Is someone impoverished when they earn money? For example, if I earn 1 million in a year doing business, this money should come from somewhere. It must come from the people.?
5 Discussions

Not really. After a financial crisis money can really disappear so the money is not going to anybody and the economy doesn't remain in a static system. The economy is dynamic and people can borrow on credit based on money that doesn't exist yet but will in the future.

It's not like a pie where all the slices make a whole and nothing more can be added. If that was the case then the same amount of money would have always existed in the world or there would have been a lot more wealth at the beginning and it would have been progressively disappearing since then.

The amount of money in the market increases every year, so technically you could make $1,000,000 and nobody would have less money in result.

We're working from a premise that you're doing some kind of legal business and you provide either product or service.

Well, to get a product or service, a customer have to pay money.

So, the money changes the owner.

However, the product or service also changed the owner/receiver.

Do you impoverish yourself when selling an apple?

Or do you impoverish yourself when buying an apple?

No, and No.

In both instances you're gaining, because you receive something you want, or need in the exchange.

That's the harsh reality and I don't know any other way to put.

Let's say that the business thrives because the business man sets a price the he think will earn him 1 million, this didn't happen by pure luck, he actually aimed for it. Where did he get it from? It's from the end consumer, through the hard work of the manufacturing line. If he wanted to be "fair" then he will lower the price to a point that he will break even. Is that fair? From the point of view if the consumer, absolutely. But will it make the business owner happy? Definitely not. It doesn't work that way. But that's just one side of the coin.

1 more reply

Yes by that logic you're right, money generation works that way. If you're getting richer then someone else is getting poorer.

The only thing is that, it's not one person's money that you are collecting, you're collecting from a wide range of people so no one person would feel the effects of your riches.

it does not take into account that wealth is the product of the transformation of nature into something useful for man.

That is to say: all the schools of edible fish of the seven seas do not represent any real wealth for any man on earth, until another man goes out to sea, fishes what he can, returns to the mainland and offers the fish in exchange.

Mnemonic: natural resource + work = wealth

We would enter into another topic if we discussed the benefits and evils of not having a private owner of the fish in the sea or the trees in the Amazon: no one who owns a forest chops it whole, because that is to ensure the ruin when there is nothing left of the money obtained initially. On the contrary, when the forest belongs to everyone, fool the last! If I do not wake up, my part is taken away by another, so among all we make sure of the rapid exhaustion of resources.

And contrary to what emerges from the answer of Armando Guerra, natural resources can be, and in fact are currently renewed and promoted in those countries where they are granted exclusively to a private individual (property) in, for example , forests useños, Canadians, Finns, etc, countries where the logging tradition is remarkable.

Without this healthy tradition, every year huge amounts of land are reforested. His example is based on the adage "what belongs to everyone belongs to no one", which is not the only possible social system.