No it isn't. Money is lent through the banking system based on qualified borrowers. When people don't have incomes they are less qualified, when businesses lose money, they demand less credit. Basic banking information here. Why do you think right now banks aren't lending money out to anyone who wants it like you make it out to be. Bottom line is there is a fixed money supply at any given point in time. Thanks for stating the obvious. What? If there is $10 million in demand deposits/currency held by the public (whether it come from banks via loans or Govt via spending) and you own $1 million of those. You own 10% of the available money supply. The rest of the people own 90%. This is just basic math my friend. I suggest going back to elementary school and working your way up again because there is something you missed.
The FED increases "A" money supply. They do not increase OUR money supply as in they do not give you or I or anyone in the private sector money to spend. Trust me, I know more about the Fed and the banking system then anyone on this forum. And this is basic economics. Look up the GINI index, we have the disparity of wealth that is present in 3rd world countries. And the reason it is bad to have such a large disparity is because the peons have less available money to purchase the producers goods. So the producers then look for ways to cut cost, like lowering the minimum wage, lowering taxes, getting rid of regulations, etc. That is how plutocracies work. You guys must never have taken a history class. Some of you think the economy just runs based off magic.
This is nonsense, you are claiming the amount of currency is fixed because there are only so many qualified borrowers. That bit of tortured logic is predicated on an assumption that there is a fixed amount of qualified borrowers as well. I'm starting to think you don't understand what the word 'fixed' means, you are confusing the word 'fixed' with the word 'finite'. Give it up, you're wrong.
If you borrow it and have it you haven't spent it, so the economy hasn't shown any effects of an increase in $1,000,000. The second you spend it, is when the economy starts fighting for it. And if 60% of that $1,000,000 goes to the top 1% and 40% goes to the bottom 99% in the form of incomes/profit, then you can start determining how much money for every $1 spent is being accumulated by the top 1%. If that number continues to rise then it is safe to say that the top 1% is taking more from the economy than they were before. This means the bottom 99% is taking less. Like I said, this is simple mathematics and plenty of economists talk about the disparity of wealth and it's effects on the economy.
So the 99% are now $400,000 richer than they were before? And that money was created from nothing? Interesting.
And if none of the top 1% has debt to pay off the bottom 99% owe $600,000 more than before... interesting.
Yeah, the poor just keep getting poorer and poorer. That's why we all still live in mud huts and die of yellow fever, it's not like the biggest problem facing the poor is obesity and they don't all have smart phones. Man, I think you have kool-aid poisoning.
I just deal with economics man. I don't care about your class warfare bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I make more than enough money and have been spoiled enough my entire life to really just not care how much money someone has. BUT, in the real world, these kind of things have severe consequences to the economy. When too much of the money/wealth is accumulated in very few hands the rest of the people have much less in which to transact. It's just basic math bro.
No the economy runs on the ability of its people to innovate and create new forms of products that people want. Part of the reason that greed is a good is that greedy people create demand for the new stuff that smart people invent. If people weren't greedy, even if Steve jobs thinks up the Mac, no one would pay to have them built because wanting a better computer is greedy (and trying to sell computers to people who want to buy them is double greedy -- selling to greedy people). So the technology would still be such that a computer would be something that takes up a whole rooms and run on punch cards. As for cutting costs, it's a matter of effieciency not greed. If I can make a product for less, I can sell it for less. And if I can sell it for less, I can sell more, because greedy people like to keep their money. This is why your low end laptop which has more power than the space shuttle costs $500.
But it's not, because that isn't true. The wealth of one individual has nothing to do with the purchasing power of another. Because we just create more wealth. And if one individual 'hoards' $1 million and there is a need for more cash, we just create more money. The only thing limiting the purchasing power of the 99% is the the value of their labor. You are just peddling class warfare tripe.
Basic math fundamentals? 15 + 35 is 50???. Tough one! History??? lol How about this basic economics fundamental - the available amount of goods and services (the pie) is NOT a static quantity! What is gained by one person is not necessarily at the expense of everyone else. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an increasing standard of living, and that's obviously not the case. There would only be stagnation with no change in productivity or GDP. The reason that even America's poor lived better than Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea's middle class (if you could find any such thing in those economic wastelands), was our productivity was increasing by leaps and bounds, as was the quantity of available goods and services and the efficiency by which resources were allocated by market prices. Read an economics book (preferably by someone other than Marx)!
Now you are at least getting closer to real economics!! I commend you on that. So what is the value of their labor and why does their value increase/decrease? Maybe the light bulbs will start going off for ya!!
You keep talking about goods and services. I'm talking about money. Learn the difference then come back and talk like a grown up.
If you can figure out how the wealthy got so wealthy in the first place, then maybe you can understand what I'm talking about.
Let's see, how did someone like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates get to be so wealthy... Clearly, they just made us all poorer.
Wait, I think I figured out a great way to point out how stupid the progressive class warfare fallacy is. "Progressive ecnomic theory: If we had more innovators like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, we'd all be poorer". You know when you boil that train of thought down to its base elements of dumb, it's a wonder how they get so many to buy into their tripe. I suppose it's easier when you just scapegoat the faceless greedy rich. People can just imagine the sort of villians you see in the movies.
People can live in mud huts too. You are probably not old enough to remember the days prior to a graphical interface, so I'm not going to bother explaining. Right, because you aren't claiming that people get rich by making others poor. Oh wait, you have this entire thread.
No, because I now have something I value more than the money I previously held. I'm actually richer. Let me ask you something, if I buy a mansion for $1 am I poorer or richer?
You'll simply never get it unless I spell it out for you. I was trying to get you to figure out yourself but I don't have an endless amount of time in my life. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became wealthy because people had something to give them in return... aka money. The more people who had money willing to give them the more jobs they needed to create in order to produce the goods that people wanted to buy. As Bill Gates and Steve Jobs collects more and more of our money we have less and less unless in the macro economy all the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs gives the money back in terms of labor or purchasing their own goods/services. Eventually as they keep more and more of every dollar created, we have less and less to give them. Which is why you have couple billionaires and 100s of millions of people that are poor, out of work and underemployed. With out the Government spending $4 trillion in to the economy every year, the peons would be impoverished. There is nothing good that comes out of too much money in too few hands because they no longer have any incentive to produce until they can get something in return. Simple math can explain how this works and it has nothing to do with class warfare. Just simple math.
