So you are explaining why the rich get less than what I calculated
No. Not even close. I’m explaining that GDP is a terrible metric to look at this problem. You need to look at wealth holdings. And the rich own basically all wealth.
The whole point is people are obsessed by the rich having ridiculous wealth on paper because of owning companies, but them owning companies does not take anything away from society.
So this is wrong in two ways. The first bit with “wealth on paper” is wrong, because the rich own the wealth. Loads of it are tied up in stocks, sure, but it is still wealth. And they use it like we use other fiat currencies, so to them stocks are just as “real” as USD is “real”.
The second is that the economy is a finitely expandable pool that is itself finite. So it is ultimately a zero sum game.
There is a limited number of hot dogs that can be sold in a year. Every hot dog sold by vendor A is a hotdog that cannot be sold by vendor B. You can advertise and brainwash the population into buying more hotdogs, but there is a limit to how many people will buy hotdogs. Every stock that is owned by rich asshat A is a stock that cannot be owned by worker B.
So yes, the rich owning all the wealth directly takes away from the rest of us.
The factories produce goods for people and who receive the goods is determined by who buys the goods which is determined mainly by income, not wealth.
“Who is able to buy X” isn’t a relevant question to the problem of wealth inequality/hoarding.
Or let me put it in different words: Let’s say you and I have the same wage across our lives.
This analogy immediately falls apart, because I earn about $40/hr.
Bezos collects the equivalent of about $8,000,000/hr.
That is grotesque. It is not the same wage. The stock market, the economy, and all the wealth is owned by the rich.
We need to fix this.
Should I be taxed more then you?
The only taxes we should have should be a land value tax, and a pollution/carbon tax.
It helps everyone become richer by increasing the overall economic output.
The stock market doesn’t increase economic output, not do I care if it does. Economic output should not be the goal. Sustainable human survival should be.
If sustainable survival is your only goal, go live in a forest. People can survive without factories.
As for your ridiculous hot dog analogy, are you saying as it is now, everyone in the world has as many hotdogs as they want? If not, there is obviously value in making more.
Also, I don’t care how many times you say GDP is not a good metric because it is not fitting your narrative. It is a good upper bound on how much value is produced. You can’t wish it away just because it proves you wrong.
If sustainable survival is your only goal, go live in a forest.
I’m saying it should be the goal of the economy instead of the current situation in which the only goal is everlasting, ever growing profit.
And I would go live in the woods if I could, but I can’t afford to do that.
As for your ridiculous hot dog analogy, are you saying as it is now, everyone in the world has as many hotdogs as they want? If not, there is obviously value in making more.
I am saying that there is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold per unit of time. Therefore it is a zero sum game. Therefore acquisition of wealth means taking away wealth from others.
Also, I don’t care how many times you say GDP is not a good metric because it is not fitting your narrative. It is a good upper bound on how much value is produced. You can’t wish it away just because it proves you wrong.
It doesn’t prove me wrong. You’ve seen the above graph. You know the wealth is allocated in the hands of the rich. The GDP is irrelevant.
I’ve explained it to you twice now, and if it is beyond your graph then that’s on you.
No. Not even close. I’m explaining that GDP is a terrible metric to look at this problem. You need to look at wealth holdings. And the rich own basically all wealth.
So this is wrong in two ways. The first bit with “wealth on paper” is wrong, because the rich own the wealth. Loads of it are tied up in stocks, sure, but it is still wealth. And they use it like we use other fiat currencies, so to them stocks are just as “real” as USD is “real”.
The second is that the economy is a finitely expandable pool that is itself finite. So it is ultimately a zero sum game.
There is a limited number of hot dogs that can be sold in a year. Every hot dog sold by vendor A is a hotdog that cannot be sold by vendor B. You can advertise and brainwash the population into buying more hotdogs, but there is a limit to how many people will buy hotdogs. Every stock that is owned by rich asshat A is a stock that cannot be owned by worker B.
So yes, the rich owning all the wealth directly takes away from the rest of us.
“Who is able to buy X” isn’t a relevant question to the problem of wealth inequality/hoarding.
This analogy immediately falls apart, because I earn about $40/hr.
Bezos collects the equivalent of about $8,000,000/hr.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-made-over-7-172628289.html
That is grotesque. It is not the same wage. The stock market, the economy, and all the wealth is owned by the rich.
We need to fix this.
The only taxes we should have should be a land value tax, and a pollution/carbon tax.
The stock market doesn’t increase economic output, not do I care if it does. Economic output should not be the goal. Sustainable human survival should be.
If sustainable survival is your only goal, go live in a forest. People can survive without factories.
As for your ridiculous hot dog analogy, are you saying as it is now, everyone in the world has as many hotdogs as they want? If not, there is obviously value in making more.
Also, I don’t care how many times you say GDP is not a good metric because it is not fitting your narrative. It is a good upper bound on how much value is produced. You can’t wish it away just because it proves you wrong.
I’m saying it should be the goal of the economy instead of the current situation in which the only goal is everlasting, ever growing profit.
And I would go live in the woods if I could, but I can’t afford to do that.
I am saying that there is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold per unit of time. Therefore it is a zero sum game. Therefore acquisition of wealth means taking away wealth from others.
It doesn’t prove me wrong. You’ve seen the above graph. You know the wealth is allocated in the hands of the rich. The GDP is irrelevant.
I’ve explained it to you twice now, and if it is beyond your graph then that’s on you.
There is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold and we are selling FAR FEWER than that. So no, it is not a zero sum game.
And you claimed GDP is irrelevant twice without any argumentation. I provided detailed argumentation why wealth is far less relevant than income.
You’ve missed the point.
Then you didn’t read:
https://lemmy.world/comment/9410104
You are linking to my own comment. And I am pretty sure I am not the one missing the ppint.