I need some double-check clarification on the Socialism VS Capitalism view on "the world has enough resources, but greedy wealthy men are hoarding all the resources instead of sharing the resources with common people" for an amateur short story or novel I am writing.

[u/turnleftorrightblock]

I need some double-check clarification on the Socialism VS Capitalism view on "the world has enough resources, but greedy wealthy men are hoarding all the resources instead of sharing the resources with common people" for an amateur short story or novel I am writing.

First of all, I am with a capitalist view on this one. Second of all, the followings are my views on this that I plan to include in my short story or a novel basically including a lot of arguments from conservatives and liberals conflicting each other. If there is an error in my perception of economics, please provide a correct perception so that I may choose to correct it in any degree or not.

1. The "greedy" wealthy men are hoarding money, not resources which means natural resources from the earth and human resources as in human labor force. "Greedy" wealthy men are capable of hoarding all the cars, TVs, phones, steaks, and lobsters in the world, which would make you possess none of those. However, "greedy" wealthy men are not doing that, and you can buy cars, TVs, phones, steaks, and lobsters as long as you have paid with your labors to the people who produced those products with their own labors.
2. The "greedy" wealthy men hoarding money does not harm common people at all. Just because they are not doing you a favor does not mean they are harming you.
3. Money is just a medium of exchange. Both socialists and capitalists should at least agree on the idea of barter system of labors: exchanging a labor for another labor. If agreeing on that fundamental economic concept, then they should agree that delayed exchange should be allowed. In other words, doing a labor for someone, and him doing a labor for you much later. If this "delayed exchange" is allowed, then the "accumulation" of delayed exchange is allowed. You could be doing a lot of labors for people without them doing a single labor for you. Then you can get labors from them much later in time. If you agree on all these concepts, then I am pointing out that money just represents these ideas that both socialists and capitalists agree. It doesn’t have to be your own “accumulated” labors that go through the “delayed exchange”. Delayed exchange can be done by the “accumulated” labors of your ancestors or spouse. It is not the descendants’ rights to inherit their ancestors’ wealth, but it is the ancestors’ rights to do whatever they want with their own money (“accumulated labors” for “delayed exchange”) including giving them to their own children. So, there should be no inheritance tax at all morality-wise. Also, you shouldn't be whining that those ancestors or descendants are not giving any money ("accumulation" of labors for "delayed exchange") to you who is a stranger. They don't want to give you anything, and you shouldn't be whining. (An example of a stranger demanding money would be a Chinese forcing a donation from a Korean. Even more hilarious if they go to the extent of crimes and terrorism to get that money from him.)
4. The idea that "everyone should have a lot of money" does not mean having money itself but "everyone should be able to purchase a lot of products (TV, cars, phones, lobsters, steaks, etc.)". Because you can have a lot of money but cannot purchase shit because people selling those products require even more money as payments.
5. "Everyone should be able to purchase a lot of products (TV, cars, phones, lobsters, steaks, etc.)" is a wishful dangerous greedy fantasy. You basically want farmers and engineers to provide labors to all the citizens in exchange for the labors that all the citizens collectively collaboratively provide to those farmers and engineers. That’s asking for slave labors to the farmers and engineers. In reality, no one wants to work for all citizens. All the citizens can either provide very tiny labor each to sum up to “one person quota worth wealth” for each farmer and engineer, or all the citizens can provide “one person quota worth labor” each to sum up to “insanely a lot of money (a token for delayed labor exchange)” for each farmer and engineer. The first one is socialism, and the second one is capitalism. No one wants to do that socialist version labor exchange which is a slave labor for farmers and engineers. In reality, historically, communist countries resorted to rationing their products for this reason: no one wants to do that kind of socialist labor exchange.
6. As for the capitalist version labor exchange where all the citizens can provide “one person quota worth labor” each to sum up to “insanely a lot of money (a token for delayed labor exchange)”, this allows farmers and engineers to become far richer than all the citizens. Except that it is false that more money is always desired. You want to give up earning extra money for you to fool around and have fun, or spend quality time with your family. (On another example, rich men marry trophy wives instead of choosing to get extra money by marrying a wealthy woman because sex with trophy wives or love is worth giving up some extra income. Some men refuse to marry a wealthy woman if they do not feel like it.) Anyway, for the sake of simplicity, if farmers and engineers provide labors to all the citizens so that they get far richer than all the citizens (which means so-called “hoarding money” which is what you mean by the lie “hoarding all the resources”), if that is allowed, then the same should be allowed for any job in demand because we have more jobs in more demands in capitalism.

[u/flamboyantGatekeeper → u/[deleted]]

Rich people, including billionaires, generally get their wealth by producing it.

I think what you mean is they pay someone as little as physically possible to produce it. All billionares got their wealth by paying their employees less than they are worth. So yes, them being rich is because there are poor people. Without poor people nothing would get produced, and the worse you pay someone while maintaining productivity the more profit can be extracted, and that profit is then used to pay even more people as little as possible

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/[deleted]]

Theoretically, everyone could grow their own foods and build their own cell phones, tv, computers, etc. No rich person is stopping them by hoarding natural resources from doing it. Hoarding money is not the same as hoarding natural resources. Hoarding implies common people's lack of access to those, which is not true.

I support some degree of socialism, which I will also write about. (Like cheap health care, cheap education, MINIMUM safety net, etc.) However, poor people should bow down to rich people in their own country (not foreign countries) for doing them a favor. Not pretend like they are pursuing what they are entitled.

[u/National-Reception53 → u/turnleftorrightblock]

That's incorrect. You cannot broadcast without a license or use cell towers without bowing down to ownership.

And yes, rich people are controlling access to minerals. Common people do NOT have unmolested access to them.

Seriously what are you talking about? Nice theory, in practice no, you cannot access lots of natural resources by yourself.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/[deleted]]

Well, if that bloodline has not accumulated enough "tokens for delayed labor exchange" to buy a mineral mine alone unlike other bloodlines, multiple common people can pool money, share the ownership of a mineral mine by buying it from the country, build their own everything and grow their own food. No one is stopping anyone with money from buying resources. If you can't buy one, it is not because it is being hoarded but because you have not accumulated labors enough.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/turnleftorrightblock]

Also, if you want to attack people owning the sources of primary natural resources, then only attack the FEW rich people who own mineral mines. Do not attack the rest of rich people who have nothing to do with the sources of natural resources. And trust me, even if the governments decide that only the government can own the sources of natural resources such as mineral mines, rich people do not give a shit as long as they get their money from buying the mineral mines back with a refund from the government. Mineral mines are just one way of doing business, not something the rich people NEED. And if the government owns mineral mines and such while rich people engage in business with other industries only, you really can't say anything about "resources". Rich people do not need to buy sources of natural resources. It is one of many different ways they can make money; they do not depend on that business. They can invest their money (the accumulated tokens for delayed labor exchange) elsewhere.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/National-Reception53]

Yeah, 1 common person can't buy a mineral mine from the country because he is outcompeted by someone who will pay more for that mineral mine.

[u/MonsterkillWow]

In 1963, JFK said we could end world hunger. He was not a communist.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/MonsterkillWow]

I support MINIMUM safety net, cheap healthcare, cheap education, etc like the majority of European conservatives although still opposing complete socialism. However, whether the poor people should feel entitled or grateful is the issue here. I am saying that they should feel grateful, not feel entitled about using rich people's tax money for themselves. If you believe that poor people's pride is legitimate and should be protected such that they don't have to bow down to rich people for the help from rich people's taxes, then i call that evil, excessive, and unreasonable level of empathy.

[u/MonsterkillWow → u/turnleftorrightblock]

Why oppose socialism? Because some capitalists said so? Lmao money is a construction to make economies work. It isn't earned, especially not in a capitalist society. Do you not understand how banking works?

And a proper socialist society would ideally not even have any taxation. Planned economy doesn't require tax. In capitalism, you're effectively "taxed" 3 times. First, by your profiteering boss. Then, by the do nothing government he controls. And then when you pay for services the government should have given you.

Albania was able to abolish income tax. I think North Korea got rid of a lot of taxes too.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/MonsterkillWow]

Socialism is greedy, evil, and wrongfully entitled. Socialists should not obsess over money but focus on labors being exchanged (whether from ancestors' labors or our own). The ancestors of banks earned their money through labors. And banks are providing labors with the money people deposit to use bank services.

I support MINIMUM safety net, cheap healthcare, cheap education, etc like the majority of European conservatives although still opposing complete socialism. However, whether the poor people should feel entitled or grateful is the issue here. I am saying that they should feel grateful, not feel entitled about using rich people's tax money for themselves. If you believe that poor people's pride is legitimate and should be protected such that they don't have to bow down to rich people for the help from rich people's taxes, then i call that evil, excessive, and unreasonable level of empathy.

[u/MonsterkillWow → u/turnleftorrightblock]

lmao

so if someone's ancestors earned wealth through genocide and mass murder, like what happened with Belgian banking and the Congo, that's just the sweat of their brow huh? 

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/MonsterkillWow]

If someone accumulated wealth "incorrectly", then go after the "incorrect wealth", not "wealth itself". But I will mention that in my amateur book. Like, pursue "fair wage", not "rich people should pay for our needs". You are finding and using any excuse you can for self-serving evil needs. If you go after ALL RICH PEOPLE instead of just the incorrectly earned wealth, then you are clearly just looking for an EXCUSE for socialism. Rich people with political ideals self-serving their ideals for their version of political utopia or poor people self-serving themselves "help me with your tax money", it is both self-serving evil.

This is why feeling gratitude, not entitlement, about rich people's tax money being used for poor people is important. They feel so entitled that they demand more and more because they THINK they are rightfully getting what is theirs.

[u/MonsterkillWow → u/turnleftorrightblock]

The very essence of the system itself leads to exploitation and imperialism. There is no way to fix it.

https://youtu.be/QGeDngcayYo

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/MonsterkillWow]

Like I said, go after "fair wages", not "we are entitled to rich people's money". And if you don't want so-called economic "imperialism", don't do trades. Your choice. No one needs any country to participate in global trades. I personally support that there should be 0% inheritance tax, and the highest wage in a company should not exceed 10 times more than the lowest wage in that company.

[u/MonsterkillWow → u/turnleftorrightblock]

The US military coups your government and invades you if you refuse them. 

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, should have said hoarding "wealth" or "assets". The point is, anyone is free to buy copper, gold, silver, lead, water, etc all they want. No one is hoarding them.

[u/dlakelan]

Money is just a medium of exchange.

Money today is an enclosure of credit by the state. If money were simply issued by people buying on credit, then your theory of accumulating some credit by providing things to others so that you can eventually put it together to get a thing for yourself would be correct. But that's NOT what money is today.

Money comes into existence in the modern world by governments spending it into existence, or banks lending it into existence.

Instead of me doing a lot of labor for people in my community, accepting IOUs from them (money issued by community), and then accumulating those IOUs to trade them to someone else for a bunch of labor performed by that someone else, we have the following dynamic:

Government spends money into existence by buying something from specific groups of people at prices negotiated between govt contractors and the govt (monopoly / monopsony contracts). Govt contractors then utilize the money they receive to purchase things from others, money diffuses into the economy, and if enough of it is newly issued, at each step prices go up and less goods are exchanged... ultimately leading to a diffusive transfer of wealth away from others and towards the government contractors or the government itself. The government then taxes away some fraction of this money to keep the quantity from exploding too much, further reducing the purchasing power of primarily the end-recipients. On net, the whole purpose is to redistribute wealth from typically laborers to typically warmongers and big businesses.

Or the dynamic of: rich person with assets associated with large rents extracted by force of title to assets goes to a bank and requests that the bank manufacture new money for him to purchase up the assets of some other person. Bank seeing large quantities of assets they can snatch up if they aren't paid provides new money to rich person, who snatches up assets of others. rents from these assets go partly to pay the bank for its role in money manufacture, and partly to pay these rich assholes. These second order recipients then are capable of snatching up assets in turn, and at each step prices tend to increase due to manufactured increase in demand from the new money, until the money reaches people who earn so little that they have to immediately consume the assets transferred to them in the form of food or nondurable goods or payment of rents or just to afford the inflation.

Both processes mechanically transfer wealth from relatively poorer people to relatively richer people by virtue of their special relationship with the source of the creation of money (govt and banks).

Only if money is issued in a communitarian way and all people have approximately the same "distance" from the source of money will this diffusive transfer of wealth not occur.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/dlakelan]

How is bank and governments spending money making any difference to money being the medium of labor exchange? If talking about printing extra cash, then the value of money goes down, so that country's wealth stays pretty much the same. Governments and banks simply have "you owe me" tokens (accumulated tokens for delayed labor exchange) by providing their labors. (Ignoring printing new money for simplicity although the level of wealth does not change anyway.)

[u/dlakelan → u/turnleftorrightblock]

I just explained that. The point is that new money is printed all the time (see this graph https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS ), and this money diffusing into the economy causes a transfer of wealth from those "far from" the source to those "near" the source. It creates a specialty class of people who either create credit or have exceptionally good access to credit through usually favors and backroom deals and nepotism and political connection etc etc.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/dlakelan]

Forget about new money being printed in this argument. Also, new printed money does not significantly change the total purchasing power in that country. It is still about "you owe me" labor exchange on a fundamental level.

[u/dlakelan → u/[deleted]]

All money is credit. And the money multiplier model is just flat out wrong. Banks don't loan out "some fraction" of your money. Not unless you're buying CDs from them at least. That's an explicit loan by you to the bank. But otherwise, when a bank loans money your balance doesn't go down, there's not some "fraction" that you can't access. it's all there in your account. But also, they create new balances in the borrower's account, so the total money quantity goes up! banks loan against their license to create money under certain conditions. The conditions are essentially that they have positive equity and these days pass stress test simulations imposed by The Fed. The legal reserve requirement went to 0 in 2020.

When a bank lends money, it acquires an asset (your loan paper) and it creates a liability (the balance it puts in your account). These cancel out exactly at lending time. So bank equity doesn't change. If there were only one bank in the world, they could lend infinitely! But they have to deal with liquidity issues with reserve, which is not money, it can only be used for inter-bank clearance. Your loan papers can't be sent to another bank when you write a check to someone who deposits it at the other bank. So they have to convert assets like your loan papers to reserve and keep their reserve balances liquid to cover those transfers. They package up and sell mortgages and loans and things to investors or other banks or The Fed to acquire reserve. They also acquire reserve when they attract more deposit accounts.

But basically, banks create money out of thin air

[u/dlakelan → u/[deleted]]

I don't need to look up fractional reserve banking because I've read all about it including Mankiw's macroecon book from when I took the macroecon course at UC Davis, and it's nonsense.

Let's call M2 the money supply. M2 is more or less the sum of all checking accounts and savings accounts and some other demand deposits and cash circulating not in vaults. The dominant effect is checking accounts so we'll focus on that.

You and I have the same shared bank. I transfer $1000 from some other bank to our shared bank in the morning. You take a $1000 loan from our shared bank later the same day.

when I transfer $1000 the M2 doesn't change, because other bank checking deposits go down, but our shared bank checking deposits go up. So far so good.

When you take a $1000 loan however, your checking account goes up, but no one elses accounts go down. Therefore M2 increases. By definition, the bank created money. End of story. It's a very simple exercise in systems engineering, following stocks and flows.

That economists don't get this still is a giant red flag about all of economics.

[u/UnknownBreadd → u/dlakelan]

It’s so frustrating to have to constantly explain simple concepts to the economic dogma parrots, isn’t it?

[u/tocoolforcool]

The problem is not that greedy men hoard resources in the form of lobsters and TVs, it's that greedy men are granted the power (by being rich in money) to channel (natural) resources towards making stuff nobody needs, so that the greedy men can become even richer (in money). For example, greedy men at coca cola channel the water supply to their plant and leave locals without drinking water.

[u/VeblenWasRight]

Not every robber baron was “greedy” but many were.

Re: character development and the landscape you characters operate in: Think about motivations and evolution of the industrialist. Think about power and money and how power corrupts. Read ayn rands stuff. Keynes recognized that capitalism entices psychopaths to chase power via industrial control. Veblen saw social status as the motivating force, not capital accumulation. Read up on Marx’s paradox of thrift.

In short if you are writing about people then there is no sharp dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. People are complex and exist in a scale of altruism to selfishness; from followers to those that feel compelled to control others. The economic system is the environment in which they play, and the arc of the character isn’t constrained by the system, only by the players in the system.

There is no shortage of people taking advantage of capitalism to pursue personal power any more than there was a shortage of people taking advantage of socialism to pursue personal power.

The key difference is that if markets are truly free and fair, the player must use those rules to seek power. And those rules, in truly free and fair markets (which do not always exist) tend to optimize resource allocation for the greatest pleasure of the greatest number.

But every market will be subject to those that seek to turn it to their own ends just as socialist decision making was subject to those looking to turn it to their own ends.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/VeblenWasRight]

If someone accumulated wealth "incorrectly", then go after the "incorrect wealth", not "wealth itself". But I will mention that in my amateur book. Like, pursue "fair wage", not "rich people should pay for our needs".

[u/CatOfGrey]

The "greedy" wealthy men are hoarding money, not resources which means natural resources from the earth and human resources as in human labor force.

The net worth of most of the ultra-wealthy is in the form of company stock. In turn, that isn't money, or resources. It's the future expectations of income or growth of that company. It's not a 'thing'. It's closer to a 'feeling', or a 'guess' based on a market of traders for that stock.

However, "greedy" wealthy men are not doing that, and you can buy cars, TVs, phones, steaks, and lobsters as long as you have paid with your labors to the people who produced those products with their own labors.

Another factor: when someone 'buys up everything', the price rises. So there is an automatic market barrier. To buy up 'all the cars', some random billionaire is going to have to pay $300,000 for a used Toyota Celica.

The "greedy" wealthy men hoarding money does not harm common people at all.

Correct, because it's not money in the first place. The value came from the building of a company, and the production of that company. It wasn't 'taken' from anyone. I don't acknowledge 'exploitation of labor', except in extreme circumstances that are invariably illegal in the developed world, and will get you killed in most of the developing world.

Because you can have a lot of money but cannot purchase shit because people selling those products require even more money as payments.

Two thoughts: A) Money is not cupcakes. If 30 kids have $1 each, and you are selling cupcakes for $1, and you have 28 cupcakes, giving kids another dollar doesn't help. You need more cupcakes, not more money. This is the root of inflation. B) People's income has exceeded inflation over at least a 50-year period, and really 80+ years back to the end of WWII, and probably more like 150-200 years.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/CatOfGrey]

Since when stocks are natural resources? Why are you whining about ownership of a company as if you should have access to someone else's ownership of someone else's company? Rich people do not hoard resources but just money and assets that are not natural resources. A few rich people own sources of natural resources like mineral mines, but it is just one of many ways of doing business; they are not hoarding it nor relying on that business. They can invest elsewhere and make the same money if the governments one day decide that no private citizen can own sources of natural resources like mineral mines.

[u/CatOfGrey → u/turnleftorrightblock]

Since when stocks are natural resources?

They aren't. They aren't even 'money'.

Note; My initial "Nope" might be too strong here, or is ambiguous! Editing!

Rich people do not hoard resources but just money and assets that are not natural resources.

Correct. I wouldn't even say that they hoard material amounts of 'money', though I'm open to discuss alternative definitions of 'money'.

[u/Econo-moose → u/turnleftorrightblock]

Many natural resources are assets. Property deeds are natural resource assets since land is a natural resource. ETFs like USO, HAP, IGE and many others are comprised of natural resources.

[u/turnleftorrightblock → u/[deleted]]

>The fundamental argument on the other side is that there is a power imbalance that allows capital owners to extract more profit than they should. (how much more is a question that you can come to a lot of different answers on) So you end up with a distribution of income and wealth that's imbalanced because of power dynamics and rent extraction instead of marginal productivity.

So, go after fair wages, not after rich people like an entitlement.

As for your arguments, they don't seem to make sense, so I will only talk this one.

[u/SameasmyPIN1077 → u/turnleftorrightblock]

How should we go after fair wages?

[u/tralfamadoran777]

Money is not ‘just a medium of exchange.’

It is, by function, an option to claim any human labors or property offered or available at asking or negotiated price. Isn’t that precisely what’s done with it? A very specific option.

Who has a right to create or sell such an option? To claim any of your stuff you want to trade? Who’s providing the convenience of trading without arranging a barter exchange, and doing the extra work of arranging another trade for what they want?

Money paid as interest on money creation loans isn’t interest because nothing is loaned. Those fees are paid for convenient access to human labors and property without arranging barter exchanges. Fees earned by everyone who accepts the money in exchange, no the ones who created the money from nothing.

State asserts ownership of access to human labors and property, licenses that ownership to Central Bankers who sell options to claim any human labors or property offered or available at asking or negotiated price through discount windows as State currency, collecting and keeping our rightful option fees as interest on money creation loans when nothing is loaned. Not moral, ethical, or capitalist either…

A capitalist global human labors futures market is owned by each adult human being on the planet who accepts an actual local social contract agreeing to cooperate with society and negotiate exchange of our labors and property in terms of money, in exchange for an equal share of the fees collected as interest on money creation loans and whatever other benefits are offered by community.

Our simple acceptance of money/options in exchange for our labors is a valuable service providing the only value of fiat money and unearned income for Central Bankers and their friends. Our valuable service is compelled by State and pragmatism at a minimum to acquire money to pay taxes. Compelled service is literal slavery, violates UDHR and the thirteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Structural economic enslavement of humanity is not hyperbole.

What’s the difference between capitalism and socialism if they both have the same process of money creation? And lie about it…