The same market forces that prevent monopolies prevent massive accumulations of wealth.

Historically and theoretically incorrect. Monopolies of different types CAN exist for periods of time. The modern, government forced version can not. If a company, say Standard Oil, gives people what they want, innovate cheap ways to make kerosene and sell the shit out of it, they get a local, natural monopoly and gain massive accumulations of wealth as a result of SERVING THE PEOPLE. Microsoft was the same way, as was Intel, as was IBM at times and the railroads and telephone companies and power companies and banks. They all amassed huge amounts of wealth as a result of providing for peoples desires. It was government that made them monopolies and gave them the ability to guarantee wealth.

I don’t use a formula, I use whatever helps me sleep at night. Under utilization of the few bucks I’ve got in the bank is small potatoes. Even so I still work to put it to better use. Also money doesn’t just “sit in a bank”. You’ve seen It’s a Wonderful Life, “your money is in Joe’s house, that’s right next to yours…” The key is putting money to better use than what most bankers chose to do with it.

You do realize that bankers are the ones giving Joe the lone, right? They are investing in the startup down the street, right? Providing a protection service for your money, right? Bankers invest in what will work and what will work is what people want. Government and centrally control money supplies distort that but the power of the market still overpowers them and has increased the wealth in the US far beyond anything ever seen in history.

You just did the math. The individual citizens of earth don’t have enough land to support their own life. Therefore if people refuse to trade with them, they can’t support themselves. So by hording commodities and refusing to trade you can literally starve people to death.

What does having land to support themselves have to do with anything. Most people can not support themselves or would want to support themselves in that way. It’s inefficient and wasteful. Both of land and people’s desires. And people horde when they are incentivized not to trade such as their currency being debased and they need to buy up commodities not to loose all their wealth. You don’t get it. You don’t seem to realize that we’d all be POORER if you spent every thing you had as soon as you got it or were selfsufficent. Capital accumulation is not hording, it’s not using resources now for a desire we hold more important later. You do this all the time… your understanding of economics is so shallow, you can’t see the complex interconnections of the market nor the complexity of human desire. You ignore time deltas and the importance of capital accumulation and how important it is to per capita wealth increasing. Besides… i’ve asked you this before and you didn’t answer. Who is hording and what? Bankers don’t horde. They have no incentive to horde. They are in fact incentived not to horde because if you did the government would steal it’s worth through inflation. Governments force hording on large scales however. India, China… they are fighting the laws of economics and hording rice which is leading to higher prices outside their countries. They are making things worse. Besides, starving people is not murder. It’s death. And you’ve got no examples outside religious fanaticism where people refuse to trade people to death except perhaps in situtations where people are already living “self sufficently” and have very little to trade in the first place. IE no capital accumulated to afford to do so.

You can’t possibly believe this as an absolute?

When wealth of this amount is obtained it is usually though underhanded means.  The same market forces that prevent monopolies prevent massive accumulations of wealth.

Your money isn’t getting used right this minute. Give me the formula you use to find out how long it takes till you lose ownership.

I don’t use a formula, I use whatever helps me sleep at night.  Underutilization of the few bucks I’ve got in the bank is small potatoes.  Even so I still work to put it to better use.  Also money doesn’t just “sit in a bank”.  You’ve seen It’s a Wonderful Life, “your money is in Joe’s house, that’s right next to yours…”  The key is putting money to better use than what most bankers chose to do with it.

Not using commodities = murder is a pretty crazy stretch.

You just did the math.  The individual citizens of earth don’t have enough land to support their own life.  Therefore if people refuse to trade with them, they can’t support themselves.  So by hording commodities and refusing to trade you can literally starve people to death.

I don’t think wealth springs into being, I think those with power and influence immorally wring it from people too small to defend themselves.

You can’t possibly believe this as an absolute?

You are completely ignorant of business reality. How the hell do you think that company got so big in the first place before they started working with government? Look at tech companies? Even if you take away IP monopolies you still have huge gains in wealth. China is a breeding ground of copy cat tech and their standard of living is booming. Everyone and their dog copies Microsoft software yet they still became a gigantic company even with the government coming after them.  You are acting as if these companies just pop into existence. They start at the bottom and use the government when they reach the upper escilon to stay there.

Your money isnt getting used right this minute. Give me the formula you use to findout how long it takes till you loose ownership.

This is the best line of attack against my theory. Like I said I think it’s a tough thing to decide and it will vary based on the type of environment you are in. Ultimately I think it should be decided through peaceful moderation and a municipal level.

Right. That’s called the market. It’s peaceful and voluntary and moves to utilize resources most effectively as each actor sees individually fit. No tragedy of the commons problem necessary.

Ah, the great reset. Good luck with that.

I’ve got bad news for you beetlbumjl, it happens.  Over and over again and it’s usually done in a very violent manner.  Wealth will get redistributed, it’s just a matter of how.  The best case is when people recognize that what they have was obtained through robbery and voluntarily give it up.

I love how socialists just throw away the concept of capital accumulation. As if wealth springs into being at a certain level. Reminds me of the global climate change fans who use models without water vapor. Argue against a system they don’t fully understand or account for all the components. Capital accumulation is necessary to increase wealth, to fund large projects, etc. The only way to do so is by not using it for a period of time. If you don’t have capital accumulation you won’t have growth and in fact a likely decrease in wealth per person as the population grows.

I love how capitalists call murder and robbery capital accumulation.  I don’t think wealth springs into being, I think those with power and influence immorally wring it from people too small to defend themselves.  People don’t obtain the level of wealth we are talking about through diligent saving.  They obtain it through force.  Corporations of this magnitude wield governments as a club to get what they want.  You know that.

You don’t use your money in your bank account… does that mean the bank is the rightful owner?

This means it could be used for something better, such as helping my friends buy a house.  Hence, that’s what it gets used for.

Who decides who is the one who can get the most utilization from something?

This is the best line of attack against my theory.  Like I said I think it’s a tough thing to decide and it will vary based on the type of environment you are in.  Ultimately I think it should be decided through peaceful moderation and a municipal level.

I disagree with bile in that I think land is a scarce commodity.  If every human decided right now that they wanted enough land to independently support their own life, we wouldn’t have enough.

1. The idea that every person on the planet would choose to do that is ridiculous. You could say that about just about any single thing anyone would desire. Even if there was enough land to do so we’d all be living day to day with little or no growth in wealth per individual. We don’t do that because we don’t all care to. Because it’s more efficient to have division of labor and specialization.

2. 19,824,000km2 arable land / 6,500,000,000 humans = 0.00305 km2/human. Assuming those numbers are correct (from Wikipedia) that’s obviously not enough. Even when you group individuals into the families they would actually be with. However that completely ignores the oceans as a food source. Regardless there is sufficient land and technology to feed the worlds population. Technology will only increase arable land and/or density of food per land unit. Therefore the scarcity of land revolves around living and working. In that regard there is plenty of land, again especially with technology increases.

For this reason we need to make sure land is appropriately utilized.

There you go again with the “we ought to” and “human’s goal” stuff…

bosco: If you don’t use it, you don’t own it.

So building the homes/apts/condo, maintaining it and the infrastructure, paying taxes, etc does not count as using it? I love how socialists just throw away the concept of capital accumulation. As if wealth springs into being at a certain level. Reminds me of the global climate change fans who use models without water vapor. Argue against a system they don’t fully understand or account for all the components. Capital accumulation is necessary to increase wealth, to fund large projects, etc. The only way to do so is by not using it for a period of time. If you don’t have capital accumulation you won’t have growth and in fact a likely decrease in wealth per person as the population grows.

You don’t use your money in your bank account… does that mean the bank is the rightful owner? Who decides who is the one who can get the most utilization from something?

beetlbumjl: I can only assume that once the resource hoarders realize that no one who works to support the infrastructure can afford to live in or near it, that things might change. Would it be as simple as wage increases for service people in affluent areas?

By hoarders I assume you mean those who have high asking prices? What happens if no one buys prices go down. It’s already happening. They had been building like crazy near me in NJ. Condos-R-Us. Prices were outrageous and now they are dropping because no one will buy them. It’s going to take time to come down because they often took out huge loans to pay for the construction and now they simply can’t recoup in the short term. Prices go down quicker then salaries go up. Even for the upper class. Besides… there already exists high class ghettos in NYC. In some places because of rent control you’ve got people making 6 figures living in apartments costing far less then you’d see elsewhere. And they go through amazing hoops to keep them. I hear people at work asking people if they know anyone when they move so they can make a connection by getting them a rent controlled place.

Let me summarize:
If you don’t use it, you don’t own it.

From the article, “The only purpose is to take us out of our homes. So they can renovate our apartments and then rent them for ten times what we are paying now.” Does your logic imply that the industrialized nations of the world have a greater claim of ownership to oil in the ground than the countries which lay on top of it?

Much of what is currently private property has been obtained unjustly and hence needs to be redistributed.

Ah, the great reset. Good luck with that.