Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're arguing for the legalisation of wage theft on the basis that it might disrupt prices. No. I'm arguing that we're currently labeling something as "theft", that might not actually be theft, and that we should thus take a closer look at the issue. > if you have an economy where all the growth goes to the 1% and the 99% see no change Yes and no. Growth (and progress) will go to everyone - Obviously, new technolo…
might not actually be theft I'm happy to call it fraud instead? Agreeing to pay people for a particular time and then failing to pay them is, at the very least, breach of contract. Falsifying records in order to reduce people's pay is definitely fraud. most of this money will either be taken out of circulation It doesn't go in a Scrooge McDuck money bin. It goes straight back into circulation as investments or bank d…
Well, downloading youtube videos is a breach of contract too.
You can try to attach all sorts of alternate labels to this, it doesn't change the fundamental issue underneath. I'm not questioning how adequate the semantics of the label are, but rather how adequately our legal framework captures reality here.
Sometimes reality evolves in ways such that the legal framework around it needs to be updated/re-evaluated. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's part of the democratic process.
That's all I'm saying, and I fail to see any formal, moral or legal issue with this.
> It goes straight back into circulation as investments or bank deposits.
Some of the money in bank deposits effectively is in a "money bin". Meanwhile investments on the other hand will (at least most of the time) flow through certain desirable channels that "disposable income" for the most part doesn't.
> Profoundly elitist
Is it? Isn't this the standard economic theory that's being tought to everyone currently?
> We're taking the money off the poor because they might otherwise use it to enjoy themselves
You fail to realize that it's not money that people need/crave but rather goods and services. Taking away money, in order to ensure a steady supply of goods and services, improves the situation for everyone.
> or even something really unproductive like feeding their children or receiving medical treatment!
Having a growing and healthy workforce is in any society's best interest, and a large part of its competitive advantage. Which is in part why children are subsidized by the governement in so many ways. After all, what's point of money if there's no one to exchange it with?
At the same time though we must figure out how to maintain this growth in a sustainable fashion - and I doubt that the optimal solution here is to simply hand people more purchasing power.
--
You, much like the author of the article, seem to fail to understand that there's no perfect answer here. This is an issue that needs fixing, and there seem to generally exist 2 solutions, both of which present a compromise.
While we currently don't have all the data necessary to make that decision, the article clearly seems to prefer one of those 2 alternatives while carelessly neglecting the negative impacts of it.
I on the other hand think that it's worthwile, for everyone, to consider the negative aspects too, before rushing to a conclusion. Do you see anything wrong with this line of reasoning?