🤬 smiley to express disgust.

If you can't debate a rational position without getting worked up about it, then that's a clear sign you're not debating with logic.

Bank Bailouts, not capitalism. So there are no capitalist economies ? So it doesn't work ?

What is a bailout but corporate socialism? As Danoff says, you will NOT find anyone in this thread or this forum in favor of the bank bailouts.

I'd wager capitalism, as you conceive it, does not really exist. There is no such thing as a fully capitalist country. Every country has its form of social supports and subsidies. The United States government is a protectionist power which uses tax shields, subsidies, price supports and ridiculous military appropriations contracts to prop up and favor industries and workers sympathetic to whoever is in power at the time. It's more free than most markets, but it's nowhere near a completely free capitalist economy.

 

[Omnis]

Excellent timing, MisesMedia:

 

[Enemem]

You see. This is why I like debating. I have no knowledge of economics, but a reasonable grasp of logic. And since I'm willing to learn, then I have to find stuff that I don't know anything about. And I found this.

http://robotswillstealyourjob.com/read


Now it's a free book, but if you want to buy it off amazon, I'm sure the author would be happy. And I found this because I was accused of being a luddite, so I thought I'd find out what a luddite was (I know in my head what a luddite was, but that doesn't mean everyone else on the planet means the same as me).

I'll have to wait unti later before I can watch youtube video

The scorpion and the frog.

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to consider the situation.He could not see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kindas to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you won't try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I tried to kill you, then I would die too, for yousee I cannot swim!”

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked, “What about whenI get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I would not be able to get to the other side of the river!”

“Alright then...how do I know you will not just wait until we get to the other side and then kill me?” said the frog.

“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you have taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?”

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.

“I couldn't help myself. It is my nature.”

This is a story often told in psychology classes to explain how vital is to understand the immutable nature of something. There is no point intellectualising,making excuses, and developing competing analyses – sometimes something just is what it is. We need to recognise the intrinsic nature of capitalism. It is an unfettered force that puts the values of money, profit, and the ultimate objective of economic growth above life itself. There are too many real-life examples to ignore. Unless we take steps to moderate the present capitalist system, a few unlucky people will be left sitting on a vast pile of gold upon the smoking remains of our planet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a wordsmith, and as such my language may be ungrammatical, and at times defy logic, something you are all guilty of, in this thread anyway. But you have been missing the point and the last paragraph sums up my thoughts quite nicely. I may not have the answer, but hey you're smarter than me. You smart enough to figure it out? I've done my best. Boiling frog story also springs to mind.

 

[Famine]

the last paragraph sums up my thoughts quite nicely

Here's the problem with it:

Unless we take steps to moderate the present capitalist system,

What "present capitalist system" is that? I mean, you already said it yourself and Dan explained it to you further:

America and the UK are both a cross between "socialism" and "crony capitalism".

Meaning that those economies are not good examples of why capitalism doesn't work.

Not to mention the fact that the piece doesn't, at any point, establish that what it claims is the nature of capitalism actually is.

 

[Enemem]

Do you really not get the bigger picture, is it that difficult to see? Still focusing on the mechanism. Maybe the watch is working perfectly, but unfortunately, someone set it to the wrong time.

It may not be a scorpion, maybe it's a crony scorpion.

BTW That's the last page of his book.

 

[niky]

And cronyism is a product of a free market? Funny, last I looked, the rich people hogging the wealth in China were members and allies of the Communist Party.

 

[Enemem]

Nice video BTW. And the rich in China being capitalists, masquerading as communists, means what? Cronyism is, even in your house.

 

[Famine]

Do you really not get the bigger picture, is it that difficult to see?

Apparently so, since you keep contradicting yourself on what that picture is. First it's the capitalist system we have, then we don't have a capitalist system, then it's the capitalist system we have again. Then you post links to counter arguments that actually support them wholeheartedly and then it's off on another opaque jaunt of -ists and -isms that you use blithely without a clear understanding of their meanings.


Incidentally, nice story. I preferred it when Chakotay related it to Janeway.

 

[Enemem]

You've got to push the boundaries.

 

[Danoff]

This is a story often told in psychology classes to explain how vital is to understand the immutable nature of something. There is no point intellectualising,making excuses, and developing competing analyses – sometimes something just is what it is. We need to recognise the intrinsic nature of capitalism. It is an unfettered force that puts the values of money, profit, and the ultimate objective of economic growth above life itself. There are too many real-life examples to ignore. Unless we take steps to moderate the present capitalist system, a few unlucky people will be left sitting on a vast pile of gold upon the smoking remains of our planet.

The problem with this is two fold:

A) "Present capitalist system" is a farce
B) It misunderstands capitalism entirely

...and this is a point I want to stress to you.

Capitalism is not a system of government. It does not protect the environment, and it doesn't protect you from theft or violence or any other human rights violations. Capitalism is a description of how people exchange goods and services when left to do so on their own - and how that freedom benefits all. Many opponents of capitalism point to the fact that it doesn't protect you from rights violations or environmental ruin as some sort of criticism of capitalism, but it is not an aspect of capitalism.

Capitalism cannot exist in anarchy. With no government, people might freely exchange goods and services for a while, but so many people would be robbed at the threat of force that it wouldn't last long. Eventually someone accumulates more guns and friends than anyone else and that person begins to dictate with force. Soon you have a dictatorship. This is the nature of anarchy.

Capitalism also cannot exist in dictatorships, socialism, or communism. When force is used to dictate the terms of a market exchange (as is the case in all three of those examples) capitalism does not exist.

Capitalism can only exist in a government that does a good job at what government is meant to do, and only what government is meant to do - and that is to protect human rights. You cannot have a free exchange of goods when you're worried about being shot, or when your air is killing you with chemical waste. That is what the government must do. And the reason it must be restricted to that role is because to do otherwise - to meddle in the markets - results in crony capitalism (which isn't capitalism at all). America was founded on the principles of capitalism and human rights. Today it functions largely on crony capitalism and socialism. This is the result of an overstepping of the government past its charter - and the blame for that rests squarely on the feet of the "check and balance" that was set up to prevent that, the supreme court, the defender of the constitutional prescriptions and limits for the role of government.

 

[Enemem]

The government has overstepped its charter.

 

[Enemem]

Have I got through yet? This is the guy who wrote the article. He mentions Camden in New Jersey. Look it up. If you find that your council/state subsidies are dropping, you can try and make a difference, whether it be just talking to your friends about it, or ringing up your mayor every week. You know as well as I do that the money is available - after all, money for tanks and guns is available. But the will is not there, it doesn't make the list of priorities. Because what happened in Camden is on purpose, not by accident. And it doesn't matter if I'm right about the how. The fact is it's happening and that's what needs to be done now. If it isn't done now, and maybe we are already past that point, then more forceful measures may be required. Wondered why everyone has had to get their weapons registered. Second Amendment rights being undermined. They know where it's going,

Our technology could allow us to bring about the greatest transformation in history, where all 7 billion people have the same opportunity to pursue their happiness, fairly. But we are sitting around, watching American Idol,or killing each other at the mall on Black Friday to get stuff that we will throw away in a week.

Do this ring true? Do you think this is what's happening? Have you changed your mind about anything since this thread was started? I have - capitalism is not the entire cause for what I perceived as inequalities. It's a rigged system. I once thought the system could be changed. Maybe it can't, but the people in-charge can, and they need to be removed, because every minute we speak they are entrenching themselves and creating laws to suit themselves.



That's was funnier, when I didn't think it was true.

Future could be different though. Different values, need different people.

 

[niky]

after all, money for tanks and guns is available.

And yet there's even more available for entitlements (that's welfare, medical care, etcetera.

The problem is not just a top-down problem. Yes, corrupt governments form part of the problem, but as you've pointed out here:

Our technology could allow us to bring about the greatest transformation in history, where all 7 billion people have the same opportunity to pursue their happiness, fairly. But we are sitting around, watching American Idol,or killing each other at the mall on Black Friday to get stuff that we will throw away in a week.

The consumer class is not at all innocent in all of this.

Granted, politicians tend to vote in laws that benefit the people close to them. They also tend to vote in laws that increase their chances for re-election... which includes laws that increase social security coverage, medical coverage, or make housing loans easier for those who can't afford them (which is what precipitated the 2008 crisis).

In the end, the question is... should we let everyone else vote on what the government charges us for, or should we get the choice to pay for the services we need and value?

 

[Enemem]

The problem is not just a top-down problem. Yes, corrupt governments form part of the problem, but as you've pointed out here:



The consumer class is not at all innocent in all of this.

Excellent. The consumers actually have all the power. But no one is in charge. We each make individual decisions about what we spend our money on. Since the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, that much is obvious, then that tells us where the rich get their money from, the poor, the majority, the consumers. Sick of google working for the NSA don't use their search engine, if people want better food than the supermarkets provide (processed rubbish), then maybe enough people could change to organic or buy from local supplier/producers and so take the money from the rich, if enough people did this, then maybe businesses will spring up and the prices come down, as quantities go up. And if I can wean myself and my family off the gogglebox, unsubscribe from cable channels, pretty sure I could find something better to do, if so forced (I now have more of an incentive to give it up due to this thread). Capitalism yes? You want capitalism to work then the consumers need to purchase with greater awareness.

Are consumers guilty of apathy, possibly. Is it their fault,no. Brainwashing/propaganda has been at work in the form of films, magazines, news programs for many years. If you don't know it's programming then it's not really your fault. We need reprogramming.

How much welfare per head of the population is that?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Excellent. The consumers actually have all the power. But no one is in charge. We each make individual decisions about what we spend our money on. Since the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, that much is obvious, then that tells us where the rich get their money from, the poor, the majority, the consumers. Sick of google working for the NSA don't use their search engine, if people want better food than the supermarkets provide (processed rubbish), then maybe enough people could change to organic or buy from local supplier/producers and so take the money from the rich, if enough people did this, then maybe businesses will spring up and the prices come down, as quantities go up. And if I can wean myself and my family off the gogglebox, unsubscribe from cable channels, pretty sure I could find something better to do, if so forced (I now have more of an incentive to give it up due to this thread). Capitalism yes? You want capitalism to work then the consumers need to purchase with greater awareness.

Are consumers guilty of apathy, possibly. Is it their fault,no. Brainwashing/propaganda has been at work in the form of films, magazines, news programs for many years. If you don't know it's programming then it's not really your fault. We need reprogramming.

How much welfare per head of the population is that?

How many consumers do you think there are in North America than don't already know that organic large flake oatmeal is a healthier breakfast than an Egg McMuffin or a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles? Or eating steamed or baked fish for dinner is healthier than a fried steak or a hotdog?

I'd venture to say that most people have a pretty good idea about what is healthy and what is not, and are making choices based on their own needs, wants and desires. I have friends who eat horribly and will die young without a doubt, and all the facts and figures and logic in the world will not convince them to eat better. They like what they like and are willing to trade off the uncertainty of a long and healthy life, with the certainty of greater enjoyment today from eating pizza and fries on a regular basis.

Of course there is propoganda, of course businesses are trying to sell you stuff and accentuating the positive aspects of it and ignoring the negative, but there are few consumers out there that don't have at least a basic knowledge of what is good for them and what is not. I don't buy the brainwashing or propganda argument for why people make the food choices they do, they are simply doing what consumers do, making the best choice for them...not what you think is the best choice for them.

 

[Joel]

How many consumers do you think there are in North America than don't already know that organic large flake oatmeal is a healthier breakfast than an Egg McMuffin

Egg McMuffins get a bit of a bad rap, they're only 290 calories, and the egg is just a regular egg cracked into a ring. The only thing on the that's overly "fake" is the cheese. Obviously not the face of healthy eating but you could do a lot worse than a McMuffin. People won't bat an eye at a bagel with cream cheese but that's worse for you.

Very offtopic but I just remember looking into the info for their breakfast recently and I was surprised to see it. Those evil capitalists making their food lower in calories to appeal to more people.

 

[Danoff]

Since the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, that much is obvious, then that tells us where the rich get their money from, the poor

This is an economic fallacy. It is most commonly expressed as a "piece of the pie", or getting your "slice of the pie". The idea being that there is a limited "pie" of wealth out there, and that if someone has a large piece, someone else must have a smaller piece. This misunderstands economics.

Wealth is created from nothing. When someone creates a new product or service, that product or service is new wealth added to the system. So when someone is making megabucks for their latest invention, that person created those megabucks from thin air.

Allow me a simplistic example of how this works.

You live on an island where there are 3 dollars total in currency to buy things with. There are 2 merchants that currently sell things. One guy sells fish, the other guy sells fishing nets. Fish guy charges $1/fish, and fishing net guy charges $2/fishing net. They have a simple exchange where on tuesdays and thursdays, fishing net guy gives fish guy $1 for a fish. Every Monday, fishing net guy gets is $2 back in exchange for a fishing net.

You come along and offer a new product, bananas. You charge $0.5 per banana. You have introduced a new product into the market.

Fishing net guy and fish guy are sick of eating fish, they both want bananas. But they know that if they give you fifty cents that they won't be able to keep their normal exchange going. Fish guy agrees to sell his fish for $.5, and fishing net guy agrees to sell his fishing net for $1. Now they each have money left over to buy a banana.

The new paradigm is this:

On tuesdays and thursdays fishing net guys gives fish guy $.5 cents per fish.
On Monday, fishing net guy gives that dollar back to fishing net guy for a net.
On Fridays, both guys give you $.5 for a banana each.
You then buy either 2 fish or a fishing net in a given week.

...and the exchange continues. Where do your fish or fishing net come from? Guys who don't need as much of their own products because they now have bananas to eat.


What happened there? Deflation.

The value of the dollar increased from being worth 1 fish or half a fishing net, to being worth 2 fish or a whole fishing net. It's now also worth two bananas. In otherwords, each dollar has more purchasing power than it used to. This is the nature of a growing economy with a fixed currency, the value of the currency goes up as the economy grows. This deflation increases the wealth of all currency holders. Your newfound wealth (fish, or fishing net) did not get taken from the previously fixed economy. You created wealth in the economy, added to your own wealth, and benefited everyone.

There is no pie, wealth is created (and can be destroyed). There is no conservation of economic value, economies grow and shrink as a whole. The rich can create all of their wealth without taking it from anyone.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Egg McMuffins get a bit of a bad rap, they're only 290 calories, and the egg is just a regular egg cracked into a ring. The only thing on the that's overly "fake" is the cheese. Obviously not the face of healthy eating but you could do a lot worse than a McMuffin. People won't bat an eye at a bagel with cream cheese but that's worse for you.

Very off topic but I just remember looking into the info for their breakfast recently and I was surprised to see it. Those evil capitalists making their food lower in calories to appeal to more people.

Maybe we aren't as informed about food as I thought

The egg is just a regular egg:

Oh well, maybe the muffin is just some white flour, a bit of yeast, salt, baking powder:

290 calories of crap is still crap

 

[Enemem]

This is an economic fallacy. It is most commonly expressed as a "piece of the pie", or getting your "slice of the pie". The idea being that there is a limited "pie" of wealth out there, and that if someone has a large piece, someone else must have a smaller piece. This misunderstands economics.

Wealth is created from nothing. When someone creates a new product or service, that product or service is new wealth added to the system. So when someone is making megabucks for their latest invention, that person created those megabucks from thin air.

Allow me a simplistic example of how this works.

You live on an island where there are 3 dollars total in currency to buy things with. There are 2 merchants that currently sell things. One guy sells fish, the other guy sells fishing nets. Fish guy charges $1/fish, and fishing net guy charges $2/fishing net. They have a simple exchange where on tuesdays and thursdays, fishing net guy gives fish guy $1 for a fish. Every Monday, fishing net guy gets is $2 back in exchange for a fishing net.

You come along and offer a new product, bananas. You charge $0.5 per banana. You have introduced a new product into the market.

Fishing net guy and fish guy are sick of eating fish, they both want bananas. But they know that if they give you fifty cents that they won't be able to keep their normal exchange going. Fish guy agrees to sell his fish for $.5, and fishing net guy agrees to sell his fishing net for $1. Now they each have money left over to buy a banana.

The new paradigm is this:

On tuesdays and thursdays fishing net guys gives fish guy $.5 cents per fish.
On Monday, fishing net guy gives that dollar back to fishing net guy for a net.
On Fridays, both guys give you $.5 for a banana each.
You then buy either 2 fish or a fishing net in a given week.

...and the exchange continues. Where do your fish or fishing net come from? Guys who don't need as much of their own products because they now have bananas to eat.


What happened there? Deflation.

The value of the dollar increased from being worth 1 fish or half a fishing net, to being worth 2 fish or a whole fishing net. It's now also worth two bananas. In otherwords, each dollar has more purchasing power than it used to. This is the nature of a growing economy with a fixed currency, the value of the currency goes up as the economy grows. This deflation increases the wealth of all currency holders. Your newfound wealth (fish, or fishing net) did not get taken from the previously fixed economy. You created wealth in the economy, added to your own wealth, and benefited everyone.

There is no pie, wealth is created (and can be destroyed). There is no conservation of economic value, economies grow and shrink as a whole. The rich can create all of their wealth without taking it from anyone.

I just did the maths, assuming the starting position as fish-1 net 2 bana 0, then banana guy ends up running the island, net guy owes goes overdrawn first. And there's still $3. I don't care what the value is put on a fish, net or a banana, the money stays the same.

When the banana guy starts charging interest, then the **** hits the fan. Consume less than you produce and you're a winner.

And yes, I know that it was just an example. But I take your point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I just did the maths, assuming the starting position as fish-1 net 2 bana 0, then banana guy ends up running the island, net guy owes goes overdrawn first. And there's still $3. I don't care what the value is put on a fish, net or a banana, the money stays the same.

When the banana guy starts charging interest, then the **** hits the fan. Consume less than you produce and you're a winner.

And yes, I know that it was just an example. But I take your point.

Fish guy and net guy will just stop buying bananas if their base price becomes too high or the interest is unaffordable. They survived fine before bananas and will survive without them. This will force the price of bananas down until the economy reaches equilibrium.