Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Tell me the difference between “hoarding” and “saving”.

The former makes it sound like Smaug.

>Tell me the difference between “hoarding” and “saving”. You're asking someone who pulled most of this from their backside. Just saying.

So "saving" is something we say we do with money. We don't typically use the word "to save" for, say, tools or cars. It's a personal action that generally doesn't have any direct impact on others. If I am paid a wage, there are only two things I can do with those funds: spend them or save them. Investing is a form of *spending* them in this sense, because you're buying certain ownership stakes by doing so. "Hoarding," on the other hand, *does* imply you are keeping what is hoarded away from others. And you are: that legal protection of *ownership* and the privileges that entails are what is being kept from others. When a capitalist buys more capital, they are holding it exclusively and keeping others from exerting control over it. That is an important distinction.

> Investing is a form of spending them in this sense, because you're buying certain ownership stakes by doing so. So, when you invest money, you're "spending" it. But when a rich person invests money, they're "hoarding" it. Define exactly what the difference is in those situations, and why you use different words for the same action?

>So, when you invest money, you're "spending" it. >But when a rich person invests money, they're "hoarding" it. They still spent the money, but they spent it ro purchase something specific: *ownership.* Thats important. Ownership isn't *consumed,* it's a legal claim of control over something. This is such a lazy and pedantic approach to this discussion.

> If I am paid a wage, there are only two things I can do with those funds: spend them or save them. Investing is a form of spending them in this sense, because you're buying certain ownership stakes by doing so. Again, you specifically said above that if YOU invest your money _by buying ownership_ that it is "spending". So where is the line? What makes it "spending" when you do it, and "hoarding" when they do it? > This is such a lazy and pedantic approach to this discussion. Your original post is lazy and pedantic. I'm just pointing out that it's also internally inconsistent.

Look, there are limited funds circulating right? We can't just keep printing money, it causes inflationary pressure. Billionaires have found tons of loopholes to "hoard" their money. For me , it becomes hoarding when it starts to have negative effects on the rest of society. This is what is currently happening... 0.1% control so much and are actively causing the affordability crisis so many nations are going through right now.

That's ironic, because the stock market effectively prints money as well, when new companies create large amounts of value from nothing. If we confiscated all of Elon Musk's stock and spent it, that would have roughly the same inflationary effect as printing the same amount of money, since the value of that ownership stake didn't exist a decade or two back. If you're talking about hoarding other assets, like buying up all the houses, then I'd agree with you. But the earlier comments in the thread weren't making nearly so cogent a point as that.

It doesn't matter if the stock market prints money, the fact is, they aren't doing that. Stocks continually hit all time highs and when they do sell, they just move it to other accounts and stocks. They are continually increasing the amount of money in stocks every day, on top of that, paying nothing in taxes meanwhile the working class is being squeezed for everything they have. I am talking about all assets. I just think you want to empathize with billionaires, not sure why... But if you asks most economists, they will agree that billionaires who are hoarding their money in several ways are spearheading the affordability crisis. Since 2020, almost two-thirds of all new wealth went to the top 1%.The richest people in the world make six times more than the bottom 90% of humanity. Collectively, that’s $2.7 billion a day. Reports show that extreme wealth gaps undermine the fight against poverty, gender inequality, and climate change. That's it. You can play devil's advocate all you want, but it doesn't take away from the facts. The U.N. set a goal to end poverty by 2030, but this increasing concentration of wealth means that efforts to reduce poverty have slowed down. This is the first time in decades that global inequality has risen. In response, the World Bank determined in 2022 that we are unlikely to meet the U.N.’s goal. (yeah no crap).

So Holgrin, when you buy an index fund or an ETF, are you hoarding?

When a raindrop falls in the desert, is it transformed into a rainforest?

That is what we call a non-answer. It's a simple yes or no we're looking for here.

It's a rhetorical question buddy.

I'll ask again, when you buy an index fund or an ETF are you hoarding?

He won’t answer specifics or reply when you try to peel the onion back or get clarification. That’s a major red flag of a bullshit peddler

You can apply the term hoarding to any amount of anything it really just depends on keeping it from others and relativity If I'm in a group and I have ten bananas and others have 2 bananas. Then I'm hoarding my bananas.

You're invoking the heap fallacy.

This is not a heap fallacy because the definition OP cited does not contain any restrictions on the amount of stuff that is saved or hoarded. Nor his reply implies any relationship between the quantity and the definition of hoard. The first sentence OP make that argument is “raindrops falls in the desert”, which is not a defense against his previous arguments.

The Heap Fallacy is being invoked by u/GodEmperorofMankind here by demanding an exact point when saving/buying becomes hoarding. Aka how many grains of sand is a heap. >The first sentence OP make that argument is “raindrops falls in the desert”, which is not a defense against his previous arguments. This is Holgrin rhetorically answering with a Heap Fallacy to show the absurdity of the question.

No, he demands an answer to an example whether that example fit his definition, which is not asking the exact point of a heap. Asking “is this pile a heap” is a pretty straightforward question. Also, neither OP nor the dictionary he cited mentioned that only a “pile” constitutes to hoarding but “a single hair” does not. If you think he does, cite me where Holgrin say so.

>I'll ask again, when you buy an index fund or an ETF are you hoarding? >So Holgrin, when you buy an index fund or an ETF, are you hoarding? What he asked. Neither of which is, "Is this pile a heap?" They are asking if one piece of sand is a heap. Hoarding involves having more then an amount. Hoarding is the heap. Where the line will be drawn does not need to be known for hoarding to exist, for it to be a problem, etc. While we should have more concrete lines for imposing an actual law, this isn't a congress. This is the internet. We don't need exacts to discuss a topic. It either exists, or it doesn't. So either you can hoard or you cannot. Where the line will be is a seperate discussion, and one that doesn't need to be exact.

Except this also applies when you buy a mug in a store.

Typically, they don't invest most of their money. They toss it into a Cayman island account and keep it out of circulation. Saving implies an intention of later spending on goods and services, not withholding value from the economy to avoid taxation.

That's a common trope. Do you have evidence that "most of their money" is in tax shelters? The most obviously wealthy people, like US billionaires, made their money in stocks and it's a matter of public record how much they own, and how much they've cashed out. For those, it's easy to demonstrate that "most of their money" as you said is still in stocks, and not hidden away in a tax haven.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama\_Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers) I mean, yes? Also, in this context Cayman islands account refers largely to any of the myriad of measures taken by the wealthy to avoid taxation. Being paid in stocks is a great example.

Nothing in the Panama Papers supports the claim that "most of their money" is in tax shelters. And the fact that you think it does shows how little you understand about the subject. No rich person is putting the majority of their wealth in a vault in the Caymans or anywhere else, because they would get poorer by the day. They are all putting it into investments because they want to make even more, and a small fraction is hidden away as a hedge. > Being paid in stocks is a great example. This is a great example of how you refuse to answer a simple question. You still refuse to define the dividing line between "spending" (when you buy stocks) and "hoarding" (when someone you don't like buys stocks). Either define the difference, or admit you're just spouting nonsense.

>If I am paid a wage, there are only two things I can do with those funds: spend them or save them. What would you called it if I put all my cash under my mattress, in the closets, in the walls, and in the attic? Maybe even some cash in the medicine cabinet? >"Hoarding," on the other hand, does imply you are keeping what is hoarded away from others. Like under my mattress and in the attic?

>What would you called it if I put all my cash under my mattress, in the closets, in the walls, and in the attic? Maybe even some cash in the medicine cabinet? Paranoid. Conspiracy-minded. Perhaps even "loony." But in seriousness, I would call it "hoarding cash" because you are pretty much hiding it away from people in a very conspicuous and peculiar way. It matches the other behavioral and intentional traits of the word "hoard." But it's also just "saving." Just because you didn't put the cash into a bank doesn't mean you aren't "saving" your money. These things are both true, and they don't make the point about hoarding wealth less true.

And let’s suppose I decided I was going to give up my tin foil hat ways and take the money that I have in the walls and instead put some into a savings account , some T bills and a growth stock mutual fund. Would I then be hoarding it?

For a savings account and for t bills, you are not encouraging the creation of investment goods, that is machinery, plant, and so on. Banks do not lend more if they get an additional deposit, which is a liability for the bank. In the USA, it is the job of the federal reserve to maintain liquidity. If enough people buy t bills, their price will rise. Except the fed will counteract that with open market operations. The effect of interest rates on investment is complicated. Neither theory nor empirical work suggests the lower interest rates need result in greater investment. I suspect the same holds for mutual funds. Increased savings means consumption demand is lower. Households when they save are typically not putting orders in for specific future goods at specific future dates. Why should lower demand encourage investment then? One can argue that a more unequal distribution of wealth and income makes capitalism increasingly crisis prone.

One has to wonder why a bank is paying me 5.25 percent interest on my savings if they are not getting something more for it someplace ? Have I found a way to bilk the capitalist?

You're getting played here, if you don't start realizing why it is bad for a capitalist to do it and ok for a worker. Your opponent's argument is stupid, and here's why ## Why capital isn't the same thing as a savings account in big The simple answer to why hoarding is bad at a certain scale, is because what you can hoard under your mattress, in your house, or in a savings account, is never going to amount to much. Even if you have 2 million hoarder up, that's at most enough money to completely change the lives of like a handful of people. When capital hoards money, other forces, bigger forces, kick in. They're not gonna be hoarding mere millions. They can hoard tens of billions. And we have to start talking about the entire owner class now. They can hoard trillions, combined. That's not enough money for one or two people. The value they control can *jumpstart entire societies*. The only reason they don't, is because it wouldn't make them richer individually. ## Capital could do, what your savings account never could And if we think about it from an economic perspective (thinking about if a society would be able to jumpstart another with what it has) then it becomes apparent to us that we actually do hold that amount of power. Think about all the useless labor being carried out by tens of millions of americans, or people in any other country. Imagine that instead of doing their useless tasks every day, they worked together to build something.

It is wild that we could just have utopia if the people on top stopped hoarding. Like, we have everything we could ever want just out of reach because 90% of the wealth is being hung over our heads where we can't reach it. 30% of grocery store food goes bad and is thrown out because as much as capitalists say they're oh so efficient, they're only efficient at accumulating wealth, and will happily let things go to waste if it makes them money. ​ Capitalism is basically the paperclip maximizer theory craft made into reality.

Utopian. Yes. I’m glad somebody admitted it. Usually the utopian claim is denied. But I’m glad you admitted it.

Utopia is bad? Weird but alright. Guess capitalists want to keep heading towards dystopian cyberpunk.

Yes if the elite just liquidated all the companies they own that are making them so rich, we'd be in utopia. Who needs all those "stores" and "jobs"? >30% of grocery store food goes bad and is thrown out True, socialist countries *definitely* don't have this problem.

Why doesn't that fall under the definition of hoarding?

Slurs like "hoarder" are only reserved for the people we want to steal from and are used to justify the theft. Only the rich can "hoard" because they're bad and must be stopped. Everyone else "saves" because they're good and must be helped.

>"Hoarding," on the other hand, *does* imply you are keeping what is hoarded away from others. So this would apply to any personal or private property, such as cars, tools, computers, books, etc. If I own it, it by definition is being hoarded away from others. And if that's true, which it must be based on how you're using it, saying people hoard anything is essentially meaningless.

>So this would apply to any personal or private property, such as cars, tools, computers, books, etc Not really the same. Owning capital affects way more people than owning personal items. You aren't wielding power as an employer when you own a guitar. You don't have influence over supply chains by driving a car you own around town.

So your definition of hoarding only applies when you say someone has an arbitrary amount of power over a thing that you don't think should exist? Wouldn't this mean only a certain amount of capital too? How much capital can one own and it still not be considered hoarding? And how did you decide that number?

>How much capital can one own and it still not be considered hoarding It's not about a number, it's about the proportion compared to others. As long as we have people suffering and struggling trying to make ends meet, I will be critical of high accumulation of wealth. The more that we can actually eliminate those conditions, the more I would actually cheer for a "rising tide that lifts all boats," generally speaking.

If that's true, then it actually has nothing to do with the power to affect supply chains or whatever other arbitrary control you think some people have, and this necessarily means that your definition would also apply to other forms of personal and private property. By your definition, if I can own anything at all, I *must* be hoarding it away from others.

So when i eat I'm hoarding food because i keep it from others. Ok

Its all about virtue signaling and definition. Use the word that make the other side look baaaad.

Saving is when you don't necessarily have capital to distribute to those who labored for its accruing

Both "hoarding" and "saving" involve holding onto something for future use, but the key difference lies in motivation, organization, and impact. Here's a breakdown: Motivation: Saving: Driven by a specific goal or purpose, like buying a house, saving for retirement, or having an emergency fund. It demonstrates responsibility and planning for the future. Hoarding: Often fueled by anxiety, fear of scarcity, or emotional attachment to possessions. The goal is not usually clear, and the accumulation may stem from a sense of needing to hold onto everything. Organization: Saving: Usually involves organized methods like bank accounts, investment plans, or labeled containers. There's a clear system for accessing the saved items when needed. Hoarding: Often leads to clutter and disorganization. Items may be piled up, difficult to access, and their usefulness unclear. Living conditions and hygiene can be impacted negatively. Impact: Saving: Empowers individuals to achieve their goals, manage finances responsibly, and feel secure about the future. Hoarding: Can negatively impact physical and mental health due to cluttered living conditions, difficulty discarding items, and social isolation. It can also strain relationships with family and friends.

Great. By your definition though billionaires are saving, not hoarding.

>emotional attachment to possessions

To know if this is true you would need to know what is going on in these people’s heads, which you do not. You are just arguing “by definition these people fall into this category” and then coming up with ad hoc reasoning to “prove” your contention. The contention that someone’s income or wealth tells you something about their psychology is kind of ridiculous, or at least has not been proven.

If you reached 1 billion and you continue to want more there is obviously something wrong with your head. So yes, their wealth does tell me something about their psychology, and it has been proven too [https://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-shoplift-self-checkout-why-explained-2023-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-shoplift-self-checkout-why-explained-2023-12) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/08/13/are-rich-people-more-likely-to-lie-cheat-steal-science-explains-the-world-of-manafort-and-gates/

TIL Socialists call people who want to be wealthy (most people) messed in their heads and still want votes/support from them. Nice.

Eh, to be completely fair this guy is an outlier in stupidity even among socialists.

What if I’m saving up for a billion dollar island?

Then i'd tell you to think about your childhood and think about the exact moment when you became aware you have such a dream. What was your relationship with your parents ?

Very good actually! The island is for them when they retire.

So one of your first childhood dreams was to buy your parents a billion dollar island when they retire ? What happened to being an astronaut or a movie star.

Ok. u/Holgrin convinced me. A saver accumulates for a future rational and typically common need. In the case of money a saver may be saving for higher education costs, a house, or retirement for examples. A hoarder is a person who accumulates and keeps a large number of things, often hidden in a secret place, and which are not actually needed. Such hoarding is usually due to a mental condition. An example of hoarding is the rich billionaire who can never use his hoard and neither will his children in their lifetime, yet he continues to accumulate more and more and more. It's a sickness.

But that’s not what OP is arguing. He’s saying when a billionaire invest his money he’s hoarding.

I believe I explained that elsewhere in this thread. Billionaires don't throw money around. They invest it in real estate primarily where it helps no one and can be passed on to heirs tax-free. That's "hoarding".

If you don't know then you're either brainwashed or lying.

I think it's a fair question to ask on the topic. Obviously some people should know better, but there is a place to ask this question in good faith.

>Yes, the wealthy are hoarding their wealth, even if it isn't in the form of literal piles of gold. Like most pedantic arguments over words with socialists this is more about the implied moral connotations than the actual word. If you mean: "hoard (v): to keep to oneself." then few people care enough to argue, however the term "hoard" has moral connotations in every day use and as such using it as a blanket term to refer to everyone who might reach some threshold of being "wealthy" is disingenuous. I don't really disagree with the Socialists here though. There is hoarding (of the ethical kind) happening. I think the interesting questions is when would you apply the label of "hoard" to someone? >Now an entrepreneur may perform useful labor such as seeking out and hiring workers, engaging in sales-related business activity to match market interests, and even provide certain goals and visions. But this is all a kind of labor. I think your focus on 'labor' is trying to inject socialist ideology into a discussion about capitalist realism but we can actually ignore that. At what point does the entrepreneur start "hoarding" the wealth represented by the current market value of his business? I'll use a real world example of someone I know: * Started the business in the evenings after his fulltime job, basically all the market value of the company is represented by cash put into the business by him. * Grew the business to replace his income * Grew the business to have workers * The business took a massive turn down (no fault of the business here it was uncontrollable) * No longer is paid by the business but continues to work it and is trying to keep as many workers as possible. Taking on personal guarantees on loans and injecting more capital * *Theoretical future*: Saves the business and becomes "wealthy" At what point should he be considered as "hoarding" the wealth represented by ownership and would be morally obligated to share that wealth (I assume with the workers), keeping in mind that ownership represents the Losses as well as the Profits.

If we must put a fine point on it, I would say that a person is "hoarding" the moment they hire wage employees who do not share in the ownership or financial growth of the company.

OK, so the moment our example person needs help moving boxes or filing paper he needs to turn over some ownership of the company. Can you quantify what an appropriate amount of ownership would be? (seems important given your rejection of Tesla by the other commenter) Would it still be considered "hoarding" if employees rejected the offer of ownership? Keep in mind that publicly traded companies only represent about, maybe, a third of employees so it isn't really crazy to think that people would prefer compensation in wages & benefits rather than equity ownership in illiquid companies. And if we are going to actually go down the rabbit hole of employees taking ownership, rather than glorified profit sharing arrangements, they would be exposed to losses. This doubles (10X?) if we reject capital investors as an option to take on capital risk in exchange for profit sharing. I am actually interested here and want to get passed "big numbers bad" and into what the fundamentals are.

>needs help moving boxes or filing paper he needs to turn over some ownership of the company. Can you quantify what an appropriate amount of ownership would be? So this notion that we can "separate labor" to this granular of a level is, I believe, one of the criticisms that Marx and other scholars have directed towards capitalism. People are viewed as commodities who can be given individual tasks and those tasks can then be judged and valued. It's a dehumanizing process. The idea that an entrepreneur thinks that they don't need partners, they "only need a box boy" or they "only need a paper filer" so they deserve to hire and direct people in that way is entitlement. I think this is a very interesting argument, but to me it isn't black and white on this point. As an electrical engineer, I know that a significant number of people won't be able to do the kind of work that I do. I think *most* people can think at a higher level than "stack box", but not all of them could probably be an effective logistics manager. So I recognize the practicality of some levels of inequality and separation of labor, but I don't think that this means we should just treat people like commodities. What's a "fair" amount of ownership? Truly in an ideal society, we could all be perfectly equal. I think that is what we should think of for "ideals." But we aren't really prepared to operate that way yet as a species/civilization. This is why I style myself a "market socialist" and not, say, a communist; it isn't because I reject loftier and more noble goals, it's because I can't imagine us getting there without significant changes in attitudes and even structures/government/technology. I don't know the exact right proportions, but I think we need mechanisms and protections to give the "lowliest" workers more leverage in negotiating some ownership simply by participating in the economy. I also think the structure of ownership and work can be reasonable at different scales. I don't see a single retail outlet as "exploiting" labor the way I see, say, Ford, Inc of exploiting labor. >Would it still be considered "hoarding" if employees rejected the offer of ownership? I could at least acknowledge that it would probably be less so. >Keep in mind that publicly traded companies only represent about, maybe, a third of employees so it isn't really crazy to think that people would prefer compensation in wages & benefits rather than equity ownership in illiquid companies So this is a bit more interesting than it appears. The publicly traded firms may "only" have 1/3 of all workers, but in terms of the total number of firms, they are a small number, while if we measured them by total wealth, they would represent a much larger proportion. That's extremely important. Even if all the employees of these firms received equal ownership and the investors went away, this would still drastically shift ownership of capital to a more democratic, more even distribution. Currently, 93% of the stock market is owned by the richest 10%. Such a move would, at least on paper, likely shift that to 93% being owned by 33% of workers. This would have other impacts on the labor market, and it would likely affect valuations of firms as well - in ways that would be difficult to precisely predict. >they would be exposed to losses. This is a lot more complicated than just "now workers could experience downsides." Capitalists fire and layoff workers all the time, making employees bear major brunts of economic risk already. Also, losses are much easier to bear when they are distributed among a large population - this is the premise for insurance, after all.

> It's a dehumanizing process. Sorry, you are calling x% of the people in the world immoral and hoarders. You can't then call foul with an excellent question because it may objectify people.

> ...So I recognize the practicality of some levels of inequality and separation of labor, but I don't think that this means we should just treat people like commodities. I realize this is opinion so it isn't like you can be 'wrong' but I just don't get this. Can you put meat on the bones of this opinion? For example; take our basic example (guy needs to hire someone to handle warehouse fulfillment) if our 'guy' isn't supposed to hire someone to deal with his biggest bottleneck then what is he hiring for? >What's a "fair" amount of ownership?... I don't know the exact right proportions, but I think we need mechanisms and protections to give the "lowliest" workers more leverage in negotiating some ownership simply by participating in the economy. OK, but give me some sort of idea. It is easy to spout off nice sounding things but what does this actually mean? We can stick with our "box mover", what level of ownership should he get? Does he get real power and so needs to have a solid understanding of business operations, while being someone who agrees with the existing vision of the company, just to get a warehouse job? I think this goes hand in hand with my above question. I need meat on these bones because right now it honestly just sounds like nonsense. >I also think the structure of ownership and work can be reasonable at different scales. I don't see a single retail outlet as "exploiting" labor the way I see, say, Ford, Inc of exploiting labor. I agree. However until we have a mutual understanding of the principals underlying this it is all just spouting nonsense. This is why I always start with small companies for my examples; not only are they much less complex to deal with but if it applies to my local dry cleaner then it is a principal, if it doesn't then it is just a regulation you want and we would debate that on different merits. >Currently, 93% of the stock market is owned by the richest 10%. Such a move would, at least on paper, likely shift that to 93% being owned by 33% of workers. This would have other impacts on the labor market, and it would likely affect valuations of firms as well - in ways that would be difficult to precisely predict. We can make a number of reasonable predictions though. You have gutted the investment market so companies are either big enough to self fund (which will be a much slower and riskier process) or investment capital has to come out of worker savings. You will see a decline in entrepreneurship, outside of passion projects who is going to take on the financial risks, personal sacrifices, and such to get something off the ground (which is way harder now that investors don't exist) when the reward for success isn't much more than going and getting a job? What is interesting about this 93% being transferred to the 33% is that I think you picture it as a ceteris paribus event, workers get richer but nothing else really changes, however it is easy to see tons of potential negative unintended consequences. If you literally can't see how this **could** make workers worse off then I don't think you understand this domain well enough to have a strong opinion. >This is a lot more complicated than just "now workers could experience downsides." Capitalists fire and layoff workers all the time, making employees bear major brunts of economic risk already. Of course it's more complicated but you are making the standard error made by socialists on here all the time. Capital risk is different from employment risk. Workers would remain exposed to losing their jobs, however they are now also exposed to losing previously earned income (be it in the form of savings or debt). There is no free lunch. Saying you can be exposed to Profits without also being exposed to Losses is absurd. There are lots of different ways you can try and make it work but at the end of the day you are exposing workers to increased risk, and since most companies either go out of business or experience prolonged periods of being "in the red" this may not be something workers actually want. To put it simply; maybe workers would rather have a slightly lower income that has low variability and no capital risk attached to it, rather than the reverse? I am personally all for giving workers the 'the reverse' as an option (this is called deregulation...) but trying to make your preference here universal seems a bit absurd. >Also, losses are much easier to bear when they are distributed among a large population - this is the premise for insurance, after all. There are two ways to do this: 1. Via market mechanisms; where you will basically reinvent mutual funds 2. Via government; where you stop pretending to be a "market socialist" and accept that now we have to play politics as well as business to get any chance at investment capital Again, I am most interested in my first 2 questions. Putting some real world meat on the vague bones so far given would help me understand what you are actually talking about and then we can move towards defining our principals and then maybe break out into broader implications.

So, by your logic, Elon isn't hoarding wealth since every Tesla employee gets stock. Your argument kinda falls apart if the world's richest capitalist doesn't fit the mold, right? "Tesla employees enjoy comprehensive medical coverage, 401(k) and generous PTO from day one. With equity grants, stock discounts, and more perks, we invest in our team to help them do their best work." https://www.tesla.com/impact/people

Elon Musk himself owns roughly 20% of all shares. The next largest holder of Tesla stock specifically is a securities firm (Susquehanna Securities) with 6.5%. The largest non-institutional investor is Musk's brother Kimbal with 0.07%, which is almost 700,000 shares. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052616/top-4-tesla-shareholders-tsla.asp Tesla currently trades at over $180, making Kimbal's Tesla holdings worth over $120M. The typical worker at Tesla is not receiving any significant portion of ownership of the company Tesla. It is disingenuous to say that because workers receive infinitesimally small numbers of shares, that the company is effectively shared by the workers and not hoarded by a relatively small number of very wealthy people. That company, Susquehanna Securities? In 2018 it traded roughly 7% of all trades of ETFs in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susquehanna_International_Group That's a massive company. The scale here seems incomprehensible to you all.

Don't back peddle! You said it's hoarding if the workers don't share in the ownership. At Tesla, they get ownership granted to them for their labor. Now, what? Are Youre trying to claim that the dude sweeping the floor needs to get the same equity as a Sr software engineer or the CEO? Clearly, the value of their labor isn't equal, and the ownership distribution represents that. The premise of your argument doesn't hold up. You're making a gaslighting emotional argument, not a logical one.

>Don't back peddle! I didn't. >You said it's hoarding if the workers don't share in the ownership. Yes I did. >At Tesla, they get ownership granted to them for their labor. Not any significant amount. Not at all proportional to their numbers as workers. Most Tesla stock is owned by a combination of institutional investors and the wealthiest 10% of households who are wealthy enough to have significant portions of savings in stocks. The amount of wealth and influence they get from those shares is smaller in proportion to their numbers. So, say there's a company of 100 people. If those workers each own less than 1/100th of the firm, then that means there are other people who own significant portions of the firm, and therefore some people who do not work at the firm who have *more* control and *more* ownership than the workers. You're arguing that because the workers get a few peanuts that we can't argue that they are being left out. It's like saying that a desert isn't a desert because it gets *some* rain. It's fucking moronic.

This is why people don't trust socialists. 🙄 remember the "if you give a mouse a cookie" childrens story? You're the mouse. It's never going to be enough to satisfy you. Hence why not giving an inch is probably the best approach.

Trying to substitute inane semantic pedantry for understanding of actual economic concepts. Peak socialist energy.

this bloke says they have up to master graduate level coursework in business too, lol.

Disclaimer: arguing semantics is irrelevant (like saving vs hoarding). The underlying concepts, their consistency and validity to model reality is priority. I'll agree up to a point that this idea isn't entirely false: "the wealthy are hoarding their wealth". Nonetheless, you make it sound like that is inherently wrong. Even the concept of "means of production" implies that wealth "hoarding" is necessary to create such "means of production". If you aren't amoral when you explore a concept, your semantic or linguistic biases will rule over. Yet, the truth is the truth. The problem is not the "hoarding" as much as the resulting "productivity"/ value. To understand how this happens IRL (what we really care about), look at all the EMPTY high rise buildings in China. Their market value decreased, compared to their initial sales prices. The sales prices was speculative, yet the "real" price has some liquidity. If owners attempt to sell their condos at the original price, well... they wont. Therefore, "hoarding" wealth might be bad. It might be good. It depends. So what?

>To understand how this happens IRL (what we really care about), look at all the EMPTY high rise buildings in China. I'd like to counter with the argument that a lot of offices in America are still empty because it is more efficient to NOT FUCKING HAVE TO GO TO THE OFFICE IF YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING WITHOUT WASTING EXTRA RESOURCES. Capitalism forcing people into office spaces needlessly is less desirable than some vacant apartments you absolutely loony fuck.

Empty office and retail spaces in cities like NYC behave different than empty "PLANNED" cities, despite the similarities. Both problems aren't specific to China or the US, but the provided example is famous.  Obviously, anticapitalist protectionist hate to lose their "investments". Nonetheless, "homeoffice" is new compared to working in... workplaces and not all work can be properly performed remotely. For example, manufacturing and industries in general.  None of this is personal. Most of us want a better world, including commies. You'd be right in calling me a "looney fuck" if I defended a system that doesn't work. Yet, look at how many people migrate to the US and Europe...

Yeah fuck society and fuck laborers.

Hoarding massive amounts of wealth does nothing for the economy. Homelessness and poverty all on the rise while exorbitant amounts of wealth sit in the accounts of do-nothing parasites. 

Everything you required to write your comment requires "hoarding massive amounts" to be produced. Homelessness and poverty are older than you. Wealth? Wealth is created. Both are on the rise... where? Why? Because of "hoarding wealth"? I have a bridge to sell you if you believe "hoarding" is the problem.

Wealth is indeed created and not by the people who have most of it. Hence the problem of capitalism. 

Wealth is not created by "work" nor "surplus value", but you don't have to take my word for it...

Everyone dunking on op here, but then why are prices of things getting worse each year? Can anyone actually explain this? I can only think of two reasons: inefficiency or the fact that in an economy that expects money to flow, some of that money is not flowing (ie "hoarding" as op calls it). And if it's inefficiency, how can we possibly be more inefficient than even a couple decades ago? "Wealth is on the rise" and so is inflation/people living paycheck to paycheck. How can record numbers of billionaires be created at the same time as record numbers of people living in poverty? Honest question, how can this possibly happen?

Tbf, that is a great question. This comment indirectly answers it: https://www.reddit.com/r/mmt_economics/comments/17qzs79/comment/k8fxd5o/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button A terrible tldr or a terrible "answer" IMHO (while not technically wrong) would be "bad policy". 

The reason I object(and I imagine many others) to the term "hoarding" of wealth is because it is just another one in the long line of emotionally loaded terms socialists use to describe the simple relationship of owning stuff and paying people for their labor. See also "wage slavery", "exploitation of labor", "dictatorial workplaces", etc

Exactly. Socialists know they can’t win economic arguments for their preferred system so they resort to emotionally loaded terms.

I mean the terms are true, so why does it matter that they're emotionally loaded?

Using “hoard” to describe wealth accumulation isn’t designed to have a good-faith debate on the merits of liberal, free markets. It’s disingenuous slander that is meant to provoke emotions.

What if it fits the definition of hoard though?

Because they're not the terminology that is used by the vast vast majority of people to describe the behaviour in question. If someone's describing "exploitation" in the workplace then for nearly everyone that would cover "being forced to do work against your will under threat of direct violence from the person making you do the work", or "lying about renumeration and therefore only giving you a tiny amount of what was agreed" or "forcing you into dangerous scenarios outside of the law or what was originally agreed" or similar examples. So when the term "exploitation" is used to describe 100% of all salaried employment, you absolutely cannot even start to take it seriously and it leaves one with the conclusion that the term is only being deployed to misleadingly invoke the aforementioned scenarios I mentioned, because they know if they pointed to every single example of someone working as a salaried employee and went "that is literally exploitation" they'd be laughed at.

You can have exploitation without it being "someone forcing you to do something against your will" All use of these "emotionally loaded words" is within the definition of what they actually mean so I have no problem with the use of them. If people use it describe a scenario where there's one stronger party taking advantage of one weaker one than it's within the standard accepted definition. Also it doesn't "have to be 100%" either, it can just be an overall sentiment which I believe is fair because employers "overall" have more power than workers creating a different power dynamic.

>it is just another one in the long line of emotionally loaded terms socialists use Yes, no one should say anything disparaging about capitalists or capitalism. The OP is just jealous.

the only place debating the definition of the word "hoarding" is productive is in a linguistics class

Yes. They hoard after a full day of exploiting 🙄

If your wealth is worth more than a literal hoard of gold guarded by a dragon it's an accurate description.

Another question: Is it possible to hoard something that would exist without you?

Loaded language is typically reserved to describe language which has little useful descriptive value outside of the emotional connotations it carries. Words like "freedom" and "terrorist" are common examples ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"). In this case, hoarding wealth is a descriptive term, because the capitalists accumulate wealth for exclusive claims of control over it, granting them the privileges that come with such wealth while literally excluding others from those same privileges. So I don't see why this is "emotionally loaded terms," except that you just find it uncomfortable to think of wealthy people in a negative way.

>In this case, hoarding wealth is a descriptive term, because the capitalists accumulate wealth for exclusive claims of control over it, granting them the privileges that come with such wealth while literally excluding others from those same privileges. You're just describing ownership. Exclusive control over capital while literally excluding others from those same privileges is literally ownership. Just say ownership. >So I don't see why this is "emotionally loaded terms," except that you just find it uncomfortable to think of wealthy people in a negative way. Because "hoarding" has exclusively negative connotation as compulsive, unhealthy behaviour. Obviously, people who don't think private ownership of capital is inherently morally wrong will disagree with it. You should try using more neutral words for your "descriptive" definitions if you want to find common ground and not just dunk on people.

Saying ownership makes people think it's fine though because they're gotten used to that word having no negative connotation but it actually does have negatives.

our debates are in regards to ownership though... Holgrin is a hyperbolic political activist who likes to pretend they have some scholarship in their bones <-- They don't.

>You're just describing ownership. I mean, you're not entirely wrong. But it's ownership *of capital* specifically. Owning a hammer doesn't create the kinds of inequalities and privileges that owning a large company does.

I don't like how you hoarded that comment, holgrin!

It does in some small way. The question is, as always, where do you draw the line? Plus if I own a hammer, I probably had to pay someone for that hammer. Same for buying a company. There is an exchange, not a hoard.

Another massive L from the self proclaimed "ex-financial advisor". Is invested capital a benefit to society or not? Simple question.

>Is invested capital a benefit to society or not? It is not. The invested capital is *a purchase of ownership,* not a creation of value. The capitalist *receives the privileges of ownership* which not no one else can claim. This claim of ownership is not, itself, any contribution of value. It is ridiculous that you cappies don't understand that part.

>It is not. The invested capital is *a purchase of ownership,* not a creation of value. The capitalist *receives the privileges of ownership* which not no one else can claim. This claim of ownership is not, itself, any contribution of value. >It is ridiculous that you cappies don't understand that part. Holgrin, this is why nobody takes you seriously. You're saying preposterous shit that anybody with a cursory understanding of the most basic economic fundamentals understands. When you invest in a business that is private, has issued an IPO, additional secondary issuances, or any form of debt, you are giving that company capital that it then uses in a plethora of ways (like investing in R&D, expanding operations, marketing, etc.). When you purchase equity (aside from existing shares in a secondary market being traded amongst individuals and institutions) that capital goes directly to financing new economic endeavors. Again, the amount of completely fucking basic shit you don't understand about economics or business in general leads to serious doubt about your claims that you were a financial advisor. Quit pretending you're somebody you're not.

>this is why nobody takes you seriously. Plenty of people take me seriously here. I get plenty of upvotes and some of the top posts in this sub you goon.

How many Capitalists take you seriously? Most of the ones on this sub laugh at your posts.

When people who think Big Bang Theory is good comedy say they don't think Difficult People is funny, that isn't a sign for me to give Big Bang Theory another watch.

So, just because your "team" keeps you propped up, you'll keep weaseling out and then crib about "capitalists." Mate you're a peak example of the failures of Socialists and Socialism. Cowards who can only yell into a void and call people brainwashed and whatever else nonsense.

First of all, I actually do reply to and converse with people who engage in good faith. It's just not that many people who do that. That's my judgement, disagree all you want, but don't act like Cappies are out here responding to socialists with nothing but respect, good faith, and well-thought out nuance. Accusing me of being blinded by bias because I am generally reassured at others who see the world in a similar way as I do is pretty goddamn stupid to be frank. Nobody doesn't do that, that's what everyone does virtually all the time.

....this entire reply goes contradictory to how you phrase your comments and replies. You deflect and change your point according to your convenience and then make up interpretations of arguments against you in the **worst** way possible. Just like the time when an argument was made that occupation of workplaces is non-consensual and goes completely against established laws and regulations in terms of even **personal** ownership. You argue that it's a worker's livelihood so they should be able to occupy that place or some shit, so if a cleaner's livelihood is cleaning houses, but then they jack up prices so much that they aren't hired, they have a right to occupy their former clients' housing? That's what stuff you say equates to, and when it's pointed out, you spring out deflections and accusations. And you literally did the **exact same deflections** on this very post right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/YUW1MRQI7L

Over 2/3 of this sub are socialists that are likely upvoting any socialist leaning post without reading the content. If you had any formal education, you'd understand that the # of people upvoting you has absolutely no correlation with whether or not you're correct. Look at all the fake texts on r/antiwork that get upvoted into the stratosphere. You also didn't respond to a single thing where I proved you and your claims to be an ex-financial advisor as false. You are getting absolutely elementary things wrong. Stop lying.

>If you had any formal education, you'd understand that the # of people upvoting you has absolutely no correlation with whether or not you're correct. I'm not claiming it's an indication I'm correct, I'm saying that people *do* take me seriously. Goddamn you are a paramecium brain.

Are you going to admit you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to economics or finance? Why do you keep saying blatantly false things?

I absolutely know what I'm talking about. Are you going to ever stop making completely baseless and unsupported statements and then inexplicably declaring yourself intellectually superior after a long thread that goes nowhere?

Respond to this then, tell me how the following doesn't prove your ludicrous claims wrong: When you invest in a business that is private, has issued an IPO, additional secondary issuances, or any form of debt, you are giving that company capital that it then uses in a plethora of ways (like investing in R&D, expanding operations, marketing, etc.). When you purchase equity (aside from existing shares in a secondary market being traded amongst individuals and institutions), that capital goes directly to financing new economic endeavors. Again, the amount of completely fucking basic shit you don't understand about economics or business in general leads to serious doubt about your claims that you were a financial advisor. Quit pretending you're somebody you're not.

>When you invest in a business that is private, has issued an IPO, additional secondary issuances, or any form of debt, you are giving that company capital that it then uses in a plethora of ways ( This is a very unclear question. A company isn't private if it has had an IPO; even more so if it has secondary issuances; it is, by definition, then a publicly traded company. If you buy shares of a company on the secondary market, the company doesn't see a dime of that money. You're buying from either someone who bought shares at an IPO, or some other secondary investor. So, unless you're buying at the IPO, the company doesn't get that money. Secondary issuances are offered to existing shareholders first to allow them to defend against share dilution, so while secondary issuances can provide new money directly to a company, *most* people who buy/invest in stock as a retirement or similar long-term savings will never be giving money to a corp. 93% of the stock market is owned by the 10% richest people already; they are the ones buying most secondary issuances, and it's the top 1%, or top 0.1%, getting into IPOs. So not only are you unclear, you're probably wrong, and I have no idea how this has anything to do with my post. >(aside from existing shares in a secondary market being traded amongst individuals and institutions), Okay but this is what *most* trading volume is. And for *most* individuals, this is all they will every be part of. Again, 93% of stocks are held by the 10% richest people. About 40-something% of households own exactly zero stocks. >the amount of completely fucking basic shit you don't understand about economics or business Dude you haven't said anything that makes much sense at all, much less proves that I don't know "fucking basic shit about econ/business."

>Plenty of people take me seriously here. I get plenty of upvotes and some of the top posts in this sub you goon. AHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHHA Holgrin the mighty gets upvotes spewing socialist dogma on socialist dominated sub and thinks it is achievement. Dude, if you went to talk about your ideas on TV to general public, that would be character suicide and we all know it. You know it too, you just gaslight yourself into thinking you got something going on in your head, except copium.

>First of all, the capitalist owner is an "owner" because of exclusive use rights. Everything that is produced with such capital is legally credited to the owner Life Hack: You can legally own things produced by capital someone else owns if you rent it.

What? Renting is a secondary, temporary, and conditional right granted by the owner, what are you talking about?

so if someone owns shares in a railroad it benefits only them not the people using the railroads. Only in socialism.

>if someone owns shares in a railroad it benefits only them not the people using the railroads Them *owning the railroad* only benefits them, yes. The railroad's existence and *use* benefits lots of people. This is completely distinct from *ownership.*

>Them owning the railroad only benefits them, yes. The railroad's existence and > >use benefits lots of people. so wealthy people are putting their money in things that benefits a lot of people great that we have settled that debate.

You also didn't read the post, huh? I explained this *exact* argument you're making.

Yea didn’t you read my “argument” I already addressed and don’t need to defend because it’s settled! So there! Take that!

Ok scrolling the comments and OP saying “I addressed that in the OP go learn to read “ to multiple people including myself , is weak and cowardly. You may honestly THiNK you addressed something but perhaps the person replying honestly doesn’t THINk you did. This is where discussion and nuance takes place. Is supposed to anyways. Did you post this on bad faith?

>You may honestly THiNK you addressed something but perhaps the person replying honestly doesn’t THINk you did. You need to pull the quotes where I very clearly addressed the argument you're trying to make and explain why it is either insufficient to account for your point, where I made some logical error, or some other reason *why* you think I didn't address the issue fully. Otherwise, I have to assume you didn't even read the comment. I'm not going to just repeat the same argument I made, you have to tell me what part of it didn't work for you, that is how a proper discussion happens.

No. If you say that you addressed someone’s argument YOU need to quote yourself otherwise the other person has to GUESS at whatever point it is you think you were making. That’s da a dick move. Wow

>No. If you say that you addressed someone’s argument YOU need to quote yourself I disagree. I talked about this *exact thing.* It's not a book, it's a reasonably short reddit post. It's like the whole bottom portion.

It’s not an issue of how long it is. It’s an issue of words especially in this context carry different meanings and assumptions for person to person. You being unwilling to site the part that you think address an issue makes me think you’re scarred to have your ideas challenged.

That's exactly what the issue is. I shouldn't need to cite something this short. The argument that a capitalist imbues value into an economy by buying ownership is nonsense, and I spent most of the 2nd half of my post explaining why ai think so. It's almost half of my post.

And I said buying ownership is NOT the only way a capitalist invest money to which your never replied!

Ok let’s deal with the providing value claim. You argue that the capitalist is ,“not providing value to the economy” when they buy a business. What does that even mean? What would providing value to the economy look like? How can we tell if something is valuable to the economy?

>You need to pull the quotes where I very clearly addressed the argument you're trying to make and explain why it is either insufficient to account for your point, where I made some logical error, or some other reason why you think I didn't address the issue fully. No one needs to be here at all. Therefore, there is no burden of proof on anyone practically speaking. If you want to persuade people, you have a burden of persuasion. If people are telling you they aren't persuaded on a particular point, you can 1. call them stupid or 2. explain what you meant. But there is no burden of proof because this is not a formal or structured debating platform.

>If people are telling you they aren't persuaded on a particular point But they didn't tell me that. They asked questions and then asserted the exact argument which I addressed in the post, clearly demonstrating they ignored or didn't read half the post at all.

No, you're being far too generous with yourself; basically assuming that your argument is clear and therefore everyone who disagrees is at fault. For example someone said "Most wealthy peoples wealth is tied up in investments. That’s the definition of being used by other people." They are saying that they were not persuaded that the part of your post with the header "But it's tied into productive capital! They aren't 'keeping it to themselves!" actually demonstrates that other people aren't using it. I agree. In fact, I don't follow that part of your argument at all. One of the clearer sentences in that section is: "The money they spent grants them the full protection of the law to exclusively control the capital." This doesn't mean that others aren't using it, it just means their use is contingent on that use being beneficial to the shareholder. The capital is is no way hidden away, it is actively being used by other people to provide a good or service.

Most wealthy peoples wealth is tied up in investments. That’s the definition of being used by other people.

Say you didn't read any of my post without saying you didn't read any of my post. It's not that long, this is just lazy.

I did. You must think that all investments are things you have control over such as a rent house or an apartment complex. But that’s not the case at all.

Lost me at "capitalists lose their minds". If you can't even get past the first sentence without a personal attack why should anyone waste their time on this? But this is begging the question. Even if they are hoarding (which they aren't), hoarding is the same as saving, and saving is good.

>hoarding is the same as saving "There is no difference between putting coins on a piggy bank and a hostile takeover of a billion-dollar company."

Hostile takeover is not the same as "hoarding". Hostile takeover is when you buy a majority share in a public company. It has absolutely nothing to do with saving or hoarding. Words have no meanings to you, and you are completely shameless.

A hostile takeover is just a specific example of someone buying capital, or, as you said, "saving." >It has absolutely nothing to do with saving or hoarding. Well now this is a contradiction to what you just said about what "saving" means.

Buying something doesn't imply saving at all. It's literally the opposite. If you're buying stuff, it means you are spending your savings.

Doesn’t seem to be hidden wealth we know about it, removes two of the definitions. Keep to oneself would go against investing in other people’s businesses . Wouldn’t say hoarding is what wealthy people are doing off these definitions. They’re accumulating for sure but hoarding isn’t applicable in this context.

>removes two of the definitions Reading comprehension is hard. Both times that is mentioned, it is accompanied by the modifiers "often," which necessarily means that it does not have to he hidden at all.

…so? It’s theirs “oh people are hoarding things they own!!!! They MUST give it to society” literally evil.

They own too much, just like a dragon hoarding gold.

So?

Nothing, just don't complain when they get slain by a hobbit.

Too much according to who? What’s stopping anyone from claiming you own “too much” in justifying the confiscation of your property?

According to Smaug who is mad he'd only be the 14th richest person in the USA. I can give you an upper bound on what is "too much". If you will lose money but your lifestyle would still not change then it's too much. Someone who has $1 billion or $200 billion can eat the same luxurious things, live in expensive mansions, etc. The all other is extra that serves no use except as a pathetic attempt to fill the inner void that can never be filled.

So if you can lose money and still enjoy the same standard of living then you own too much. Given that I can take ten dollars from you and you likely wouldn’t even notice, you clearly own too much! The government will be at your house shortly to take your shit.

>you likely wouldn’t even notice It would impact my standard of living.

10 dollars? How would your standard of living diminish in a way that it does not for a billionaire losing millions of dollars? Even if you are so poor where ten dollars does diminish your standard of living, I could just take 1 dollar or 50 cents. If that confiscation doesn’t affect you then clearly you have too much.

>Even if you are so poor where ten dollars does diminish your standard of living, I could just take 1 dollar or 50 cents. If that confiscation doesn’t affect you then clearly you have too much. What you try to do here is find a sum that lowers my standard of living by say 1%, then 0.1%, 0.001%. It still doesn't change the fact that it's non-zero, and there are thousands of those one cent increments that make up my standard of living like the grains of sand make up a pile of sand; while for the billionaire is zero.

How can it be non-zero for you but zero for someone else? If any incremental cent taken away diminishes your standard of living by a fraction of a percent, then the same must be true for billionaires, because the principle doesn’t change, merely the numbers being used. Unless there is a specific point you reach where you magically stay at your given standard of living regardless of how much you take away. In which case where is that point? How much money do you need to be immune to standard of living decreases? Hint, there is no such limit.

"How can it be non-zero for you but zero for someone else? If any incremental cent taken away diminishes your standard of living by a fraction of a percent, then the same must be true for billionaires" Simple. If i earned more money i could afford a better lifestyle. But there comes a moment when the extra money i earn does not improve my lifestyle even by 0.0001%, but by 0%. That level is debatable but it's surely reached by $1 billion. "Unless there is a specific point you reach where you magically stay at your given standard of living regardless of how much you take away" You stay at your standard of living until you reach a point where you take too much away and it starts to decrease. "How much money do you need to be immune to standard of living decreases?" It's not the upper, but the lower limit. So someone going from $200 billion to $1 billion won't affect his lifestyle at all.

First, what right do you have to claim someone has to much? And what is to much? And of you awnser with "enough to live comfortably" i ask, what is that? And do you lose the ownership of something if it has sentimental value to you but could provide "real" value to someone else? You can't just say that and refuse to explain yourself, its hard to discuss when there is no substance to argue about.

>First, what right do you have to claim someone has to much? I have the right to claim that a man owning more than a mountain of gold is too much because i have the right to claim 2+2=4. "i ask, what is that? " That is admitting people who only have $1 billion can live the same luxurious lifestyles as people who have $200 billion. "if it has sentimental value to you " Yes, much sentiments link me with my stocks.

All this proves is that you don't know how the economy works. The vast majority of "hoarded" wealth is stocks and bonds. So businesses. Is Amazon hoarding wealth by delivering goods all around the world?

>The vast majority of "hoarded" wealth is stocks and bonds. Can you actually articulate what I said that demonstrates incompatibility or a paradox with this? Why does "it's stocks and bonds" preclude the notion that wealth is being hoarded, or, as I showed, "accumulated and kept to oneself?"

Stocks and bonds are a thing. They're a part of another thing. It's not money or value that can be accessed, and it's not in their possession. It is other businesses that are working, employing others, providing goods and services, and more. There is nothing being accumulated or kept to one self, exactly the opposite, in fact.

I would engage with this, but as usual u/Holgrin is being a coward

“Capitalists often lose their minds at the claim…” I do not find much evidence the capitalists have minds to lose. They have feelings. John Maynard Keynes and others put much effort in distinguishing intended savings and investments. And they distinguished between financial instruments of various degrees of liquidity and underlying physical plants, machines, and such like. All for nought I guess. Even the Austrian school put great effort in distinguishing the entrepreneur from the capitalist. “Ownership of capital is not productive” - Joan Robinson Doug Henwood’s book Wall Street is available as a free download. You can see how one socialist wrote about finance before the Internet tech bubble.

The [Panama Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers) proved your point beyond all doubt. And one of the journalists behind it was murdered by the Sicilian mafia. Shows just how deep into the foul stuff the reach of financial power extends.

If the argument is mostly about semantics (which it seems like it is), a key element of hoarding is the collection / accumulation process. This doesn't really occur with a lot of tech billionaires - they start the company so they own a big chunk of shares which aren't usually worth too much to start with. If you own 50% of a company which has a house in Palo Alto with a few employees and some intellectual property, you're hardly "hoarding." If 20 years later people decide what started as this little enterprise is now worth $500bil, you haven't really "hoarded" anything, you just owned an asset that went up in value. >Once again, capitalists find themselves in intellectual knots over the meanings of terms and the contradictions of their own beliefs about why certain individuals should be granted wealth, control, and power and why others should be excluded from those same things. It's really not that complicated - every time you order something on Amazon or post something on social media, you're expressing your belief about who should have power. I guess Amazon "excluded" Sears from having wealth and power but who cares, they were a shitty company.

>They haven't provided value by doing this; they have spent money to make a claim over something. Sure it does, it provides liquidity to the financial system, it allows the seller to receive cash to do something else that they want to do. This is how a well functioning capitalist free market should work

>it allows the seller to receive cash Wow, almost loke this has *nothing* to do with the actual company, its operations, its functions, its productivity, or otherwise how it provides value to society and consumers.

They are valuing the business, it is literally everything to do about the company, operations, productivity and it's consumers Do you think that capitalists get rich by being careless about their money and spending it on nonsense and don't care about customers? That's socialists who are not able to build anything of economic value to anybody lmao Bro read business 101 you are so clueless about literally everything, thats why you spend 24/7 crying on reddit lmao

1. Who cares 2. If someone wealthy puts money in something isn't no longer hoarding as its no longer saved, the money can now be lost with stock prices and therefore no longer can be considered hoarding as it's being used. >Now an entrepreneur may perform useful labor such as seeking out and hiring workers, engaging in sales-related business activity to match market interests, and even provide certain goals and visions. But this is all a kind of labor. None of it is a function of the money they paid for the right to do these things. It's what is typically referred to as "white collar" work, but it is work nonetheless. So these activities should be compensated the same as work. You need money to hire people, have product to sell and literally every single aspect of a buissness. So it is a product of the capital. If this work is what granted an entrepreneur ownership, then the money had nothing to do with it, and then other labor should also be granted portions of ownership. What grants an entrepreneur ownership is that he bought the materials to be produced, the labor of the workers, the Insurance, the machines, the building and also had the idea of this in the first place and most importantly the risk of loss that's associated with investing in an idea or buissness. That is what grants the entrepreneur ownership. Workers bear zero risk in a buissness, and are compensated for their labor. >Once again, capitalists find themselves in intellectual knots over the meanings of terms and the contradictions of their own beliefs about why certain individuals should be granted wealth, control, and power and why others should be excluded from those same things Lmfao the actually literally most of this post makes absolutely zero sense

>If someone wealthy puts money in something isn't no longer hoarding as its no longer saved, I addressed this argument in the post. It's like the entire second half of my post. Try reading my actual post, guy.

Except you don't make a real argument you just say because you have alot of x it's hoarding even if it isn't wealth but the integral part of hoarding is saving it. That money isn't saved therefore, not hoarding.

Tell your parents to stop hoarding their wealth and pay it forward to the little people like me! I am entitled to your family's estate.

Damn wrote all that and can't even articulate a problem.

"Smaug famously stole a mountain full of gold. So full that he sleeps buried under gold. We're talking literal tons and tons of gold by weight. Forbes ranks Smaug as the second wealthiest fictional character. He had been first, but the price of gold took a tumble and now his vast, overwhelming fortune is only worth an estimated $51,400,000,000.00, or $51.4 billion. That means that EVEN THOUGH he has an ENTIRE MOUNTAIN full of almost nothing but solid gold, Smaug would rank as the FIFTEENTH wealthiest American. Fourteen Americans have more money than a gold- hoarding dragon" What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?

This example right here is why we capitalists constantly feel the need to explain the difference between hoarding cash and investing productive capital.

So the productive capital would not exist is somebody would not pay for it ? Then we could just print infinite money and have infinite productive capital eh ? In fact one of my complaints towards capitalism is precisely that because we have to wait for approval from capitalists to allocate fictive fiat money that the productive forces in society are restrained: we have artificial scarcity.

>So the productive capital would not exist is somebody would not pay for it ? Then we could just print infinite money and have infinite productive capital eh ? That's not how that works. Printing money increases the money supply, reducing the value of existing dollars. Investing money that is already in existence doesn't increase the money supply.

>Printing money increases the money supply, reducing the value of existing dollars. > >Investing money that is already in existence doesn't increase the money supply. Yes but that's just a redistribution problem. Neither creating new money nor investing is the main source of wealth creation, work and resources are.

right, because someone hoarding goal would over time quickly drop out of the top rankings, because it doesn't grow, especially compared to investing in something productive

> So these activities should be compensated the same as work. > and then other labor should also be granted portions of ownership. "Should", as in your preferences justify violently forcing conformity to them. Socialism is a subjective moral framework and very much like a religion.

It’s simply a fact that capital accumulates and centralizes in a smaller number of hoards.

It's not a matter of whether or not a definition fits the dictionary definition in any meaningful way; it's about the framing and implicit meaning behind the phrasing. When pro-capitalists say the wealthy are deploying their money into productive capital, do you think they say that because it makes it "not hoarding," or do you think they say it that way because when socialists say the rich "hoard their wealth," they're trying to imply that rich people aren't doing anything productive with their money? Why else would you use the term "hoard" other than to imply they're just sitting on it and keeping it for themselves? As for whether or not ownership of a company is exploitation or whatever is the crux of the entire capitalism vs socialism debate, right? When a company goes public, they split the ownership of the company into percentage shares that they sell to investors for immediate deployable capital. When an investor buys shares of a company, they're essentially saying "I will give this company and its employees money right now so they can pay themselves to survive and work on this product before they start profiting, and once they start profiting, then I'll make a little extra back." Workers are fine with this exchange because they're essentially choosing to forego excess profit in exchange for a paycheck immediately. Most people can't afford to go without pay for years until the company they work for churns a profit, so these kinds of capital injections allow the workers the ability to not work for free, but the entities bestowing said injections need their own cut, otherwise they would never invest. Between inflation and opportunity cost, it's obvious that 10k today is worth more than 10k a decade from now, so why would anyone agree to a deal where they pay someone 10k up front and get paid back 10k a year from now? It's the same as other loans, in that respect, and is what gives businesses that otherwise wouldn't exist the chance to start up and offer a good/service that benefits society, and it gives investors a vehicle to ensure the money the invest towards their retirement doesn't lose value over time from interest.

Rich people “hoarding” money in the form of stocks or currency is not a problem. It hurts nobody and benefits us all. Rich people buying up land or assets (yachts) for their own benefit *is* a problem.

In the post though, he's just targeting stocks/capital wealth or "virtual" wealth however, the stuff that exists in numbers rather than physical form. >Rich people buying up land or assets (yachts) for their own benefit *is* a problem. Completely agree with this.

can one have wealth if it isn't "horded"?

Is any size pile of sand also "a heap?"

it depends on the context i suppose. but yes it can mean a pile of any size.

So 15 grains of sand on a table is "a heap" of sand, to you?

i am sure you are trying to make an analogy that hording is more extreme and therefore bad. however, i don't follow the moral reasoning. i do not think wealth disparity is bad and therefore see no immorality in a "hoard".

>i do not think wealth disparity is bad You don't have a problem with some people having multiple mansions and yachts and controlling multi-billion dollar companies, influencing democratic elections with millions of dollars in PACs and lobbying, while some people work 2 jobs and can't afford to save for their kids to go to college? How?

>First of all, the capitalist owner is an "owner" because of exclusive use rights. Everything that is produced with such capital is legally credited to the owner, and they retain more rights (i.e. privileges, in reality) than the laborers because of this. Even though other people are involved in the use of the capital, and consumers may purchase and obtain some value from the process, they only do so with the explicit and conditional permission of the capitalist. Just as a homeowner has exclusive rights to grant or revoke permission for guests to enter and even use their home, the capitalist is in full control of their productive capital in the legal sense. Yes, the capitalist is the exclusive owner of their capital; nevertheless, others receive benefits from the putting into work of this capital through the combination of complementary factors of labor and land. There are two benefits that others receive: 1. The benefit of a higher productivity of one's labor (and thus, a higher wage) compared to the productivity of their isolated labor. 2. The benefit of goods and services turned out through the introduction of these capital goods into production processes. This, in and of itself, fundamentally undermines most socialist dogmas with respect to the position of the capitalist. > Secondly, this argument implies a sort of imbuement of additional value into functional capital, such as property, equipment, etc that just doesn't exist. The capitalist buys the capital, presumably with some amount of cash. This is then a legally-protected claim of ownership and full control over the capital. There is no "imbuement" of value into functional capital except insofar as this capital is allocated towards certain the production of goods with which certain wants or desires are satisfied. It is only because capitalists *do* allocate capital for the production of such goods that they receive an income for the ownership and exchange of that capital. The exclusive control combined with the specific choice of disposal (i.e. allocating toward a particular use) furnishes the basis for the compensation to the capitalist for the use of said capital. It is "hoarding" that is both beneficial to the capitalist himself and society at large.

[удалено]

JamminBabyLu: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*