Quite the opposite, the natural tendency for any asset that's not naturally depreciating (money, property, ...) is for it too all end up in the hands of a few.
The reason is that the best strategy is to always acquire and never spend. Anyone ever played the monopoly game knows this.
However when people are forced to spend, like buying a house to live, the poor people are at a disadvantage. Rich people already have everything and can just time the market wait for the best moment with the lowest price. Poor people need to buy right then and there otherwise they'll sleep under a bridge.
We all know that poor people e.g. buy lower quality stuff like cheap clothes, used cars etc. that are actually more expensive in the long run, just because they can't wait to accumulate enough money for the good durable things. It works like that with a shirt and it works like that with acquiring a billion dollar business.
All the artificially durable assets like money and property will end up in the hands of a few, and we already today have 1% of the population owning 50% of the stuff or something like that.
This is why some amount of inflation counteracts this phenomenon to some extent, an actual demurrage on money would be much better. Same with property. Silvio Gesell writes about it in his book on the Natural Economic Order.
So abandon your ideas of passive income and generational wealth. They are bugs in the system. It's much more likely you'll be on the short end of that stick e.g. by starving in a financial crisis than be one of the lucky few on the receiving end.
Does this mean, we‘ll always grab our own stick and chase away the Pareto-blessed at some point in time?
That's a somewhat metaphorically phrased question. We're architects of our own future.
We can create money that's stable and that avoids lopsided distribution. The 20% that have 80% (how Pareto worded it, in reality it's already much much worse) aren't "blessed" as if it was chance that they have their fortune. It's coded in the algorithm of the system so to speak and we can rewrite the code as we like.
Silvio Gesell's ideas of demurrage are a good start, but of course he lived 100 years ago and didn't have Internet. He thought of reforming the central bank but in his world there would still be a central bank. We can do even better.
The shortcomings of today's fiat system are a result of it being a quasi monopoly. The answer to any monopoly is normally markets and competition, everyone holds each other in check and quality is high and price low. Why don't we have a market of fiat currencies then. We'll hold the one's that have the best reputation for being stable. Stable issuers are rewarded by receiving demurrage fees similar to interest.
This would cause an amount of computational overhead when buying and selling as a multitude of exchange rates will have to be taken account. In Gesell's time this would have been impractical, but my phone now has 100x the power of a Cray-2 supercomputer from 1986 so we're good.
This all is however bad news if you don't have skills. An unskilled person, if they manage to somehow end up on the receiving end of a lopsided distribution, as unlikely as that is, could and will use their position to their advantage and just live at other's expenses.
Any other arrangement like the one I'm proposing above will lead to a competition in skills. Including skills of warfare and the like. These can get very brutal very soon as Earth's resources are becoming scarce and climate change fucks things up.
I think I'm fine with skills and the risk of lopsided distributions causing financial collapse and starvation outweighs everything else. Up to you.
I said it’s distributed. Not that it’s distributed evenly. People can and will offer their services for money.
Oddbean new post about login | logout