I wonder about that, actually. I think it’s quite likely that there is a literally finite amount of wealth, but a functionally infinite amount of wealth; that there is no actual scarcity. Our world produces enough to shelter, feed, and hydrate each of the eight billion humans on the planet. We have to throw away food, waste water, and leave perfectly livable homes empty in order to maintain the illusion of scarcity, all so that billionaires can maintain their hoards.
there is a literally finite amount of wealth, but a functionally infinite amount of wealth;
I think the distinction is currency/wealth.
What I’m saying is:
there is a literally finite amount of wealth, but a functionally infinite amount of currency
People not understanding the difference and inflation is what has allowed billionaires to accumulate so much. If you had 50k saved for retirement, you’d notice if one day you had 45k, but everyone just accepts it when that 50k has the purchasing power of 45k.
Inflation is needed to prop up our economic system, if it wasn’t for that people wouldn’t be driven to invest in stocks for retirement, and while the commoners make some money over inflation rates. Crashes like what is happening now routinely wipes that out.
The whole thing is a game of three card Monty, people are distracted by everything moving around and they don’t realize it’s not a game of skill, it’s a grift.
The dealer may loose sometimes, and a person who knows when to walk away may make some money.
But at the end of every day the dealer leaves with more money than they showed up with.
I think that the world has a functionally infinite amount of wealth because (that is to say, if) it can comfortably support every single person. If we allow it to do that, it can still provide a goal to achieve and something to strive for. If we provide the basics for everyone, the particularly wealthy would still have enough to buy literally anything they want at any time.
For all practical purposes, that’s functionally infinite wealth. If you were in charge of an electrical grid, and you were putting more electricity into the system than the people drawing from the grid could use, it wouldn’t matter that your production was technically finite. You wouldn’t need any more, because no one could use any more. If you tried to produce more, it would just start to break things.
The insistence of a zero-sum game, then, is solely there to allow for hoards to exist.
But actually, I think we’re both saying about the same thing here. Inflation is, as you say, a fiction that preserves investment. It is a grift; or, at least, it has been used as an instrument of grift by corporations and individuals that have optimized their function to its whims.
I think that the world has a functionally infinite amount of wealth because (that is to say, if) it can comfortably support every single person
Well, probably the best way to explain that the amount of wealth that exist is the amount it takes for a person to live comfortably, and another way would be the value of the labor that person would produce.
That’s why billionaires want everyone to have more kids, it’s the only way wealth could be created, more humans to be exploited.
I dunno, I still feel like our intentions are the same.
charge of an electrical grid, and you were putting more electricity into the system than the people drawing from the grid could use, it wouldn’t matter that your production was technically finite. You wouldn’t need any more, because no one could use any more.
And in a just society this would result in things like moving from a 7 to 6 day work week, then down to 5.
As technology allows an individual to be more productive, the result should be they work less.
Instead we’re working the same hours we did 100 years ago…
This results in unemployment as there isn’t enough work for everyone, and the people at the top accumulate the savings in wages. So they always fight the reduction of personal labor.
But all we need to do to fix it is give people longer weekends, which would be an incredibly popular campaign platform
I wonder about that, actually. I think it’s quite likely that there is a literally finite amount of wealth, but a functionally infinite amount of wealth; that there is no actual scarcity. Our world produces enough to shelter, feed, and hydrate each of the eight billion humans on the planet. We have to throw away food, waste water, and leave perfectly livable homes empty in order to maintain the illusion of scarcity, all so that billionaires can maintain their hoards.
I think the distinction is currency/wealth.
What I’m saying is:
People not understanding the difference and inflation is what has allowed billionaires to accumulate so much. If you had 50k saved for retirement, you’d notice if one day you had 45k, but everyone just accepts it when that 50k has the purchasing power of 45k.
Inflation is needed to prop up our economic system, if it wasn’t for that people wouldn’t be driven to invest in stocks for retirement, and while the commoners make some money over inflation rates. Crashes like what is happening now routinely wipes that out.
The whole thing is a game of three card Monty, people are distracted by everything moving around and they don’t realize it’s not a game of skill, it’s a grift.
The dealer may loose sometimes, and a person who knows when to walk away may make some money.
But at the end of every day the dealer leaves with more money than they showed up with.
No, I mean wealth, not just currency.
I think that the world has a functionally infinite amount of wealth because (that is to say, if) it can comfortably support every single person. If we allow it to do that, it can still provide a goal to achieve and something to strive for. If we provide the basics for everyone, the particularly wealthy would still have enough to buy literally anything they want at any time.
For all practical purposes, that’s functionally infinite wealth. If you were in charge of an electrical grid, and you were putting more electricity into the system than the people drawing from the grid could use, it wouldn’t matter that your production was technically finite. You wouldn’t need any more, because no one could use any more. If you tried to produce more, it would just start to break things.
The insistence of a zero-sum game, then, is solely there to allow for hoards to exist.
But actually, I think we’re both saying about the same thing here. Inflation is, as you say, a fiction that preserves investment. It is a grift; or, at least, it has been used as an instrument of grift by corporations and individuals that have optimized their function to its whims.
Well, probably the best way to explain that the amount of wealth that exist is the amount it takes for a person to live comfortably, and another way would be the value of the labor that person would produce.
That’s why billionaires want everyone to have more kids, it’s the only way wealth could be created, more humans to be exploited.
I dunno, I still feel like our intentions are the same.
And in a just society this would result in things like moving from a 7 to 6 day work week, then down to 5.
As technology allows an individual to be more productive, the result should be they work less.
Instead we’re working the same hours we did 100 years ago…
This results in unemployment as there isn’t enough work for everyone, and the people at the top accumulate the savings in wages. So they always fight the reduction of personal labor.
But all we need to do to fix it is give people longer weekends, which would be an incredibly popular campaign platform