If all the money ends up in hands of billionaires and their corporations and there will be no money in hands of regular plebs…
Who do you think will have to pay the taxes? Also, the people would figure out a different way of trading or currency. And with that one getting taxed, all the billionaire’s money become worthless.

  • lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    We had that before. It was called feudalism and it was terrible. One day, the people got pissed off enough to cut off a few heads. A golden age ensued for a couple hundred years.

      • Devolution@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        yeah, it was actually a good movie. The big thing was that all the super rich lived in space on a halo ring while Earth went to hell for everyone else.

        these days this movie hits a little too close to home for me.

  • fisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    That is an ongoing process, but it looks much different from what you imagine. Even now, a large part of the economy is working for the top 10 percent, producing luxury goods and services. Wealthy customers provide the biggest margins for companies.

    “Regular” customers are getting more irrelevant every day. There was a time when your role as a consumer was important for the economy. This role gave you power and influence because companies were competing for your money. This era is slowly coming to an end, something most people haven’t realized yet.

    • tristynalxander@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Rich people can be fools, and a fool and his money are soon parted. That’s why much of the economy is just everyone trying to scam everyone else.

  • Triasha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    The majority population falls into progressively more desperate poverty. Work hours are extended for less and less personal gain and greater risk of injury, disease, and disability. Recreation, autonomy, and actualization become ever more out of reach.

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    It started in 1971 and it’s still running its course. So, look around I guess. If we don’t do anything in another 20 years it won’t be possible to own a home for anybody. We will all be severely restricted on what we can eat and how we can travel. Everything you buy will be disposable garbage that makes you sick and needs replacement often.

  • wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I would imagine at some point government will start becoming creative to tax the billionaires or the corporations. Though the masses becomes entertainment for the billionaires to keep money valuable else like you said if they all have the money then it’s worthless. The government by this point would be so weak since rampant corruption would be so ingrained that any idea of taxing the billionaires would be incredibly hard to pass. So I think what likely will happen is a societal collapse. If this were to happen globally end of our current civilization.

    • Wilco@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Uhmm … the billionaires ARE the government right now. They are engaging in fraud and crime right out in the open.

  • Sirdubdee@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    They let us borrow some so that we can buy their products and pay them back more. We have to trade our labor to make up the difference between our passive income and current expenses, but they’ll only give us just enough to sustain a population of laborers.

    Some take a risk and borrow wayyyy more than they can really pay back with their own labor and use that money to buy assets that they hope will be successful in integrating with the loop of money. If it’s successful, their assets buy the labor of others to generate income so they pay back the loan and do it all over again.

  • Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Bold of you to assume they could think that far. To be honest, they don’t think us at all. The more people are starving to death, the better for them. I’m sure they think like “eat the poor”. This world is doomed with capitalism and we should do something about it now, before it’s too late.

  • ExtremeDullard@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Then the plebs reach for the scythes and the machetes.

    That’s why the billionaires steal as much money as they can, but stop short of making a critical mass of people desperately poor: they keep most people poor enough that they try to fight for what little they have left, and between themselves for the scraps, instead of uniting and rising up against the kleptocrats who engineer their poverty.

  • wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 days ago

    “All the money” assumes there’s a finite amount of money. There isn’t. In a fiat currency, like the Dollar, Euro or Sterling, banks create money when they lend, and the money disappears again when the loan is repaid. This is what a banking license gives you; The ability to make loans without having the existing money to back them.

    Government spends by telling it’s bank (The Federal Reserve, ECB or BoE) to lend money for the things it wants to buy. Taxes then repay that debt and the money doesn’t exist anymore.

    In an economy where huge amounts of wealth is horded, there’s a problem of liquidity. All of that wealth is idle. It’s not circulating and there becomes a danger of economic collapse. Therefore more money has to enter the system, either through government spending or commercial banks making loans.

    Horded money is also money that isn’t going back to banks to repay the lending. So the amount of money in existence goes up, driving the value of that money down. This is inflation. One dollar can no longer buy as much as it used to as it’s value has gone down.

    So, billionaires cause:

    • Large amounts of commercial debt to inject replacement money into the economy. That is, personal debt or corporate debt.
    • Inflation caused by that cash injection

    Sound familiar?

    Now a government could choose to raise its spending so that it injects the required money into its economy, rather commercial banks doing it. The advantage of that is that they can balance that with raised taxes, so inflation doesn’t get out of control. They can also choose who to tax and protect areas of the economy.

    Most governments don’t see it this way, arguing that they can only spend what they take in taxes (The “government spending is like a household budget” argument). This has been false ever since they all came off the gold standard. They can spend what they want and they can tax what they want. The difference will drive inflation, so has to be kept reasonable, but if they don’t spend enough the commercial banks take over and will absolutely drive inflation.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I have read about these ideas about money being created through loans before, but also read contradictory ideas.

      Since you seem to know a lot about the subject, would you happen to know of materials where I can learn more about the topic?

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        So these ideas are the basis of modern monetary theory (MMT) i.e. the theory of modern money, not that it’s a modern theory of money. There’s nothing very controversial here, in that the “theory” is just a description of how things work when you have a fiat currency. The controversial parts are what you do in your fiscal policy once you think about things this way.

        Stephanie Kelton is a vocal proponent of this style of framing. She’s been an economic advisor to Bernie Sanders and is the author of “The Deficit Myth” which explains these concepts. She also gave a TED talk on the concepts.

        Richard Murphy is a UK proponent who writes a blog and has a YouTube channel where he explains the concepts.

        There are others, but these two are a good way in. Searching for them, and also the the phrase “Modern Monetary Theory” should get you lots of talks, interviews and articles on both sides of the arguments.

        • JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Uhm, should probably mention that MMT is a relatively fringe theory not supported by most mainstream economists. Saying “there’s nothing controversial here” seems more than a bit disingenous…

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            How banks lend money isn’t controversial. How governments spend and collect money isn’t controversial. Those are just points of fact. The controversial part is the government being able to spend before it has tax levels which “support” the spending. That’s what I meant. MMT says that’s an available choice. That’s all.

            Many mainstream economists will say that unchecked spending is reckless and you risk hyperinflation. Now we’re in to policy choices though. Regardless, if you spend without worrying about the other side of the equation (tax) they’d be right. However, that’s a strawman argument because that’s not what is being said.

            I’ll be honest, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument against MMT, and I’ve looked. I started off sceptical, but I now think it’s a useful framing tool. Every counter I’ve seen doesn’t address what it actually states, rather what they imagine it states (normally unchecked spending). If anyone has seen a good factual argument against MMT I’d be interested.