Philosophy Now Forum

Systematic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:01 am What would happen if you were only allowed one bank account, and, you were not allowed more than one million pounds

Systematic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:01 am What would happen if you were only allowed one bank account, and, you were not allowed more than one million pounds or its equivalent in your own nation's currency. Would it keep the people from hoarding. Would anyone dare to keep that much cash or gold at their businesses? What would happen to the economy if the super rich had to spend their money as soon as they got it?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:10 pm
You appear to be American,

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:18 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:10 pm
You appear to be American,

Not another one, who keeps letting them in?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:10 pm

Systematic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:01 am What would happen if you were only allowed one bank account, and, you were not allowed more than one million pounds or its equivalent in your own nation's currency. Would it keep the people from hoarding. Would anyone dare to keep that much cash or gold at their businesses? What would happen to the economy if the super rich had to spend their money as soon as they got it?

If you google M3 Money Supply you will see that there are many things which aren't money of the sort you can put into a bank account that are used in such a way that they behave as money and their supply has to be taken into account when working out how much money to print or destroy in order to manage inflation. If we pretend that your suggestion was implementable without giant loopholes for the sake of argument, the effect of it would simply be to cause more wealth to be converted into some of that stuff, plus gold, bitcoin, wine and all the other commodities you can convert it into rather than bank accounts depending on the liquidity needs of the holder.

Investors in gold very rarely store the actual metal on their own premises, it lives in a vault somewhere else and what you own is a contract on it. So there's no very strong reason to worry about keeping it lying around your house.

You appear to be American, and I'm not sure why you didn't just use $ for this topic. But if you wish to abbreviate pounds as a currency the symbol is £ or you can use GBP. lb is for pounds as a weight.

Systematic wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:00 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:10 pm

Systematic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:01 am What would happen if you were only allowed one bank account, and, you were not allowed more than one million pounds or its equivalent in your own nation's currency. Would it keep the people from hoarding. Would anyone dare to keep that much cash or gold at their businesses? What would happen to the economy if the super rich had to spend their money as soon as they got it?

If you google M3 Money Supply you will see that there are many things which aren't money of the sort you can put into a bank account that are used in such a way that they behave as money and their supply has to be taken into account when working out how much money to print or destroy in order to manage inflation. If we pretend that your suggestion was implementable without giant loopholes for the sake of argument, the effect of it would simply be to cause more wealth to be converted into some of that stuff, plus gold, bitcoin, wine and all the other commodities you can convert it into rather than bank accounts depending on the liquidity needs of the holder.

Investors in gold very rarely store the actual metal on their own premises, it lives in a vault somewhere else and what you own is a contract on it. So there's no very strong reason to worry about keeping it lying around your house.

You appear to be American, and I'm not sure why you didn't just use $ for this topic. But if you wish to abbreviate pounds as a currency the symbol is £ or you can use GBP. lb is for pounds as a weight.

I'm sorry, did you confuse it with kilograms? Let's just abbreviate it from now on as PAi (Pondi Argenti). Fine, that's already used. Just assume I meant GBP for this example, what would be the ramifications of a pecuniary cap?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:44 am

Systematic wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:00 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:10 pm

If you google M3 Money Supply you will see that there are many things which aren't money of the sort you can put into a bank account that are used in such a way that they behave as money and their supply has to be taken into account when working out how much money to print or destroy in order to manage inflation. If we pretend that your suggestion was implementable without giant loopholes for the sake of argument, the effect of it would simply be to cause more wealth to be converted into some of that stuff, plus gold, bitcoin, wine and all the other commodities you can convert it into rather than bank accounts depending on the liquidity needs of the holder.

Investors in gold very rarely store the actual metal on their own premises, it lives in a vault somewhere else and what you own is a contract on it. So there's no very strong reason to worry about keeping it lying around your house.

You appear to be American, and I'm not sure why you didn't just use $ for this topic. But if you wish to abbreviate pounds as a currency the symbol is £ or you can use GBP. lb is for pounds as a weight.

I'm sorry, did you confuse it with kilograms? Let's just abbreviate it from now on as PAi (Pondi Argenti). Fine, that's already used. Just assume I meant GBP for this example, what would be the ramifications of a pecuniary cap?

Don't get pissy at me, I was explaining why other people were mocking you for using the abbr. for a weight in place of one for a currency.

The ramifications are those that you get whenever a policy is created without considering the way they alter other people's incentives. No company with more than a 100 employees could handle payroll or invoicincing if companies were restricted in this manner, so either they all go bankrupt and your economy collapses, or else you must grant a companies exclusion. Anyone rich enough to need a second million in the bank should by now have worked out how to easily evade your rule. And that's the end of the game. There would of course be other ways round it if you were to tighten the rule, which I don't recommend, because the whole idea is poor.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:45 pm Investors in gold very rarely store the actual metal on their own premises, it lives in a vault somewhere else and what you own is a contract on it. So there's no very strong reason to worry about keeping it lying around your house.

never understood that: what the hell good is my gold way the hell over there?

my shotgun is useful cuz it's here, within reach...same for my gold

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:26 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:45 pm Investors in gold very rarely store the actual metal on their own premises, it lives in a vault somewhere else and what you own is a contract on it. So there's no very strong reason to worry about keeping it lying around your house.

never understood that: what the hell good is my gold way the hell over there?

my shotgun is useful cuz it's here, within reach...same for my gold

That would be because they are capitalists Henry, they place value on easily convertible asstes that can be traded efficiently, as opposed to doomsday preppers who only like things they can hold.