**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Person A's behavior is productive for society.

Person A's behavior is exactly the same as Person B's; they don't produce a fucking thing. The only difference is the former won the lottery in terms of inheritance.

[wufwugy]

Person A's behavior is exactly the same as Person B's; they don't produce a fucking thing. The only difference is the former won the lottery in terms of inheritance.

Person A produces a ton just by existing. The wealth the person's parents created is real, and the proceeds Person A possesses represent that real wealth. That real wealth is mostly being used as capital in financial markets to fund others' productive endeavors.

Person B* is diminishing the amount of real wealth in the economy by merely consuming (this reduces supply of resources) by using others' real wealth that would otherwise be more productive. Furthermore, a society in which the Person A situation is discouraged and the Person B situation is encouraged is one that significantly incentivizes not developing wealth and not being productive.

*More specifically, the diminishing of real wealth is coming from the government policy that takes from Persons A-Z and redistributes in an unproductive manner.

[Poopadoop]

Person A produces a ton just by existing. The wealth the person's parents created is real, and the proceeds Person A possesses represent that real wealth. That real wealth is mostly being used as capital in financial markets to fund others' productive endeavors.

Person B* is diminishing the amount of real wealth in the economy by merely consuming (this reduces supply of resources) by using others' real wealth that would otherwise be more productive. Furthermore, a society in which the Person A situation is discouraged and the Person B situation is encouraged is one that significantly incentivizes not developing wealth and not being productive.

*More specifically, the diminishing of real wealth is coming from the government policy that takes from Persons A-Z and redistributes in an unproductive manner.

So someone who wins the lottery and does no other work the rest of their life is a contributing member of the economy just by sheer luck? Gtfo.

[Poopadoop]

If you all need to have to make a substantial contribution to the economy is a lot of money we could just give every homeless person $10m and let them blossom.

[wufwugy]

So someone who wins the lottery and does no other work the rest of their life is a contributing member of the economy just by sheer luck? Gtfo.

It should be noted that the existence of lottery isn't necessarily contributory to the economy (it could be, but not in any direct way anybody knows much about). But that's a different topic.

[wufwugy]

If you all need to have to make a substantial contribution to the economy is a lot of money we could just give every homeless person $10m and let them blossom.

Are you trying to understand my point?

[Poopadoop]

Are you trying to understand my point?

You said that Person A is contributing by just existing, which I interpret to mean that anyone can contribute by spending money regardless of whether they earned it or not, as this was the case for both Persons A and B.

My argument is that Person A is doing no more or less than Person B in directly producing no goods or services for the economy; the only contribution they make is by buying things. And if that were the only requirement for contributing to the economy then Person B must have the same effect, albeit to a lesser extent.

[wufwugy]

You said that Person A is contributing by just existing, which I interpret to mean that anyone can contribute by spending money regardless of whether they earned it or not, as this was the case for both Persons A and B.

My argument is that Person A is doing no more or less than Person B in directly producing no goods or services for the economy; the only contribution they make is by buying things. And if that were the only requirement for contributing to the economy then Person B must have the same effect, albeit to a lesser extent.

Person A's contribution by existing is due to his wealth being real. Your proposal is nominal and some other stuff. If Person A has 10m of real wealth sitting in a bank, it's doing good for the economy. Its most notable impact is probably that it acts as investment capital. If instead it's all consumed, well that's fine too because it's real. In your proposal, the change in income is not real; instead it's inflation. It won't boost the real economy and the situation includes some other stuff that is not good.

[wufwugy]

So someone who wins the lottery and does no other work the rest of their life is a contributing member of the economy just by sheer luck? Gtfo.

What do you suppose the proceeds do?