On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 10:14:47AM -0700, Nicholas Leippe wrote: > On Friday 05 December 2008 09:18:21 am Von Grant Fugal wrote: > > There is less MONEY to go around, but I will say it time and time again, > > MONEY IS NOT WEALTH! > > I agree. Money is not wealth. Money is a means of wealth transferrence. > Wealth, is measured in property. An interesting aside is, when you use a > precious metal as money, it now wears two hats. > > > Why is it bad for me or anyone else, if when capita increases, we all > > have less money? There's more people per unit money, but there's also > > more goods per unit money, so really it all balances out. > > How is there magically more goods per unit money with an increase of capita? > An increase of capita is an increase in demand, not supply.
It is an increase in demand, but it is also an increase in population. More people means greater scope for specialization and comparative advantage. Therefore people are more productive, and everyone is wealthier. Try a simple mental exercise: Robinson Crusoe, alone on his island, has no-one with whom to trade. He must hunt, cook, wash dishes, etc. When Friday shows up, they can trade: say Friday is better at hunting that Crusoe, but Crusoe better at cooking. Friday hunts, Crusoe cooks. Both do what is to their comparative advantage, and both are better off. Neither one is going to be looking for a job as python programmer. That's specialization with a vengeance. -- Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
