originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Fishy
His general point stands. No one grows rich by themselves. It takes a lot of people's work to give value to Trumps money or to build his physical
fortune / properties.
But they wouldn't work if Trump didn't employ them.
That's an assumption. Mere conjecture. At most, they would not work in the current system if Trump had not employed them.
Additionally, Trump had the money to employ them because some banks created it out nothing and lent it to him or to someone or some business who lent
it to him or bought stock in his company or something like that.
Or he inherited some of the money. I don't know. I'm not a Trumpasseur. I hardly know anything about the man except he wears a toupee, he's filthy
rich and he's likely the Republican candidate for POTUS this year.
I presume you know that when banks issue a loan - to someone like Trump for example - they create new money in the process, which did not exist
And, through this process, they redistribute wealth and purchasing power in the economy and society, through the Cantillon effect. From the people who
get the new money last to the ones who get it first (Trump).
Anyway, the issue is that you (and most people for that matter) view money as an enabler whereas most of the time it's actually an inhibitor, a
throttle on economic activity. And private property, especially over means of production, is an inhibitor as well.
You see, without money, there can be no commerce or economic activity. Even though all the prerequisites are there :
1. raw materials.
2. energy sources, energy reserves.
3. industrial base.
5. technological base.
6. infrastructure (transportation, energy, communication).
7. people who meet the skill and/or knowledge and/or experience and/or intelligence requirements and are willing to work, at least for a living. Some
may be willing to work for free in their chosen profession but they must ask for money in order to survive and support their family in the current
socio-economic system, predicated on the labour for income model, private property and arbitrary privilege (like issuing money out of nothing and
loaning it out at interest - legally).
However, if there is no money, nothing happens. Despite all of the prerequisites above being there.
And despite the fact that creating new money is, for all intents and purposes nowadays, free to the issuer. They just type the money in on a keyboard
in a bank and presto! the money magically poofs into existence through the magic of accounting and legal fraud.
So there is no good reason, real reason at all why money should be scarce or why there shouldn't be enough money to do the things that need doing in
It's just a matter of us choosing, collectively - as a society, to be evil, masochistic twerps.
Money is, therefore - through its arbitrary requirement for any sort of economic activity and its arbitrary, artificial scarcity, the throttle that's
choking and suffocating the economy. Not the air it breathes.
It's actually the artificial lack of money which stops things getting done. Not money which causes things to get done.
Just like it's not the door that you enter a building or room through and it's not thanks to the door that you are granted access to the room or
through the wall
But it's the hole in the wall which actually grants you access. The door never let you through. Not once. You were always free to pass, except when
the door prevent you. All the door does is prevent. Just like money prevents, through the concomitant need for it and lack of it.
Yet people think it's the door letting them through when it's the other way around. It's the door that's blocking the hole in the wall most of the
time and preventing them going through the wall except on relatively rare occasions. And it's the hole in the wall that's actually letting them
Yet people get this ass backwards.
So it is with money as well. People think money is the hole in the wall. When it's really the door in the hole.
edit on 15-5-2016 by Fishy