How much of it? The world’s largest and most famous billionaires don’t even make up a rounding error in the world’s economy (hell, most countries blow Musk’s entire fortune annually on the dumbest conceivable shit), nor is their money ‘removed’ from it. Hell, the richest people in the world have the vast majority of their wealth tied up in their own company’s stocks, which by definition is money that’s playing an active role in the economy.
Like seriously dude, there’s good reasons to hate billionaires and the current state of the global economy, but at least come up with valid arguments and criticisms that can convince people; otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air that only serves to paint legitimate critics as crazy people.
If all the money is going to singular people who cannot possibly spend it rather than to wage increases for workers and middle managers who can, then it is hurting the economy. Fiat currencies gain their value through the flow of money, not the stagnation of it. It’s not complicated.
This entire fucking system is only 42 years old, and all the failures of it have become apparent in that time. There is no defense of it. We had proven in the decades before Reagan that economies grew when everyone could participate and economic power was not so outlandishly stratified. The only other difference between then and now was that blacks had no economic power at all then; today they are an entire economic demographic that could potentially contribute to the wealth of society as a whole.
Wealth hoarding is BAD. It is a BAD BAD THING. It is INDEFENSIBLE because it is a VERY BAD THING. Giving free things to rich people and charging everyone else is MORALLY WRONG. Doing favors for people because they are wealthy is MORALLY WRONG. Giving tax breaks to people who do not need them and do nothing with them is BAD ECONOMIC POLICY. This is a proven fact. It is not up for debate. The results are in.
Okay then how about the hoarding of wealth which removes money from the economy?
How much of it? The world’s largest and most famous billionaires don’t even make up a rounding error in the world’s economy (hell, most countries blow Musk’s entire fortune annually on the dumbest conceivable shit), nor is their money ‘removed’ from it. Hell, the richest people in the world have the vast majority of their wealth tied up in their own company’s stocks, which by definition is money that’s playing an active role in the economy.
Like seriously dude, there’s good reasons to hate billionaires and the current state of the global economy, but at least come up with valid arguments and criticisms that can convince people; otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air that only serves to paint legitimate critics as crazy people.
If all the money is going to singular people who cannot possibly spend it rather than to wage increases for workers and middle managers who can, then it is hurting the economy. Fiat currencies gain their value through the flow of money, not the stagnation of it. It’s not complicated.
This entire fucking system is only 42 years old, and all the failures of it have become apparent in that time. There is no defense of it. We had proven in the decades before Reagan that economies grew when everyone could participate and economic power was not so outlandishly stratified. The only other difference between then and now was that blacks had no economic power at all then; today they are an entire economic demographic that could potentially contribute to the wealth of society as a whole.
Wealth hoarding is BAD. It is a BAD BAD THING. It is INDEFENSIBLE because it is a VERY BAD THING. Giving free things to rich people and charging everyone else is MORALLY WRONG. Doing favors for people because they are wealthy is MORALLY WRONG. Giving tax breaks to people who do not need them and do nothing with them is BAD ECONOMIC POLICY. This is a proven fact. It is not up for debate. The results are in.