The bills to be shredded aren’t legally money. They’re shredded because they were exchanged for new legal tender
however giving out money that already exists doesn’t magically make money
Comment on Imagine if Amazon and all jobs out there were cooperatively owned?
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This particular case would be great! But yeah, but give out all the billionaire money and money wouldn’t be money.
Dad: “Money’s valuable because it’s hard to get. If everybody had it, it wouldn’t be money.”
Friend argued with me in the 90s about the feds shredding worn bills.
“They could give those millions to people like us!”
Well, yeah, and they could give every American a million bucks. Want that?
“Fuck yeah!”
I mow lawns for $20 a pop. If I had a million I’d want at least $20,000.
“Yeah, but a meal at McDonald’s would still be $5! We could eat like kings!”
Tax the fucking snot of out 'em, but these dreams of spreading the wealth like peanut butter are childish.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 day ago
shalafi@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
You get it. I get it. My buddy Mike didn’t get it.
I explained the replacement thing.
“But they could still give us the old bills!”
Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
In the 50’s and 60’s, the CEOs made 10-15x as much as the average worker, rather than something like 300x as much.
A strong middle class makes for a strong economy, because more money is flowing. Inflation can be managed with proper fiscal discipline.
Why the fuck should anyone be worth $100 billion dollars plus?
shalafi@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
I have zero arguments with any of that and can’t imagine why you think I would.
Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 day ago
There are so many issues with this but the primary one is that you’d be an idiot to try and never work again with only a million bucks in your hand.
shalafi@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Inflationary as giving everyone a million bucks would be, this was the 90s. $1M would net you a fair retirement.
Lodespawn@aussie.zone 21 hours ago
Google says $1M in 1990 is worth just under $2.5M today. I guess in the 90s houses were worth more like a 20th to a 10th of that rather than a 5th but I think you’d still have been pretty short sighted to give up working on that kind of windfall. Giving every American $1M is not anything like what the original post is talking about. It’s talking about taking half of Bezos net worth and giving it to Amazon employees, which equates to maybe 2 years of a shitty wage, and would likely only be deliverable as stock in Amazon. The other point about redistributing some of the 1%s wealth to the wider citizens of the USA again only nets each individual 70k. Noones quitting their job over that and most people will be either be dumping it straight back I to the economy or paying down some debt.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Your Dad in particular is a moron.
Literally, definitionally, money is valuable because it is near universally exchangeable for any good or service.
Money literally is not money if basically everyone does not have at least some of it, to transact with.
Money is money because basically everyone has, uses, accepts it.
Money is generally functionally defined as money, at its most basic level, by the fact that a government requires it as some kind of tax or tithe or tribute, this definition holds for the vast majority of human history and civilization.
…
If things were valuable by their rarity alone, their difficulty to possess…
Then the world’s last pristine mint condition pog or beanie baby or funkopop of some particular type… would be immensely valuable, universally.
A random fingerpainting by someone you know, the only exact one of its kind in existence, would be so valuable you could buy a house with it.
…
I say your Dad in particular is a moron because his view represents a much, much more deepseeded misunderstanding of what money even is than your friend who is simply ignorant of the concept of inflation.
That is something you can sit down and explain the basics of in like 5 to 15 minutes.
Your Dad on the other hand … seems like he would require unlearning about 50 years worth of a horrendously malformed worldview.
…
Money and taxation are inextricably linked in modern societies… and it is very, very well known that highly wealth lopsided societies are unstable, prone to collapse, and are less efficient in terms of actual real economic productivity than societies with a more equitable distribution of wealth.
The capitalist lie is that concentrating wealth upwards results in a trickle down effect that makes everyone wealthier overall.
We are way, way, waaaay past the point of wealth inequality where that could be theoretically possible, and it just literally is objectively false.
What actually would cause the vast majority of people to be more wealthy, and would then also make billionaires more wealthy also, in real terms, would be the trickle up effect that would occur if you taxed the fuck out of the wealthy, gave that money to the poorer, and then they would increase the velocity of money and thus actual economic growth considerably.
The wealthy do not want this, becauss even if they gain in absolute terms, they would not be as well off in relative terms.
They want to be better than everyone else.
Not just ‘better off’.
They want power, they want monopolies and oligopolies, to sit on their hoards of extremely low velocity wealth that generates no real material gains… because this dragon-like hoarding makes everyone else far, far worse off in relative terms.
They want the power differential.
…
Billionaires do not need their excess money.
It just sits there, does nothing, other than destabalize the whole financial system by haphazardly seeking the greatest ROI, untill too many bad bets are made for too long and it all blows up (ie, what is happening right now).
After a billion, congrats, you won capitalism, 100% effective tax rate after that, dear god do we need to repair and upgrade our failing infrastructure, and stop climate change, dig in for its already baked in massive, massive future losses in the tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 25-50 years.
We are at the point now where it is basically either than, or literally billions will die in the next 25 to 50 years, from statvation and climate disasters, increased crime rates as people become impoverished, increased war and genocides as mass migrations from disaster areas are gunned down or enslaved, nation states fight over the last remaining bits of non cost prohibitive resources that can be extracted.
wavebeam@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I love how hard this comment goes
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I am, among other things, an econometrician.
Fucking with the money is one thing.
Fucking up the concept of what money is… is another thing.
shalafi@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Easily triggered? Yeah, dad’s point was, more to the point, “if everyone had a bunch of money”, which was kinda the theme of my post. And I gather you understand inflation quite well. Would have hoped you could tease the theme from a couple of sentences.
This fucking place. Everyone ready to go off on the “bad guys”. No wonder it’s the worst echo chamber I’ve ever participated in.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
Yes, you apparently are.
I mean, please refer to my comment that has triggered you to see an explanation as to how a far too lopsided distribution of wealth actually affects a society.
Inflation, price level rises, don’t ust… happen perfectly evenly across all elements of the economy at exactly the same time, to exactly the same degree.
Broadly speaking, those closest to the recieving end of the proverbial money spigot, well they get to spend or invest that money first, and then the rising price levels slowly trickle down, spread out to other segments of the economy.
You don’t seem to get the idea of variable velocities of money, and how they work in a debt based, fractional reserve monetary system.
It is actually private banks that mechanistically do the vast amount of ‘inflation’, ie, multiplying of money.
Roughly, ever 1 dollar that gets deposited into a bank becomes 10 dollars, through being loaned out to other people.
But, different sectors of the economy have different multiplying factors, different velocities at which those multiplying factors occur.
You can say, print a fuckton of money and throw it at CDO holding banks to prop them up from going bankrupt.
This is a huge amount of low velocity money, its not moving anywhere, its there to shore up failing assets.
Or, you could print the same amount of money, but distribute it in small amounts directly to the broad populace, who will then basically immediately spend it or deposit it, the velocity and multiplication factor of that money will be much, much greater than the former scenario.
Or or, you can achieve something similar in terms of stimulate the ground level economy by taxing the wealthy and giving to the poor, which in net takes slow, low velocity money, and makes it fast, high velocity, without ‘printing’ any new money.
This is all actually a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is.