Ei seu caralhudo!
Use the original meme of Nazaré Tedesco (Senhora do Destino)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7QA0ogagEc
Or else we will make you come to Brazil and have 100% free healthcare and free public school/grad school!
Also we will make you watch “novelas” (brazilian drama) like Kubanacan and O Beijo do Vampiro!
They say that because when they get more money they can invest it, grow it for later. They ridicule spending it because if you’re able, investment IS the smarter decision, but that assumes all your needs are already met. The Capital class can’t even imagine their needs not being met, only wants that they can afford to wait for.
you’re supposed to put it into shady cryptocurrencies. that’s your money making money for you, homeless people haven’t unlocked nft strats yet
The rich are so fucking stingy with their money that they have a private island and private city with no septic system and instead want to pump it into the nearby community at the other community’s expense.
Like what the hell is the point of all that money if they are so utterly unwilling to spend any of it?
How do you think they get rich?
You don’t get rich from being stingy. You get rich by abusing workers.
Next on Ask a Dragon!
The ultra wealthy have a tendency to just hoard it, accumulating far more than they will even use, and act like that is normal and the purpose of it.
Good time to remind there exist two “models” of economy:
Commodity- Money- Commodity (where money is used for the sole purpose of getting commodities like house, food, clothes, healthcare, …)
Money-Commodity-Money (Where the purpose of money is to turn commodities in more money, so the end goal is getting more money).
The first one is okay. Humans always did it.
The second one is a disease that starter with what we call “nowadays” Capitalism.
I’m saying that because I see on real life a lot of people conflating the two and thinking that “ending capitalism”==“ending comerce/trade/barter” when the truth is that “ending capitalism”==“ending hoarding wealth like a dragon”
They accumulate wealth because it gives them power. Power is what drives their greed. Greed is what is killing our society.
Wealth gives everyone power. The difference is that when most people want to excersise the power their wealth gives them, they do so by exchanging money for goods or services. For instance, I can influence a plumber to fix my toilet by paying them.
Rich people do that too, but with a proportionally tiny amount of money. Most of their influence comes from the fact that they simply own stuff. They don’t need to spend money to pay for entities they own to do what they want. If you own a voting stake in a company, you do not need to spend that stake to influence the company.
The current situation is one I’ve been wracking my brain over for more than a decade.
What happens when there’s no more money to firehouse from the poor to the rich. When all the blood is squeezed out of the stone.
That’s when we strike with pitchforks.
Well they got tanks :/
You give billions of credit to rich people companies and create inflation. Companies go bankrupt, they create new companies and the process repeats. You stand no chance.
By the definition of money, that cannot happen. If all the money is owned by one person, then it is not money. If all of the money is owned by one group of people and another group of people have no access to it, then that will bifurcate the economy between those two groups and the second group will use something else as a substitute. No matter how little people have, there will always be some form of trade and commerce between them. Even North Koreans today (where private trade is largely forbidden) and enslaved Africans in the pre-Civil War US (who for the most part were not legally allowed to own anything) had some form of trade amongst themselves.
Each successive dollar (or euro, pound, yen…) gets successively more difficult to extract because as people have less and less to spend they get tighter and tighter with their spending. Without state intervention, there will always be a floor to how poor you can possibly make someone, because at some point they will realise that breaking the rules and risking the punishment is a better idea than continuing to play by them. And when enough people think this way, well… just ask Louis XVI or Nicholas II how that went.
Even if a communist revolution does not occur, this happens already to a lesser extent in the impoverished areas of cities worldwide, where people would rather turn to crime than work for starvation wages. So if you are someone on the side of the political spectrum which likes to talk against crime and socialism, the policies you should champion are those which prevent the poor from needing to resort to those things (not that any such people are likely to exist on Lemmy).
Neo-feudalism. People who don’t live off of investments (i.e., most of us) need to sell our labor to buy the necessities of life. Once the rich own everything and everyone else is poor, we will continue to sell our labor to pay off debts and make the lives of the wealthy comfortable in new and innovative ways.
Their argument for not paying taxes is old. And boring.
Stimulating the economy baby
Cool, so be super responsible on their part instead. If they can’t be trusted to save up themselves, do the saving up of all the money yourself, o wise conservative. And let’s put all that money in a trust fund for them and just give them the dividends. Let’s call those dividends a “Universal Basic Dividend”.
Conservatives are mad at poor people for uuuh… (checks notes): Using government aid to increase the GDP.
GDP isn’t inherently a useful measure for this though. If I pay you 100$ to eat a dog turd, then you pay me 100$ to eat the next dog turd we see. We created 200$ worth of GDP and ate two dog turds. Yet neither of us profited in any way.
If you’re into watching someone eat a turd and are willing to pay 100$ for it, then a service worth 100$ was provided in each instance.
But on a more serious note, this argument applies to the GDP in general – it’s not a measure of how happy, how wealthy, or how productive the people of a given nation are. Yet, continuous growth (measured by GDP) seems to have the highest priority among so-called conservatives and neoliberals. At the same time, they’re mad at poor people for increasing the GDP with government aid and don’t see the irony.
They explicitly don’t want it but the right thing to do would be to spend some money on the means of production.
Create a cooperative and start accumulating capital for the proletarians.
How dare those communist scum create a small business, and become independent of welfare! Steaming
Your suppose to shove the money to the closest representatives asshole.
Boil it, mash it, stick it in a stew.
Money should have an expiration date. There, I said it.
That is literally what inflation is for. Central banks try to keep inflation at around 2% to discourage hoarding money.
This is not what im talking about and they are not 1 for 1 analogous.
What are you talking about than?
Hard expiration date tied to the day the currency was created.
Sounds like something that would be trivial for the wealthy to circumvent while being very expensive for the poor to do the same. Someone with the means can just pay someone to continuously refresh their money with new money. Unclear on how people will deal with transactions when different bills have different values from what’s written on them.
Why would poor people have difficulty living with this change? They live hand to mouth.
They live hand to mouth.
And they’ll stay there if they can’t save up any money.
Isn’t that almost the same thing? No way a dollar bill that is 1 day before expired would have the same value as a dollar bill that expires in a year.
Or do you except a shop would have to accept a bill that expires in 10 seconds and they won’t be able to do anything with it? Would you be fine if your employer paid you with bills that expire in 2 days?
Well, its a thought. There are a lot of variables to capitalism. Just thinking of ways to improve the system if there are people who are dead set on keeping it forever. Maybe it should lose value. If, say it was a 50 year expiration date, the exchange that generated the value has long since past.
You could also implement a buy back where the government gives you a flat rate on expired currency or a tax write off but you have to meet a minimum threshold.
To me its important to recognize thst money is what we say it is. We can do whatever we like with it.
Again, at 2% yearly inflation, the money would have only 37% of its original value after 50 years. And inflation tends to get higher.
People who “hoard money” usually invest it into something.
I’ve had an idea for a book, where the protagonist is a “classic build your fortune” type dismayed at the way capitalism is failing, who ends up making a currency like this; wanting everyone to make money and then spend it by the end of the month; somehow allowing the recipient to get a new extended deadline.
I have some curiosity for where the concept would go. In the story as well it’s imagined that some oligarchs will find ways to abuse the system and hoard it, but in some other cases it might trigger interesting movements.
money kinda already does expire. if you just let it sit around for long enough, it will devalue over time, typically around 2% per year. It’s called inflation.
Nobody really hoards wealth by hoarding lots of paper money. Except maybe foolish people trying to save up for retirement that way. (they will make bitter experiences)
Wealthy people invest all their money into company shares, houses/apartments, or gold. That’s actually why we see the price of these things constantly increase: Because the wealthy don’t know where else to put their money, and so they buy these things, which creates demand for these things, which constantly increases the price for these things (by the rule of supply and demand).
My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with you, because it seems like this policy would punish money hoarding and therefore keep money circulating.
Then I thought about what I would do if I had a sudden large influx of expiring cash, and quickly decided on buying illiquid assets (stocks, bonds, property, a couple fast food franchises in an underserved-but-growing area, etc) which is pretty much what the wealthy already do. The World’s Richest Manchild doesn’t have $300 billion in cold hard cash sitting around, he has maybe a few million in easily-accessible funds and the rest is tied up in investments (that’s why he had to borrow so desperately to get the $44 billion to buy twitter - he couldn’t quickly cash out his stock investments without cratering their value).
If money expired, the rich would continue to do what they already do - turn their money into long-term investment vehicles. The worst off would be the people who are in the middle - not doing so bad they have to spend every penny they make right away just to stay afloat, but not doing so well that they can invest in illiquid assets (either because they don’t have enough left over after the bills are spent to realistically be able to invest or because they need a safety net in case the car needs to be replaced in a hurry or a tree falls through the roof or the hot water heater busts and ruins the floor).
‘Expiring wealth’ is something that would do society good by forcing the wealthy class to re-invest in their communities and peoples, whereas ‘expiring cash’ would just hurt those who would otherwise be on a path to being able to retire someday
Generational wealth is an area where this money hoarding really, really goes wrong, because then it’s lifetime after lifetime of the accumulation and hoarding of wealth. So obviously one change I would strongly support is extremely high tax on inheritance income.
But we need to separate money from wealth, I think. Because if it takes all of us working together to generate that wealth in the first place, there is simply no possible excuse for not sharing that wealth equitably. As long as money=wealth, I’m just not sure we’ll ever really accomplish that, though.
Many indigenous americans including the Aztec and Mayan cultural groups used cacao as currency. I can’t say if it was intentionally a method to reduce wealth hoarding but it did have that effect.
“they’ll just spend it on drugs and drinking”
That’s all I was going to spend it on…
(Paraphrased from Steve Hughes)
My favorite story was when a Karen told someone to not give money to the homeless man because he was going to use it to buy drugs and the man just that, “That’s what i was going to spend it on anyway.”
