tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post1766635542190302412..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Irony lost on OxfamPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-37703815240633010002017-01-23T09:54:27.715+13:002017-01-23T09:54:27.715+13:00Except the world is not a meritocracy Mark. There ...Except the world is not a meritocracy Mark. There are no doubt millions of poor Chinese and Indians, for example, who would have done a far better job managing Fred Trump's empire than Donald.Barrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-27020162058337978452017-01-22T10:42:15.577+13:002017-01-22T10:42:15.577+13:00The above makes the point that the wealthy general...The above makes the point that the wealthy generally deserve their wealth (which is certainly true), but I think the major flaw in Oxfam's thinking is not processing the fact that the vast majority of the wealth described is productive assets, not objects of personal consumption. Even if one accepted the morality of wealth redistribution, how could it possibly benefit the poor to take control of productive assets out of the hands of those who can run them the best, and put them in the hands of those less able?MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-53002133937597176032017-01-22T06:21:53.081+13:002017-01-22T06:21:53.081+13:00To expand on this: money is a tool of trade. Regar...To expand on this: money is a tool of trade. Regardless kof its form, the value of money must be equal to the value of goods available, because money as such derives its value from the existence of unconsumed goods. Thus, producing more money necessarily must devalue existing money. This is not a huge issue with real money, such as precious metals, since the discovery of such metals inherently produces more goods (the metals)--the metal is valuable in itself, and therefore mitigates the inflation. There still is some (see CA in 1849), but it is relatively short-lived. Fiat currency, not being inherently valuable, does not contribute to the available pool of unconsumed goods, and therefore does not recover. Dinwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06138006602385020048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14209011918989959142017-01-19T22:09:46.025+13:002017-01-19T22:09:46.025+13:00My view is that much of the wealth inequality toda...My view is that much of the wealth inequality today is a consequence of the nature of our monetary system ...and the debasement of money, which is the result of largely unfettered credit growth.<br />In NZ... 1985 M3 money was $85 billion ...today it is 280 billion <br /><br />CPI inflation does not measure the effect of this tidal wave of money .<br />Does not measure how it might manifest in and flow thru an economy and does not measure how it might result in a transfer of wealth and the division of wealth..<br /><br />eg.. Imagine that a counterfeiter might print money and spend into a local village economy and appropriate assets... there is a seemingly real wealth effect thru the whole village early on and then over time...an increasing division of wealth<br /> ie. in money debasement there are winners and losers.<br /> ie.. As a general principle every new dollar created devalues every existing dollar already in existence.. ( I say this to make the point that expanding the money supply is essentially a wealth transfer mechanism )roelofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09477578372828055473noreply@blogger.com