Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

Only if you think "most jobs" really means "Most jobs required unskilled labor in developed nations". China and the rest of Southeast Asia have enjoyed significant wage increase for decades.

Developers are an exception to your "most jobs" definition because they are not unskilled labor – well, some require less skill, but those have also not enjoyed the same level of wage upside.

The U.S. and all other developing economies (think OECD members) are increasingly "service economies". The high paying jobs are those providing services that require significant skill.

Commoditized jobs have been outsourced to Asia following globalization.

The U.S. inequality debate is entirely myopic because it compares capital and labor upside in the U.S. without taking into account all the upside the rest of the world has enjoyed.

This would be incorrect if it turned out that there just wasn't enough money out there to provide sufficient liquidity. This is the reason bitcoin is nearly infinitely subdivisible and the nominal reason why stocks are split.

The value of money in general is the convenience value of not having to barter. If the currency has deflated to the point where nobody can use even your smallest denominations, then people will devise an alternative means of exchange that is more down to earth. So it can easily be a not zero-sum action to double the account numbers. It can be worth more than food can in an illiquid environment, because while the demand for food is fixed to the number of people in the world at any given time and that it spoils, money does not spoil and injecting more of it into an economy is a tried and tested stimulus technique. Just doubling the food doesn't necessarily mean that the people that need it are going to get it, something foreign aid organizations are intensely familiar with.

> Imagine if, after years of speculating in the Congolese grain market and accumulating millions of francs, you decide to cash out with one final act of buying a yacht through your window (then nailing it shut). Nevermind the logistics of passing a yacht into your living room. The point is it's an incredibly selfish act, and almost perfectly cancels out all the good you did through speculation.

Not at all, you're doing the equivalent of Pharaoh building his pyramid tomb, or more prosaically, retiring and spending the rest of your life making bad art. If Pharaoh didn't build his tomb, then Egyptians will think he's weak. The tomb is a symbol of Egypt's wealth and prominence, as is the yacht, and the bourgeois retirement. If you don't exercise the perks of your station, then you're basically saying that you're doing it all for nothing.

Capitalist society works precisely because everyone has a selfish motive, it wouldn't work at all if people didn't. The author thinking that money is intrinsically worthless is the same mistake as thinking that yachts are worthless. Symbols, of paper or of success, are important motivators. They have intrinsic value as symbols. If you fail to understand this then you're missing an important piece about how markets reflect human nature.

There are areas of the economy where the symbol value of goods far exceeds the utility value of them. Numismatics, fashion, and art pop to mind immediately. These markets can be understood, but not if you don't think symbols can have value.

You can't eat cake that's gone bad because you've kept it in your cupboard too long. Even though we're using a metaphor here, literally - in the very definition of literal - if you don't eat your cake, it actually does become toxic, defeating the purpose of having it in the first place.

edit: btw, I think we're in agreement. I'm advocating for thoughtful consumption.