>>Or as I put, if a small number of people are bleeding the economy dry, eventually it's going to die.<<
Precisely. Whenever you take out more from a system than gets put into it, the system eventually collapses. There's no way around that effect. So, in order to have an economy that does not collapse, it must either achieve equilibrium, take out less than is put in, or oscillate slowly around the break-even line. Wild swings are bad.
I believe it should be illegal for corporations to behave like parasites. They should be obliged to behave as commensals at least, and encouraged to behave like symbiotes. Those latter two things are possible, as some businesses do so. I just think we'd have a more functional nation if that were the requirement.
>>Money, unfortunately, is a zero sum game. More for them, means less for everyone else.<<
Too true. There is only so much of it, and the fake money -- which exists only in figments of pixels agreed upon by money-handlers -- is almost all in the hands of the fatcats.
Yes...
Date: 2011-02-25 06:48 pm (UTC)Precisely. Whenever you take out more from a system than gets put into it, the system eventually collapses. There's no way around that effect. So, in order to have an economy that does not collapse, it must either achieve equilibrium, take out less than is put in, or oscillate slowly around the break-even line. Wild swings are bad.
I believe it should be illegal for corporations to behave like parasites. They should be obliged to behave as commensals at least, and encouraged to behave like symbiotes. Those latter two things are possible, as some businesses do so. I just think we'd have a more functional nation if that were the requirement.
>>Money, unfortunately, is a zero sum game. More for them, means less for everyone else.<<
Too true. There is only so much of it, and the fake money -- which exists only in figments of pixels agreed upon by money-handlers -- is almost all in the hands of the fatcats.