[_0ffh]

Yeah, this is total bs. The economy needs the money to circulate, then everybody gets richer. Money has no value but as a share of the economies' production. When money flows, production goes up. The problem is when some people who are so rich that they can barely spend a few per cents of their income. Instead of getting spent, the money gets invested. But that's not really circulation, it's the opposite: Stuck money used to stick more money.

Edit: This is not to say that there isn't any merit in Georges' other ideas.

[dantheman]

Money not spent/deferred means that the person producing basically volunteered their time.

Money invested is spent - it's spent by people who it's given to.

There is no such thing as "stuck" money.

[kashkhan]

depends on how that money is "produced".

Is it obtained by labor or by extracting rent.

When labor is added (get paid for building a house) real value is generated. In comparison having a piece of land go up in price, no real value is created for society.

In a society with 100 dollars, having zero velocity of money means trade using money is stopped. That's "stuck".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

[true_religion]

The purpose of money isnt' wholly to create value for society; its also to serve as a medium with which to measure the allocation of scarce resources.

If land prices go up, the resources associated with them then get allocated to those who find the greatest utility, and the money goes to other who will then spend it on other things.

If you force prices to stay static, you just get the Bay Area where whoever plopped themselves on the land first gets to keep it, like some kind of landed aristocracy.

[kashkhan]

tokyo is ahead of bay area in the process. Prices go up but then will go down as people decide its not worth it, and other places become "cooler".

Also tech (autonomous cars, hyperloop, flying cars , VR/AR ) or econ (UBI) disruption is coming in the next decade or two...