**** Elections thread *****

[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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

My point is that the money is only tied to him through his good fortune.

If Ong found $10m on the beach while looking for washed up coke shipments, or, found a winning $10m lottery ticket, or, found out a long lost relative had bequeathed him $10m, then according to your argument he'd be the same as Person A - i.e., he'd be contributing to the economy just by possessing the money. Then suddenly he'd be getting instant respect. Surely you see how this doesn't make sense.

[wufwugy]

My point is that the money is only tied to him through his good fortune.

If Ong found $10m on the beach while looking for washed up coke shipments, or, found a winning $10m lottery ticket, or, found out a long lost relative had bequeathed him $10m, then according to your argument he'd be the same as Person A - i.e., he'd be contributing to the economy just by possessing the money. Then suddenly he'd be getting instant respect. Surely you see how this doesn't make sense.

It's not so much he who is contributing to the economy, but the capital. Since he is the one who has it, his behavior of letting it sit in the bank is contributory to the economy. There are things he could do that would be more contributory and things he could do that would be negative. Somebody who has money can sit on it and he is contributing more to the economy than somebody who is given money for the purpose of sitting on it.

[Poopadoop]

It's not so much he who is contributing to the economy, but the capital.

ok, then let's go back to my original question:

Person A does nothing but has lots of money. Person B does nothing but has little money. Why are people indignant about Person B and not A? Morally, they are equivalent.