>>540991364
poor people are so dumb its unreal.
The simplest concepts of money are like black magic.

>>540991364

Spain was cursed by cheap gold and they traded all thier silver to China .. Spain has never recovered from the experience

>>540991443
The amount of people that don't understand credit and go into crippling debt is insane, it's just like how they don't understand gambling or that shit like kalshi where it's "buy now pay later!" but they don't understand interest.
And then seeing commercials that are all about gambling and the buy now pay later services and we're going to have 2008 housing crisis but it's going to be over people unable to pay off the burrito they used kalshi for on uber eats.
>>540991938
So you'd agree the influx of money to the lower masses ruins the economy?

File: worf in klingon stares.jpg (86 KB, 500x273)

86 KB JPG

It's kind of insulting that we don't have the system from Star Trek as our current economic model. Anyone who understands this, should be angry. They force us to use this dysfunctional economic model that makes us all miserable.

>>540991364
Except in your example the richfags hording wealth and being able to pay the ridiculous prices are the spanish sailors so you kind of unintentionally undermined and contradicted your own point.

Except in the real world unlike with those sailors, our richfags have basically an unending supply of gold that is perpetually siphoned to them so the market can never eventually correct itself (as in your example also)

>>540991364
>I remember reading about how when the Spanish started colonizing America and taking the gold,
It was mostly peruvian silver and it was used to pay China for manufactured products, that were sent to Mexico and from there to Spain. Initially the first direct exports to Spain were pearls from the Caribbean, and later cash crops such as sugar and cocoa, as well as dyes and leather.
The whole reason for "Caribbean pirates" was to get these cargoes of sugar and cocoa.

>>540992436
No the rich hoarders would be the royalty/nobility, are you stupid?
>>540992525
But wasn't stuff in the Caribbean also inflated? Whores would charge prices in gold, same thing with food and all of that. It was all overpriced because the pirates were rich off their plunder.

>>540992234
The star trek model is only possible in a post-scarcity society where energy is free and infinite, we can wave our hand to fabricate anything with a replicator, and everyone can let loose with depraved holodeck fantasy orgies.

Easily solved by defaulting on the national debt, banks would write 99% of billionaires' paper """wealth""" to 0 and their real assets would be nationalized

>>540991364
>I'm currently a NEET so it's not like I'm some rich guy defender, I think money past a certain point just becomes pointless for the person but in a sense necessary for the economy to not collapse
good try glownig.
but money never would become pointless no matter how many neetbux or UBI the govt gift, bc means powerful and influential people giving up their power. which is obviously never going to happen.

>>540992649
Yes there was in general inflation although mostly in silver. Spaniards still got rich and took over like a third of western europe because they could pay bigger armies, but to be honest pretty soon it wasnt "Spain" but the Bourbon dynasty, which was international.

>>540992881
>memeflag
>calls me the glownigger
What I mean is that for the average person there's an amount that past it and it doesn't actually improve your life measurably, past 100k the diminishing returns on quality of life that money gives becomes greater than the effort to acquire it.
I'm not saying being a NEET is even good, I don't really want to be one I just currently am one. But being one gives you an angle that most people don't even consider and that's quite frankly on how simply increasing things like minimum wage does fuck all and that instead reducing the cost of living is much better.
Honestly the current drain on most people is rent, property tax should be abolished and rent should be tied to minimum wage of an area, furthermore people (or corporations) shouldn't be able to own more than one living home and one vacation home, corps like blackrock or landlords that own many properties should have that taken and sold, homes are for living not for speculation.
But retards and glowniggers like you want to keep people from actually getting their shit together.

>>540992688
Yea. We have unlimited energy in the form of nuclear. We don't have a replicator that can turn energy into all the forms of matter, yet, but that's not a total deal breaker to achieve a post scarcity economy.

It's actually very affordable to cover basic needs for all. Any of our billionaires could end poverty and homelessness and hunger easily if they wanted to. But it wouldn't be sustainable because it's throwing money into a black hole essentially. The trick is to make that money work. And I think the problem is a lack of confidence. The rulers are not confident in human capacity to produce because only 20% of people are productive.

>>540994034
If you read the Unabomber's manifesto, it's arguable that the star trek economy is actually bad because humanity desires struggle, it needs the process to power and technology mostly robs us of this.
Same with "ending poverty and homelessness" sure a utopia is perfectly possible but humanity will destroy it just to feel something.

>>540991364
Kys

>>540991364
You're definitely onto something.

>Because they could afford ridiculous prices, that's what vendors charged for everything from food to clothes and more
It's not even that they raise prices because they can. They'd just be out of stock otherwise, and the same amount of people would go without.

>I think if you legitimately took all the wealth and distributed it equally to everyone that it'd be pointless and that the cost of goods would simply rise because it can.
It would not necessarily raise. Rich people are mostly paying for investments. Taking their money and giving it to people who spend a larger % on personal consumption would increase demand for personal consumption products and reduce demand for the improvement of means of production.

Increasing demand increases prices in the moment, but if something can be produced for cheaper, the price increase will also lead to bigger supply. Unless the government requires permits to do that. At the end of the day, more people would probably be able to afford groceries.

There would only be two problems, first, the improvement of means of production would slow down, and second and most importantly, people would know wealth was previously redistributed, so there would be no point in making investments anymore.

But lets say you could take all of rich people's wealth and redistribute it, as in, their stocks, properties etc, and then somehow convince everyone that nothing will be redistributed anymore, it was this one time but now the government has changed. Basically I think it would just end up as a reduction in investments such as machinery for new businesses, and an increase in the production of groceries, electricity, furniture etc.

>>540994266
Problems have solutions. I could solve this problem in one generation if you let me take the kids at a young age and brainwash them into my new system. Basically if you get kids around the age of 4-6 you can imprint beliefs on them that they will carry for life. So the solution isn't to try to make it work with the broken idiots who are already programmed wrong. The solution is to start fresh with a new batch of very young children, you imprint a custom made culture onto them, and never let them see the grotesque abomination our culture became. You hide that shit from them forever. That way they simply believe the system they were taught was always the way.

>>540991443
>the poors are stupid
the relationship between being smart and having money is not one to one at all, idiot

what about self made people with a rich dad who helped them with a small loan and contacts?
what about successful government bureaucrats and politicians?
what about chad salesmen who just look good?
what about HR and sales girlbosses?

>>540992234
cant have Star Trek tier services without Star Trek tier energy generation

>>540994034
>We have unlimited ability to boil water in the form of nuclear.
ftfy

>>540994514
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs

>>540994601
reminder that
"unlimited nuclear energy" to boil water
!=
star trek tier energy generation

>>540991364
>Wealth
>Look inside
>Pieces of paper (stocks) with made up values that change in value daily
Reminder, there have been cases where a company stock value went down erasing a year of profit because they miss their projections for less than 1%

>>540994423
>They'd just be out of stock otherwise, and the same amount of people would go without
A very valid point, thank you for that contribution

Well as with higher minimum wage, the first thing that goes up after wages go up, is rent, and that affects everyone regardless of business, and so all businesses feel the pressure of rent and thus raise their prices to compensate, which is why I think that a magical redistribution of wealth would be pointless and we'd end up where we currently are, but with higher numbers.
To some degree I kind of see those that hold the majority of "wealth" be it in assets or otherwise, they serve a sort of function that ironically keeps prices lower for everyone else, I haven't quite worked it all out which is why I'm posting here but the main point is that it serves a necessary function and when great wealth is introduced to the masses, it has a tendency to throw everything into chaos.
Now that's probably mostly due to the fact that people just don't seem to understand basic economics at all, as I stated earlier, the amount of people that don't understand how credit works and how debt works or stuff like buy now pay later, is astounding as all of those are essentially just ways to enslave people.
One could argue that a certain class of people are just mentally slaves and will remain as such, but that's another topic.

>>540994647
Nuclear energy boils water, water turns turbines, turbines generate electricity, electricity powers the devices, AI, robots, etc.

A big problem with out current system is a lack of efficient use of traditional techniques to provide basics for people. For example if people didn't have to work meaningless jobs, then they could grow food instead. Everyone should be subsistence farming to feed themselves. That alone cuts out a lot of the energy expenditure that goes into transport to grocery stores. Home grown food would be healthier than big corpo factory food anyway. The boost in health and nutrition should help all of society, and the farming keeps people busy so they don't get idle hands to do the devils work as they say.

>>540994489
I would agree, but the current system is designed to make it so that people grow up ignorant, I remember my highschool "economics" class in which basically fuck all was taught other than some very broad terminology.
And so we are left with a problem of broken idiots making up the majority of the current world and the current system that creates more broken idiots, aside from a major upheaval of the current governments around the world, which is unlikely, there's no real fixing it that way.

I'm convinced there's a way to not necessarily fix the problem immediately but that there is a way to improve life for those that have more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
>>540995040
I agree on your latter point but disagree with nuclear, it's ironically too easy. Most jobs are simply a modern problem, fixed by reverting to older ways, the reduction of technology is the ideal way forward, unfortunately this means you will be at the mercy of the more technologically advanced and I've yet to solve that problem other than the idea of appearing as to have nothing that those groups would desire.
Kind of like how the Romans stopped at where Hadrian's wall would be built because the Pircs had little to offer Rome and it was more trouble than it was worth.

>>540991364
>I remember reading about how when the Spanish started colonizing America and taking the gold, that the sailors were incredibly rich and came back to Spanish ports and started spending it. Because they could afford ridiculous prices, that's what vendors charged for everything from food to clothes and more, and it made this situation where gold essentially became inflated and it all became relatively pointless until slowly but surely things returned to normal.
More importantly, it was the things that the sailors and whatnot who got that gold first which went up in price the most. The people who are closest to the entry of new money in the economy are the ones who benefit the most. American billionaires are all people who are closely tied to the government. The US is not a capitalist country, it's just that the welfare is given to the already rich.

>>540995189
If the billionaires simply didn't have it? No redistribution?
Then I'd wager that nothing would really change as far as most people are concerned, you'd see the ultra wealthy luxury items like private jets go under, but that really wouldn't affect most people. The ultra rich kind of exist in a sort of bubble of their own, so as long as you're not taking from it and giving it to the poor bubble, whatever you do in it shouldn't affect the poor bubble, at least in theory.
I am ambivalent to the idea, my only real issue is how would one go about such? Other than a hypothetical, or perhaps a revolution (which merely supplants the current elite with a new set of elites and changes nothing for the most part) I don't see how it would be done. I'd be neither for or against such a thing except maybe out of curiosity.
But a final remark, the idea that "there should be no billionaires" doesn't resonate with me as it does in fact create a disincentive to work and create jobs, people would stop at 999 million, an already absurd figure and thsoe that rely on them would suffer, reduce it to millionaire and again they stop at 999 thousand, etcetera.
I would go back to my original point, that they satisfy some function in society and the economy. I also believe they suffer their own hardships, although not the same as ours persay, but many of the ultra wealthy lack direction and purpose other than accruing more money, and that's because they don't know what to do with it. But I'd need another post to explore that topic.

>>540991364
> ifunny.co
man thats sad.

I agree with the message however. It's entirely fucked up that we have people that are billionaires.

>>540991364
Remove nons

>>540991364
OMG YOU CAN'T HAVE INVESTMENTS! You just can't okay?

>>540992234
No its insulting that you little fucking kids don't realize that matter to energy conversion is the only thing that allows star trek to work. Its not something we can just turn on.

>>540995714
>If the billionaires simply didn't have it? No redistribution?
I was talking about redistribution, either voluntarily or through state action.
>Then I'd wager that nothing would really change as far as most people are concerned, you'd see the ultra wealthy luxury items like private jets go under, but that really wouldn't affect most people.
quite to the contrary, if that money were simply deleted from bank accounts and assets were liquidated then the money deleted, it would actually have a huge beneficial effect on the economy. The deflationary effect would cause capital goods to be freed up from serving unproductive tax parasites and would instead be turned towards serving other parts of the market. The businesses which exclusively cater to the ultra wealthy would of course go under, but that would just free up their capital for use in other areas.
>I am ambivalent to the idea, my only real issue is how would one go about such?
I wasn't talking about doing it, I misread your OP and thought you were advocating for wealth redistribution at first. That's why I deleted that post.
>the idea that "there should be no billionaires" doesn't resonate with me
Well it does resonate with me. If we were still on the gold standard there wouldn't be enough dollars in circulation for billionaires to exist.
>that they satisfy some function in society and the economy.
American billionaires are tax parasites. Nobody gets to be a billionaire in the US anymore without the government's help. In a free market the wealthy act as capitalists in the literal sense of the word. They defer present consumption in order to engage in future production. This is of course extremely beneficial to the economy. In the present US though no saving ever takes place, it's all consumption, all the time, and billionaires just spend other people's money by the truckload.

>>540996402
People charge what they think they can get away with charging, not with charging what is "right" so to speak.
So if everyone was given 100,000 dollars each year as UBI you would see the cost of goods rise to accomodate such. So wealth redistribution would only be an act of spite, it may have some short term boosts to QoL for a lot of people but ultimately the markets will resolve themselves and you would simply see apples cost 50$ a pound (just an example, I'm not doing math) but because everyone is "wealthy" 50$ will be like 1.50$ of the past.
So ultimately you will solve nothing and it will relatively be the same.
This is more like abstract economics.
Even on gold standard you still had the ultra rich nobility, you still had Versailles and the such, wealth that no peasant could even begin to comprehend.

If you were given the option to be a billionaire, no strings attached, would you take it? Or would you stand on principle alone? I imagine you'd take it and spread it around to do good but you'd find how little a billion is in the grand scheme of things.
Lastly, I do think even billionaires suffer, they don't suffer for want of home or physical needs, but a lot of them abuse drugs, they lack a sense of self and purpose, in some ways it's a curse as much as it is a blessing.
WHen your poor, your problems are more immediate and obvious but you also get a greater sense of satisfaction from life.

>>540995040
I think you just misunderstand what star trek tier energy generation means
unlimited electricity from using nuclear to boil water just isnt the same thing, same scale
not that it really matters since star trek is fiction, I just have a different understanding of the tier of power postulated

>>540996914
>People charge what they think they can get away with charging, not with charging what is "right" so to speak.
"Man, Economy, and State" has a few excellent chapters on price formation if you want a more detailed understanding. You're more or less right.
>So wealth redistribution would only be an act of spite, it may have some short term boosts to QoL for a lot of people but ultimately the markets will resolve themselves
Actually in the case of UBI the markets would never really properly resolve themselves, that's part of the problem. An equilibrium price would never be reached.
>So ultimately you will solve nothing and it will relatively be the same.
actually it would be far worse.
>This is more like abstract economics.
Praxeology is the word for what we're doing now.
>Even on gold standard you still had the ultra rich nobility
Yes, but on the gold standard they didn't just get handed a stack of newly printed bills and suddenly become wealthy. That wealth had to come from somewhere.
>you still had Versailles and the such, wealth that no peasant could even begin to comprehend.
Quite to the contrary, even low income Americans can now afford nearly everything the aristocrats and kings of old had, aside from servants. Even in the case of servants most of those tasks are now handled by appliances like laundry, much of the labor of cooking, and so forth. Of the things that you cannot yet simply buy an appliance for, you can typically pay to have them done for a rather reasonable rate. A modern person in the middle class is better off than any king in the pre-capitalist era.
>your problems are more immediate and obvious
This phenomenon is called time preference.

>>540997391
I just think it's all relative, so being able to afford what kings could back in the day isn't the same as being a king, because the nobility of today are the ones with private jets, mansions and so on and so forth.
Your average American also works more than the average peasant of the past, far more and still struggles to have a roof over their head.
Not to sound cheesy but at the end of the day, the rich man is the one who is content.
Was Alexander of Macedon richer than that of Diogenes? Who was more content? Who lived a more true life? There was nothing that Alexander could offer Diogenes because Diogenes wanted for nothing, meanwhile Alexander wanted the world and yet he never had it.

The Romans believed the true sign of wealth was having time for yourself, if you worked 80 hours a week like many CEOs they would see you as a lower class person, regardless of your many millions translated into Denarius.

But I feel like we're getting offtrack, the main purpose of my OP was that the goal should be to improve quality of life via a reduction in the cost of living. I see this done as becoming more self sustaining, moving away from cities and a reduction in technology. Maybe not to the extremes of Ted Kaczynski but certainly a return to a more agriculture focused society would be best.

>>540998014
>the goal should be to improve quality of life via a reduction in the cost of living
but we have to destroy the central banking cartels before this can ever become a reality
along with all their plants in the bureaucracy, adademia, media, the corporate sector
otherwise as Jackson said, with the flick of a pen, and all that

File: preferences are stable ov(...).png (400 KB, 900x1312)

400 KB PNG

>>540998014
>I just think it's all relative, so being able to afford what kings could back in the day isn't the same as being a king, because the nobility of today are the ones with private jets, mansions and so on and so forth.
So you're saying preferences are stable over time?
>Your average American also works more than the average peasant of the past
yes, that comes down to inflation. Inflation allows the state to keep people's standards of living from improving despite improvements in the means of production.
>Not to sound cheesy but at the end of the day, the rich man is the one who is content.
This is due to the Cantillon effect. Inflation does not effect all sectors equally.
>The Romans believed the true sign of wealth was having time for yourself
There was a lot less you could actually *do* with money before capitalism.
>But I feel like we're getting offtrack, the main purpose of my OP was that the goal should be to improve quality of life via a reduction in the cost of living.
Goal of who? The state? Because the state getting involved in the economy is precisely why the poor have it so much worse than the rich.
>I see this done as becoming more self sustaining, moving away from cities and a reduction in technology.
Or we could just have a return to the gold standard and Laissez-Faire capitalism. That'd improve everyone's standards of living much more quickly.

>>540991364
That's funny.
Most billionaires have 50 million in cash on hand and 950 million tied up in their businesses. So it's almost like you retarded nigger understand how it works and then fail on the last yard before the finish line because of monkey brain.

>>540998488
I'm more arguing philosophy as opposed to economic theory, the idea of being content has nothing to do with economics or even inflation, it is a mindset, which is why I brought up Diogenes who believed that the more things you own, the more enslaved you are. For instance there was another philosopher in a king's court who told Diogenes that the king admired his works and if he could learn to bow to the king he'd need not eat lentils. To which Diogenes replied that if the other philosopher could learn to be content with lentils he need not bow to the king.
>Or we could just have a return to the gold standard
I'd rather we return to an economy based on labor and not shiny rocks.
>>540998186
Or live a life they have no desire for, like the Amish who I'd say live more fulfilling lives than most and have for the most part gone unbothered by the bankers.
>>540998652
I like how you don't know how to read, granted I understand the picture may have thrown you off, but I'm against redistribution of wealth and even purport that billionaires play a role in modern society

>>540998999
>the idea of being content has nothing to do with economics or even inflation
Then why did you say that rich people are content? Do you think wealth is generated by contentedness? Because if the relationship is the other way around then it's definitely got to do with economics and therefore inflation.
>I'd rather we return to an economy based on labor and not shiny rocks.
Shiny rocks which are in relatively limited supply and therefore serve as a check on inflation, as opposed to what? Labor tokens or something? The gold standards worked, fiat currency has been a disaster. We should go back to what worked before thinking about trying new retarded ideas.

>>540999451
I didn't say that the rich are content, I said the man who is truly rich is the man who is content with what he has, be it a little or a lot. Meaning that being "rich" is a state of mind and not a state of being, but that is contrary to what most people would consider rich.
Shiny rocks serve as a way to represent labor, so shiny rocks are in fact labor tokens already.
The idea would be more that some people do certain tasks that need to be done and that a community comes together and supports one another, OR everyone does a little bit of everything.
Either system has benefits and drawbacks but the ultimate goal is to create a system that takes care of general needs that way people can spend time on things that fulfill purpose as opposed to simply sustaining life.

>>540992688
So in our society? We're already post scarcity, there's such an abundance of resources and overproduction the vast majority of consumer goods are throw away, including food.
And the overproduction itself, from megacorps, is causing whatever local issues are, the entire economic concept is a meme, food should be free already seeing how many tons are thrown away each month due to spoiling.

>>541000083
>Shiny rocks serve as a way to represent labor
No they're not. Value is subjective. I don't value my computer because I have some way of even vaguely estimating the total amount of labor that went into it, I value it because of what I can do with it. What I can do with a computer is different than what someone else can do with the same computer, and thus we value the same item differently. Exchange happens when two people value what the other person has more than what they currently have. The exchange value of currency is an array of all the things you can buy with it. The utility of "shiny rocks" is that they are in limited supply and thus the currency supply cannot be inflated, that's why they should be used as money instead of printed pieces of paper. The difficulty of making more shiny rocks is far higher than the difficulty of printing more bills with more zeroes on them.

>>541000528
look I'm in agreement that gold is better than fiat, but it's still just a representation of labor. Every bit of labor that went into gathering the components of the computer to assembling it is factored into the cost of a computer. If you want that computer then you must commit labor to something else until you earn enough tokens, fiat or gold, to purchase that item.
But if you earn tokens from labor, be they shiny rocks or paper bullshit, then they represent labor.

>>540994496
Shut up nigger

>>541001063
>but it's still just a representation of labor.
No it isn't. The LTV is retarded. Nobody considers the value of labor when they think about how much something is worth, they think about what they can get for it.
>Every bit of labor that went into gathering the components of the computer to assembling it is factored into the cost of a computer.
No it's not. If computers grew on trees they'd still hold the same value, provided they were available in the same quantities. The only difference would be that in that case the scarce means of production would be freed up to produce other things. The value of an additional unit of the same good will always be less than the value of the previous stock of goods, and thus it is the marginal utility of goods which establishes its value relative to other goods on a person's value scale. If I find a diamond on the ground somewhere, does it have less value just because it was found without much expenditure of labor instead of being mined? On the other hand, if a new process were devised to build computers with half of the labor input, the price would not fall immediately with the next computer produced, instead it would would fall as the number of computers available made it so that the value of each additional computer to buyers is lower, so they must be sold at lower prices to sell additional units.
>if you earn tokens from labor, be they shiny rocks or paper bullshit, then they represent labor.
What if I don't earn them from labor, what if I happen to shit microprocessors? I can't use all the microprocessors I shit out, so I sell them, having invested no labor aside from shitting them out, thus garnering money solely from the exchange of goods. Would all microprocessors have the same value as human feces, because they can now be produced by my asshole? The labor theory of value can be extended in all sorts of absurd ways, while the subjective theory of value can't, it always makes sense.

>>541002108
do you shit microprocessors? no, you don't, quit being nonsensical.
At the end of the day you have to put in some form of labor for x amount of hours for most people or in the case of day trading it may not be an equation but variable, but they're still doing labor.
So if I wanted a computer and worked minimum wage, we'll keep it simple and say the computer is an okay one at 800, so that 100 hours of minimum wage to buy that computer.
If people thought this way instead of the way you do, people would understand actual worth a lot more, people don't seem to realize that when they eat a 15$ mcdonaldsn movie that it's essentially 2 hours of their life that they spent on that meal, would they work 2 hours if they were given a burger instead of money at the end of it? No but they'll work that much for the equivalent in money because they don't make the connection.
All value is based on labor and nothing else.

>>541002395
>do you shit microprocessors? no, you don't, quit being nonsensical.
It's a hypothetical. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
>At the end of the day you have to put in some form of labor for x amount of hours for most people or in the case of day trading it may not be an equation but variable, but they're still doing labor.
Labor has value, but it isn't the source of value. Value doesn't come from labor.
>If people thought this way instead of the way you do, people would understand actual worth a lot more
Given that you haven't given a logical case as to why your theory of value is correct, just repeated assertions that it is, it is idiotic to just move on as if you have won this argument.
>All value is based on labor and nothing else.
This is stupid.

>>540991364
People should be more financially literate before making comments. Retards genuinely think billionaires just sit on a huge pile of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. That's not how it works. It's nominal wealth: "net worth" evaluated by calculating assets over liabilities. This is also why their wealth goes up and down sometimes overnight with the stock market. It's unmaterialized. They couldn't even cash it all out at once if they want to, because it would fuck with the money supply.