Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by salawat 19 days ago
...You are using "wealth" in a way completely foreign to how I have ever seen it used linguistically. The abundance of resources available to an individual that we call "wealth" colloquially being transferable or tradable is basically the hallmark of a market economy. It can absolutely concentrate within one, because if it can be traded, it can absolutely be not traded decreasing the velocity of that value transfer to zero. So... Yes. If only one or a handful of people are buying, because everyone else is having to sell to stay alive, then wealth does, in fact, concentrate.
1 comments
WalterBright 19 days ago
Again, wealth is created, not "concentrated". The term "wealth" means the dollars you would get if you sold everything.

> wealth does, in fact, concentrate

Nope, because the people trading with you thought the exchange was of equal value, or they wouldn't have engaged in it.

link
stopping 19 days ago
The term you're looking for is "surplus". The consumer sees a surplus of value because the price they paid is below the maximum they're willing to pay, and the producer sees a surplus because the price they charged was more than the cost to produce the good. In this economic system both parties benefit. Economic surplus is the thing that is "created" with every transaction. "Surplus accumulation" as a concept doesn't make any sense, and is isomorphic to what you think people are saying when they use the phrase "wealth accumulation." You should update your definition of "wealth".
link
WalterBright 19 days ago
What's your definition of wealth?
link
stopping 19 days ago
Why are you asking? My hope is that you are asking this genuinely from a place of curiosity to better advance this discussion, as there is apparent confusion from people working from different definitions of the same word.
link
srean 19 days ago
> because the people trading with you thought the exchange was of equal value, or they wouldn't have engaged in it

If this was true I would have emphatically agreed with you on all counts. But it simply isn't true.

Many find themselves in a position where they have their arms twisted to accept a deal they don't like. Yet they accept for some existential reason or another.

I called out the other kind of transactions the 'no regret transactions' here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48395058 (erm you were personally named ;)

If a billionaires become billionaire through them, cheers, I wish them well.

BTW, thank you for your service.

link