^^ Ivy Leagues schools have high prices because the cost of the staff and the Inflationary effects of the demand to attend those schools, that is why they are called IVY LEAGUE. Because everyone wants to attend them.
And their life does impact your life. Wealth isn't infinite. Print too much money and it deflates in value. Layer too many derivatives and you undermine confidence in the currency. You can massage the money supply a heck of a lot but you can't make it infinite. There are people who have less every time someone else has more. You have less because someone else has more.
This zero-sum view of economics is about two and a half centuries out of date. Wealth may not be infinite, but it can grow and shrink. If it grows faster for you than for me, you'll have more wealth, but it doesn't follow that you're depriving me of anything; I have exactly the same amount that I would if you and your wealth had never even existed.
Good post sir.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy Decks
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
You're equivocating between real wealth and the money supply. Obviously, there's a certain specific number of dollars in the economy, and whenever someone earns a dollar by selling a good or service another person has given up a dollar - dollars don't just pop out of thin air in these kinds of transactions (but do see what happens when banks lend money). However, the real value represented by those dollars is flexible. The economy is growing as people generate value by making stuff, performing services, or even just moving resources around to where they're needed (i.e. banking and investing). So while the number of dollars might be the same whether Warren Buffett exists or not, and everyone else might be some fraction of $50 billion richer on paper, the value not generated by Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway means that every dollar of that $50 billion is worth somewhat less.
Actually, it's dollars that are essentially "un-finite" (if not infinite). While there is a set amount of dollars today that number will not be the same tomorrow. New money is minted at a reduced but still relevant rate even today, this is what we call inflation (or at least the primary cause of what we call inflation). Money is also destroyed everyday so the total dollar pool is in constant flux.
Wealth on the other hand is as close to zero-sum as the real world gets. When i refer to wealth i refer to purchasing power, the ability to get what one wants, in the way one wants it, when wants it. Money is a symbolic representation of real wealth, it provides us with a way to reliably obtain desired goods and services without providing goods and services in return. Instead we can give money which the seller can use to purchase whatever goods and services he or she desires from anyone else who agrees that the paper in question (the money) has the same value.
I say that wealth is zero sum because there is a finite amount of goods and services in this country (and, in fact, on earth). There are only so many barbers, they only have so many hours to spend barbing (is that a word?), and if you want them to spend that time on you you have to compensate them with wealth of equal value. This means there is a total amount of that good available to everyone in the country (this is the supply). Almost everyone wants haircuts but different people might want them more or less often (or in a variety of different styles, surroundings etc...). The aggregate amount of haircuts that people want per unit of time that barbers are available to give them (the demand) is the deciding factor in how much a haircut is worth.
Because this is a free market system we are all essentially engaged in a bidding war, I'm willing to pay $8 dollars for a haircut but why should the barber use his hour to see me if my neighbor is willing to pay $12? Rather than bargain with each client the barber will set a sign on the door; HAIRCUTS $11. He assumes (rightly so) that there are enough people willing to spend $11 that he can afford to lose the occasional client who could only pay $8, after all they are likely to need one eventually so they'll come and pay $11.
This is a really simplistic look at free market trade so I'm sure there are flaws in the scenario, please lets not pick them apart because we're not here to talk about barbers and barbing (?). The point is that when my neighbor decided he could pay $12 for his haircut he reduced my real wealth, he didn't steal money from me (no dollar figures have changed) he simply reduced my purchasing power and therefore my wealth. My $8 could have bought that haircut before, but now that X many neighbors can afford $11 I have to spend more of my total wealth allowance if I want to look pretty ^_^.
So in conclusion and all joking aside, wealth is much more finite than dollars and when one mans wealth increases he unintentionally reduces the wealth of all those whose wealth is not increasing at the same rate simultaneously. In fact, in order for his real wealth to increase at all his nominal wealth must increase faster than those around him.
Sorry for the long post there was no way to say this quickly.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
"People with needs have trivial purchasing power while people with purchasing power have trivial needs." -Steve Randy Waldman, Interfludity
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good post sir.
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
Actually, it's dollars that are essentially "un-finite" (if not infinite). While there is a set amount of dollars today that number will not be the same tomorrow. New money is minted at a reduced but still relevant rate even today, this is what we call inflation (or at least the primary cause of what we call inflation). Money is also destroyed everyday so the total dollar pool is in constant flux.
Wealth on the other hand is as close to zero-sum as the real world gets. When i refer to wealth i refer to purchasing power, the ability to get what one wants, in the way one wants it, when wants it. Money is a symbolic representation of real wealth, it provides us with a way to reliably obtain desired goods and services without providing goods and services in return. Instead we can give money which the seller can use to purchase whatever goods and services he or she desires from anyone else who agrees that the paper in question (the money) has the same value.
I say that wealth is zero sum because there is a finite amount of goods and services in this country (and, in fact, on earth). There are only so many barbers, they only have so many hours to spend barbing (is that a word?), and if you want them to spend that time on you you have to compensate them with wealth of equal value. This means there is a total amount of that good available to everyone in the country (this is the supply). Almost everyone wants haircuts but different people might want them more or less often (or in a variety of different styles, surroundings etc...). The aggregate amount of haircuts that people want per unit of time that barbers are available to give them (the demand) is the deciding factor in how much a haircut is worth.
Because this is a free market system we are all essentially engaged in a bidding war, I'm willing to pay $8 dollars for a haircut but why should the barber use his hour to see me if my neighbor is willing to pay $12? Rather than bargain with each client the barber will set a sign on the door; HAIRCUTS $11. He assumes (rightly so) that there are enough people willing to spend $11 that he can afford to lose the occasional client who could only pay $8, after all they are likely to need one eventually so they'll come and pay $11.
This is a really simplistic look at free market trade so I'm sure there are flaws in the scenario, please lets not pick them apart because we're not here to talk about barbers and barbing (?). The point is that when my neighbor decided he could pay $12 for his haircut he reduced my real wealth, he didn't steal money from me (no dollar figures have changed) he simply reduced my purchasing power and therefore my wealth. My $8 could have bought that haircut before, but now that X many neighbors can afford $11 I have to spend more of my total wealth allowance if I want to look pretty ^_^.
So in conclusion and all joking aside, wealth is much more finite than dollars and when one mans wealth increases he unintentionally reduces the wealth of all those whose wealth is not increasing at the same rate simultaneously. In fact, in order for his real wealth to increase at all his nominal wealth must increase faster than those around him.
Sorry for the long post there was no way to say this quickly.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
"People with needs have trivial purchasing power while people with purchasing power have trivial needs."
-Steve Randy Waldman, Interfludity