general
Discord ID: 463054787336732683
845,392 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2645/8454
| Next
:^)
If a person grows apples
And that's all they do
All they can use to pay a person for things they need
is apples.
If not everybody needs apples
The person who only trades in apples is fucked.
wat
The point of money is that a person can exchange their apples for money, and use that money to buy things from people who don't need apples.
It's a wildcard commodity.
And so long as currency is used and exchanged, a person who is willing to take those apples to another market can continue to buy apples from the person who only grows apples
and exchange those apples for more money.
The entire basis of capitalism.
that scenario is already assuming that money of some form exists
in a gift economy, or any society without money, he could just distribute the apples as needed, and be given what he wants if others won't miss it
trade economies aren't a thing, tbh
Trade Economies aren't practical
aren't a thing without money*
No, they're not.
not everyone wants apples
Exactly.
That's why currency makes a trade economy actually work
some people would die if you give them an "apple"
depends how hard you throw it
currency is also far easier to transport.
My 400 dollars in dollars
is far easier to carry around than 400 dollars of apples
Fiat Currency, at that, is only valuable so long as people are willing to accept it.
well
It's entirely confidence based.
Gold should back all currency
In theory it does, it's just not a share of a stockpile of gold.
Tim recently made a video about a David Graeber tweet
I do think abandoning the Gold Standard was a bad idea.
he wrote a book about Debt, and how money came to be
worth reading
Having the dollar be worth a fixed portion of a vault of treasure
Anyway, to the point I was getting to
As far as 'super rich people' go
wasn't the gold standard abandoned because of the great depression?
no
it was abandoned because Tricky Dick said so
Being overly concerned about the rich is like being overly concerned about people who are too successful at farming apples.
<:thonk:432992056214945818>
You can ask yourself why does someone need a silo full of apples, sure...
I just ask why I should care about someone else's silo full of apples.
well nobody needs a silo full of apples, but that doesn't change that he did the work to make that silo full of apples
Basically, this.
Damn. I could really go for some freeze dried apples now. Fuck those things are good.
afaic, if you're in a community you should be expected to contribute
you're using their land and trees, picking the apples shouldn't allow you to hoard them away from others
Who says it's their trees and their land?
Rich people are not a concern if:
- They don't hoard wealth and let it sit in their account
- They don't use the funds to play God
- They don't try to eliminate competition in dirty ways
Hoarding Wealth isn't a problem.Using their funds to play god, as you put it, is only a problem with a complacent population....
what does the second point refer to?
And Yes, I am opposed to corporate protectionism.
Hoarding is a problem. If the funds do not participate in economy they screw up the value of the currency
If company A has been selling widgets for 20 years
and Company B starts selling widgets cheaper, Company A should have to compete with Company B.
if only govs would plug all loopholes allowing heavy tax optimizations (like the google does) they wouldn't have to specifically tax rich ๐
Or they can buy 51% of their stocks, and then just shut the competition down
Also disgusting.
But, of course, that's only a problem if the stocks trade publicly.
If it's privately held, you can guard against that.
or just phone the guys at the other company and agree to stay above a certain price
or advertise your products so differently that consumers can't compare properly
There is a myriad ways to undercut a startup with a big wealth
The main point I think is that we regulate wrong.
Our regulations are set to make it harder to compete
not to make it harder to monopolize.
then there's also sectors where infrastructure costs create natural monopolies (broadband, utilities)
Corporatism favors the big companies. Capitalism creates a more even playing field.
Any industry should be disruptable.
<:thonkraka:430185885720510475>
Perhaps disallowing corporations to own intellectual property might help.
Specifically what comes to mind is the pharmaceutical industry.
IP is such a silly concept
owning ideas or concepts makes no sense
Part of the corruption in that field is that it's prohibitively expensive to compete, regardless of how easy a drug is to manufacture.
I can kind of get it for creative purposes
State should also do the kind of "baseline regulation" in some cases, i.e. offer the services at the low (but fair) price so that there would be a baseline and jacking prices up would be not viable for the private sector (unless they can offer some excellent addition that is worth more)
i get the argument that creators deserve credit
but that's not how IP law is structured
This sort of "soft regulation" works much better than any legislation does
I'm not so sure it would.
It lets market do its thing, but sets a limit
The State should not be competing in the market.
why not?
The state should be far more passive than it is.
if they can offer the same or better service at lower price, surely that's good
if the state is passive, it'll simply lose to the competition
@shinsoo Patent and copyright is just abused and misused. Does not mean those types of protections should not exist.
<:shrug_raka:430185885988945921>
The problem is patent trolling.
true, it just means they shouldn't exist as they do now
but the very idea of owning a non-physical concept sits badly with me
THere's probably plenty of advancements that have been stymied because someone somewhere holds a patent and wants their money for vaguely describing something someone else did the work for.
The thing is: state can afford to lose. Even if their offer is not the best, the mere existence of it would prevent the olygopoly or price damping
The Free Market has shown us in the past that if there is a cheaper way to do something, someone will come in to disrupt the market.
also it can provide the service where business considers it unprofitable
free market lol
The state isn't needed for that process.
In fact, the state should step out of the way of that process.
Patent trolls like Edison will always find a way to abuse the system. The real inventors still deserve to get paid.
845,392 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2645/8454
| Next