I get what you say -- hoarded wealth is essentially idle. But I think there's more to it. The people who hold that wealth prefer to live in one country, and have inflicted themselves on the governance of that country.

> hoarded wealth is essentially idle

This is, I think, a blind spot for most people. Hoarded wealth isn't idle at all.

At the _very least_ it accrues interest (and compounds!) and grows!

Indeed, and if it's hoarded in the form of land, then the land definitely accrues political power.

> I get what you say -- hoarded wealth is essentially idle.

I'm not talking at all about wealth being idle in my previous comment. My point is entirely that the more money the rich have, the less money the poor have.

What you're bringing up is how the wealthy use their money to change their political environment to benefit themselves. This is also a problem, but is parallel to the point I was making.

> My point is entirely that the more money the rich have, the less money the poor have.

I'm curious how Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/Netflix/etc have transferred money out of your bank account to their hoards.

Personally, I've transferred money to them, but only for things I wanted to buy from them and thought was worth the money.

You are replying to every single comment - you seem really upset about this. I never said anything was stolen from me. I said wealth inequality is the result of rich people holding money, because by definition there can be no wealth inequality without rich people. It's an objective statement and you're projecting so much political vitriol onto it.

I'm not upset at all. My question to you was a fair one.

You did say "less" money for the poor. That implies the wealth is being transferred from them.

> by definition there can be no wealth inequality without rich people

That doesn't all mean they are "holding" money. Money is not the same thing as wealth. Personally, I don't have any money other than pocket change.

> you're projecting so much political vitriol onto it.

Am I? I thought my statements were objective facts, and not at all political.

> That doesn't all mean they are "holding" money. Money is not the same thing as wealth. Personally, I don't have any money other than pocket change.

I'm using money and wealth interchangeably here because there is no meaningful distinction in this context. I cannot take you seriously when you keep bringing up irrelevant things. It's obvious you don't understand my point. And I've had enough arguments with you on this site over the years to know it's a waste of my time to engage with you more than I already have.

The dictionary defines "hoard" as: "a stock or store of money or valued objects, typically one that is secret or carefully guarded."

An investment in a company is not a "hoard".

You're free to make up your own definitions of words, but it doesn't work to expect others to adhere to them.

> it's a waste of my time to engage with you

I'm definitely the wrong person if you want to only engage with people who agree with you.

I love people that disagree with me because I love learning things. You're just the embodiment of everything I hate about techies.

It would be absurd to expect to change anyone's core beliefs with a couple of HN posts.

I'm satisfied just letting you know there is a case for free markets. I also admit that it is not an easy thing to understand. How can a chaotic system possibly work?

> It would be absurd to expect to change anyone's core beliefs with a couple of HN posts.

I 100% agree.

> I'm satisfied just letting you know there is a case for free markets.

I'm a big believer in free markets. You just cannot stop projecting your assumptions onto me. I've clarified my point multiple times already so I'm not going to bother repeating myself again. I think we can both agree it's okay to be misunderstood by people on the internet.

> How can a chaotic system possibly work?

For a given definition, it doesn't. At least, not without vastly understating the gov's role (some might say responsibility) to step in and monopoly bust, regulate strategically important sectors of the economy, and generally try to provide human-scale stability to a system that tends to want to burn itself and polite society down more than a caffeinated toddler with an outlet, a fork, and a dream.

That's debatable. The US economy grew spectacularly in its first century, pulling scores of millions of poor people up into the middle class and beyond.

Regulation along the lines of enforcing contracts, protecting rights, and internalizing exernalities are the proper role of government.

Governments have never managed to make economies stable.

Anything's debatable. The question is whether or not what you've chosen to defend is more or less substantial than a wet fart in a hurricane.

Pre-industrial growth that was driven largely by settler colonialism does not make for a useful economic model since we're unlikely to find any new continents any time soon. To say nothing of the horrors inflicted on native populations, but I suspect that's not a group you'd be too sympathetic towards.

I would recommend you stop confusing your own willful ignorance with lack of evidence. You could take a cursory look at the wikipedia page on Australia's response to the GFC as a case study in government doing it's actual job, instead of this fantasy of auto-regulation via free market competition. You can have a bit of both and reap outsized benefits as has been the case for every great to super power sunce the dissolution of the USSR.

> "I'm satisfied just letting you know there is a case for free markets."

There's no such thing as "free markets", it's A. Smith's BS.

> "I also admit that it is not an easy thing to understand. How can a chaotic system possibly work?"

A chaotic system cannot work for any meaningful stretch of time. Moreover, we don't have a chaotic system, actually it's a system under finely tuned control: Biden placed 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, helping Tesla. Trump added more tariffs on China, exempted Tesla... Truly a chaotic coincidence /s

> the wealthy holding the money means less money to go around to everyone else

Wealthy entrepreneuers created their wealth, it was not transferred to them. It does not reduce the amount of money elsewhere.

The wealthy do not "hoard" wealth, either. They invest it. All of it. Even checking accounts are not hoarded wealth, because the money you put in it is loaned out by the bank (less the reserve requirements).

This is largely debatable and hard to measure. The thing about creation is that it's not black or white, it's gray.

Everything relies on thousands of other things. Products and services are huge graphs that nobody truly understands and that span hundreds of years. How much is created, and how much is reused? Hard to say.

At least some of the money is taken via exploitation. For example, if you opt to outsource product X to some third-world country and you drop labor cost 10%, and that in turn grows your company, you did not "create" that growth. You systematically stole it.

Another example we see a lot today is cutting quality. A lot of goods today are produced more efficiently, but not as much as you may think, because some of the productivity gains is simply pseudo-monopolies using their market dominance to cut quality without recourse. It's just human nature that we can't perceive a, say, 1% cut in quality. But if you cut 1% every year for half a century, then congratulations, you "created" a bunch of wealth. But you didn't actually create anything.

Offering jobs to people who don't have jobs is not theft, and a voluntary exchange is not theft, either.

Pointing a gun at someone to get them to work is theft. Putting your name on a contract or your brains is also theft.

Choice isn't binary, it's a continuous distribution. There's not "free choice" and then "gun to head".

Work, especially for vulnerable, exploited populations, is not voluntary. Particularly when we talk about pseudo-slavery tactics used on migrant workers or other vulnerable populations.

There's a reason companies will often progressively move down to poorer, more vulnerable populations for their labor. Those people are much easier to exploit. We even see this in the US, to an extent. Tyson recently had a debacle where they threatened their (knowingly undocumented) workers with ICE if they attempted to unionize. To call this "voluntary" is willfully ignorant, at best.

It's remarkable that even on HN so many people believe that economics is a zero sum game.

It obviously to a non-insignificant extent. Only the proportion is debatable.

Some items absolutely are zero sum - anything that is in short supply with a high demand becomes unobtainable for anyone who isn't rich.

Some things that are effectively out of reach for at least half of everyone:

  Mansions and Luxury Condos in desirable locations
  Private Jet
  Private Island
  The best quality food
  2021 Ferrari 812 GTS
  The best legal advice
  A favor from a US Senator

These things are effectively zero-sum, only a limited number of people can have them and we can't expand the supply very much (or intentionally don't because that would hurt their exclusivity value).

The wealthy aren't exactly hoarding the money under their bed. They buy treasuries and bonds so the money get used elsewhere in the economy to do something.

The federal government's credit card is funded by the saving of the rich, which allowed us to run up huge debt.

The vast inequality you seen is the result of undertaxation of monopolies and deliberate granting of monopolies. Disney wouldn't be as big if copyright actually expire some 20 years after the fact.

Anyway, the billionaire are less relevant to you than the average homeowner next door. They are the one who hold further infill development hostage and are inimical to anyone who would depress the value of their home.

High housing prices are the result of a housing shortage. The shortage is the result of government zoning, regulation, and slow-walking building permits.

(Apparently California has only issued 4 permits so far for people to rebuild after the fires.)

Which worth comparing to Texas where building is allowed.

Texas's population has also gone from ~20M in 2000 to ~30M today.

With no zoning a place like Houston has shown what can be done by encouraging building.

Austin recently has also done well with allowing more building.

Luxuries are cheap and getting cheaper. Basic necessities like housing are increasingly expensive. That's where most of the inequality is being felt by people.

That's why we're in this predicament.

If the wealthy held their wealth in money then there would be no problem. The problem arises because the wealthy hold their wealth in assets, the most productive of which become hoarded in fewer and fewer silos. Since the assets are desireable and increasing in scarcity their asking price increases. Since this price is paid in money, the value of money falls. This would be fine except that most normal people do hold most of their wealth in money so this reduction in buying power makes them poorer.

This split is particularly difficult to address because money is easy to tax (redistribute) while assets that may or may not be for sale at some arbitrary asking price are a lot harder to break up in this way.

Ultimately, to attempt to extract and redistribute this sort of ethereal wealth requires unpopular adjustments to long-held values of personal freedom and ownership that make the whole system possible in the first place.

The problem may in fact be insoluble sustainably. Most of human history provides examples of extreme wealth inequality.