Wealth is infinite, our capacity to generate it is limited.
Then talking about infinite wealth in the context of the actual world we live in is fucking stupid!
Almost as stupid as comparing the study of economics, a soft science, to physics.
You have a fundamentally flawed view of what wealth is. Well isn’t a thing. It’s not like there’s a limited amount of wealthonium in the world and whoever holds it gets it and nobody else does. That’s not how it works.
Wealth is created through activity. Without the activity there is no wealth. Therefore the supply of wealth is endless, the problems usually come with limits or issues with the activity
This is silly. Wealth is not zero sum, but it’s also not infinite. The reality is, Canada’s economy will grow (assuming no recession) 0-3% in any given year, maybe 4-5% if it’s a real barn burner of a year. If the top wealth bracket’s wealth grows at a rate larger than that, it’s because they are taking resources from the rest of us who’s wealth did not grow at that rate.
So yes, increasing wealth inequality is the issue. Neoclassical economics might as well be astrology for all dumb assumptions it makes.
Wealth inequality is something that people that don’t understand how money works talk about. Whether or not someone else is richer than you has nothing to do with how rich you are. It’s not a measure that has any particular value.
Absolutely insane, ridiculous thing to believe. Obviously increasing wealth inequality matters a lot because it allows for those holding onto large amounts of wealth to outcompete greater and greater swathes of the population for resources. Which they are clearly doing as the average person’s purchasing power goes down. Pretending like it doesn’t matter is the most obvious propaganda from those benefiting from the status quo that one wonders how anyone could fall for it.
And reactionary politics absolutely follows from our financial system because that same wealth inequality and lowered purchasing power makes people, unsurprisingly, mad. And a lot of those mad people start looking for answers, many in reactionary places. I’ll point to the MAGA movement in the US as a pretty obvious ongoing example.
The last 40 years proves I’m right even more 😆😆😆
If you think extreme wealth inequality, stagnating wages, decreasing purchasing power for the average person, and the rise of reactionary politics is success. If, on the other hand, you are a reasonable person, you would think that’s a really pathetic failure. Kid.
Yes they are, and the last 40 years of ever increasing wealth inequality totally discredits your economic philosophy. So there you go. Milton Friedman was a dumbass, make your peace with that fact.
Yes, market economies are built on demand. Neoclassical, supply side economics is a joke that centralizes wealth and destabilizes societies. It’s a failure.
Low income low skill people are still a net gain to society because they provide the secret ingredient that makes our economy function and grow: Demand. If their income is not enough to stimulate demand, that is because the minimum wage is too low.
Uh, holy shit. Impressive. Insanely foolhardy but impressive.
Well godspeed, Councillor Maloney.
No, this time it is happening, because Carney folded to US demands. Again.
The U.S. government would receive 50% of the bridge’s toll revenue and be able to veto any toll increase that is 10% over the current tolls, according to Reuters. Commercial shippers that sign up for the Gordie Howe Bridge’s “Breakaway” discount toll program will pay charges of 6.90 U.S. dollars per axle, according to rates that the new bridge’s operators announced in March.
Fuck this spineless worm. The Canadian branch of Starmer Enterprises.
Anyone remember this?
And the more recent demands that we start paying more are not some critique of us not keeping up our end of the bargain. It’s a shakedown for protection money.
We need to look outwards and this is just one of many options.
That’s just it, though. We’re ignoring some options. As I’ve linked elsewhere, we haven’t even sent, and are considering eliminating entirely, a trade envoy to Africa. That’s a huge blunder on our part. Don’t get me wrong, I like (most of) Europe too and of course we should be pursuing trade with the EU. But excessive focus on one region while ignoring another that is set to boom is just, it’s dumb. And Eurocentrism is what is driving that mistake.
How major a deal was that, really? 49k cars when we sold 1,918,861 in 2024. (Oh, and significant chunk of those “Chinese” imports are fucking Teslas.)
It was certainly a major PR win for Carney at a time when our anger at the US was boiling over.
The point was to illustrate Carney’s Eurocentrism with an example, seeing as people seemed to assume my opinion was settled based on the submarine news alone. I wasn’t trying to link Africa with South Korea, Germany, or Norway.
No, I just try to keep my eye on the wider picture.
Really. The UK, a basket case of a country that is coming apart at the seams, with a separatist party running each of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, gets this kind of treatment but the continent of Africa doesn’t even get a guy to go check things out? Despite everyone saying it’s set to boom and Carney having a mandate to seek out new trade relationships? Give your head a fuckin’ shake.
Sure, I guess, if you think the only thing I’ve ever heard about Carney is this particular news.
If you are kind enough to assume I’m not a total dipshit, you might consider that I’ve noticed other signs.
No it isn’t. This is a government of liars. Nothing they say can be trusted. Remember when this thing wasn’t happening without private funding? Carney was doing 5D chess on Danielle Smith? Yeah, nah, he’s doing it on you. He is a snake.
I lived in Whitehorse for a few years as a kid. Beautiful territory. Nearly impossible to pay attention in class with that view right out the window.
Yes, we are finite beings in a finite world. The idea of infinite wealth in that context is absurd. I understand what you are saying, I just think it is stupid.
You seem to think your field of study is based on study of the natural world rather than founded on assumptions. As though what you are saying is natural law. It isn’t.