If you’re going to be the richest man in the world, ya need time to spend it. 
4 Likes
We have had this conversation before. There is free money in the crypto world.
And why not?
States print money from thin air. Why can’t ordinary people print money from thin air as well?
It’s just that our money from thin air is better money than that of the states, because we have reached a consensus on what rules it is fair to print this money from thin air.
I remind you that there is no such thing as money in the universe. The money is only in our heads. Here are some of the projects that have created free money from thin air that I have personally benefited from: UniSwap, 1inch, TornadoCash, GitCoin.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
1 Like
At least Elon is spending his riches, some will cause future returns and some/majority to progress mankind to go beyond this planet. Apparently (I have not checked it out) Richard Heart is using his money to benefit mankind live longer. Others like Bezos is spending money to make even more riches and any benefit to mankind is incidental.
I have no problem with how any rich person spends his/her money, as long as it is earned, and not stolen. I like Heart, and his unabashed transparency. Found a way to legally game the system. Not many can do it. More power to him.
Of course, I have a lot of respect for those who share their wealth, but I don’t begrudge those who don’t.
3 Likes
Basically agree. My issue is with the old system allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.
From that I admire those wealthy people who are actually using their wealth that benefits a large number of people and sees the wealth circulate rather than stagnate as happens with a lot of the wealthy. They only spend money in things that remove more money from people.
I know its more complex than that but still I admire those spending their money in ways that benefit people in general and progresses mankind forward.
3 Likes
Ultimately without progressive taxation that will always be the case because r>g (returns on capital have surpassed returns on labor consistently for 100 years).
Edit: returns on labor being represented by economic growth, generally it follows to the decile of a percent.
4 Likes
While I agree that capital can be invested to return more capital, I don’t see it as the primary cause of poverty in the modern era. It can describe why some get very rich, but it doesn’t describe how the poor stay so close to poverty.
The issue is that of rent seeking. Using capital with the backing of the state regulation, to create monopolies is what kills the poor.
Rich folks ordering Ferraris and Lambos actually gives labour value. However, rich folks buying up land and property, then forcing the poor to hand over any surplus in rent removes any gains achieved.
When it is the state that facilitates this, while failing to usefully understand or oppose it, more tax isn’t going to fix it.
6 Likes
Yes, it is the government policy preference for large corporations (usually as a result of lobbying) that is the crux of the problem. Government should always favor individuals and small entities over large ones. In the US our anti-trust laws barely get exercised anymore. Blackrock outbidding people to buy up individual homes and charge exorbitant rent should never be allowed to happen.
Wholesale government spending/handouts rarely help the poor and even with higher and more progressive taxes nearly always help the rich and well-connected. This is the insidious effect of the hidden inflation tax, which the poor are least able to pay. Which is also why there is no such thing, in real terms, as “free money”.
You speak heresy. That’s the American way
Wealth inequality is at the basis of the stagnation of the global middle class (us bar all those with 1000 btc in their wallets 
). The Global poor have somewhat benefited from return-centric economy because their labor has fueled it for 40 years now.
As to why taxation is ultimately necessary, it won’t matter if we all give up on Fiat if Elon and Cathie Woods own 20% of the currency, be it BTC or ETH, they can continue accumulating with ROI while incomes in that currency reduce due to deflation. There’s no way to prevent that monopolization without a tax on wealth.
If Elon doesn’t spend any of his billions, does it make the rest of us poorer? No. If Elon spends his billions on stuff we make, does it make the rest of us poorer? No, it actually does the reverse.
The way the wealth is spent is critical for whether it lifts or crushes the poor.
If his wealth was taken from him by the state, would that mean it was spent to support the poor? It depends. If his wealth was taken by another organisation, would that mean it would support the poor? It also depends.
Just ‘tax the rich more’ doesn’t really solve much. It may well just cycle back into their hands with some dead weight losses if not done well. Given state services don’t tend to be subject to supply and demand like regular organisations, there is a higher chance it won’t be spent well too.
Given the state is at the centre of most monopolies, indeed often the cause of them, perhaps this would be a better place to start? Perhaps even breaking the state itself into smaller, voluntary organisations, would be a goal to strive for too.
4 Likes
Depends on which country since we still live in a world of nation-states, if you’re talking China then breaking up the state is the priority, if you’re talking about the US, government is the least of your worries, as someone pointed out above, it actually consistently fails to reign in their real bosses (ie. Those who fund their campaigns). Imo, it’s more nuanced than “government bad, elon good, doge to the moon”.
No, no nothing to do with the bankers tribe, nothing at all. It’s all that nasty “state”.
3 Likes
Unfortunately the bankers are the state now 
1 Like
Well thats what we get for allowing them to control banking, media , finance.
But musn’t complain or accuse, that would be downright nasty and anti-semitic.
The state insists that fiat money is legal tender and accept bank credit as payment. Without the state banking, centraling banking and so forth, they couldn’t get away with it.
For an apt comparison, it would be like leaving your crypto on an exchange. Not your keys, not your crypto. No need for fancy stage backed insurance, too big to fail, etc.
Of course, that is why both the state and their banker pals don’t like crypto. The current system is very lucrative and great for controlling folks. It won’t last though…
The bankers control the state. Your constant railing against the “state” is reminiscent of a first-year Economics students who have just been told about libertarianism.
Lazy right-wing thinking, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but at least the ignorant Yankee lovers of Freedumb will clap along enthusiastically.
1 Like
The fact that the bankers control the state is one of the many reasons why it doesn’t work well. I don’t appreciate the condescending tone either, tbh.
Having a special non-voluntary organisation at the centre of society is archaic. There are so many better, distributed, ways of organising and freely associating to get results.
It is why technologies like bitcoin and safe network appeal. They aren’t just assuming that trusting centralised bohemoths is the only way it can be done. They attempt to prove otherwise, whether those powerful influences appreciate it or not.
It isn’t so much about throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is about considering whether there is too much water in the bath, whether the baby is thriving and whether a shower may be better anyway. There is no need to assume an all or nothing position, just because I don’t think the state and taxation is the fix to all ills.
3 Likes
Yes, excellent point. I was thinking the “Western World” where it is the large corps, etc. that need breaking up. China seems to be the opposite, where the real centralized power is the government.
1 Like
Careful here as I don’t think we have a common language. In the US most “right wingers” and “Yankees” (I am one since I’m from New England) and libertarian “freedom lovers” absolutely do NOT want fascistic control of our lives by big corporations. It is government’s job to bust monopolies and break up companies when they get too big, not to take that sweet lobbying money and do their bidding. I think we talk at cross-purposes at times because some political terms mean different things on different sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific). What we call “RINOs” (Republican In Name Only) definitely matches your definition of “right wingers”. Those people want big government too, just less social freedom and lots of money for the military-industrial complex. They’re total hypocrites. They should have let the big banks fail back in 2008. What gets even harder to follow is that our “left” in the US has now become that group where big pharma money (plus mil-industrial money) is their life blood. So I think we actually all agree quite a bit on most things just that the MSM and politicians have played language games so long it’s hard for us to talk about these things without inadvertently stepping on language “land mines” like “socialism” and “capitalism” and “left” and “right”. None of these are absolutes, mean different things to different people, and are used as clubs to win debates. I don’t believe anyone on this thread wants the CEO’s of Moderna and Pfizer to be in control of the world’s medical policy as they currently are. I have to believe we are just trying to decide whether big business or government is more to blame. My answer to that is simply, “yes”. What the correct policy decisions are is an entirely different discussion than who gets to make them.
6 Likes