The goal is technology that would automate most of the firmâ(TM)s management. It would represent a culmination of Mr. Dalioâ(TM)s life work to build Bridgewater into an altar to radical opennessâ"and a place that can endure without him.
At Bridgewater, most meetings are recorded, employees are expected to criticize one another continually, people are subject to frequent probes of their weaknesses, and personal performance is assessed on a host of data points, all under Mr. Dalioâ(TM)s gaze.
Bridgewaterâ(TM)s new technology would enshrine his unorthodox management approach in a software system. It could dole out GPS-style directions for how staff members should spend every aspect of their days, down to whether an employee should make a particular phone call.
I think the Wall Street story (here gets you past the paywall once) is obsessing over the micromanagement side of the thing and missing the big picture.
This is among the first examples of someone using AI to try to maintain strategic and organizational integrity of an organization after their death. While there's a good chance this just fails utterly (particularly with the obsession on micromanagement and dysfunctional business dynamics), it does lead to a potential problem or opportunity down the road when many of these things have been set up with conflicting interests. There have been many examples through history of powerful people trying to create an enduring legacy through creation and propagation of something throughout time. These endeavors often fail merely because successors have different interests and high levels of incompetency, leading eventually to dissolution of the thing.
Here is a possibility to create something enduring, a machine capable of surviving long durations and implementing its creators' will long after their deaths. Here, the alleged goal is retention of a particular business culture, but who knows what else has been tossed in? There could be all sorts of covert purposes and priorities, some introduced by the patron and perhaps, some introduced by other parties?
Then there's the matter of what happens in the distant future, if this approach turns out to be successful without a corresponding improvement in human longevity? Either it's the only one of its kind, and we have a build up of economic power not subject to the usual restrictions of human lifespan or we have multiple powerful parties in permanent conflict with each other.
This need not be universally bad. For example, an AI could be set up to further environmentalism or poverty elimination goals just as easily as it could a particular business's interests.
Inflation is good for the economy because it reduces the relative percentage of the GDP that must be devoted to debt service.
Not everyone borrows as much as they can. Ignoring significant parts of the economy while making blanket claims about the economy is not good for the economy.
What people like yourself don't understand is that the vast majority of money that exists in bank deposit accounts was not created by the government. It was created by banks, with debts credited as assets on the bank's balance sheet. All of that money that was created all came with a future interest obligation.
Quite simply, if you do not inflation not only do people get poorer, but everyone defaults on their debts.
Unless they don't owe enough debt for that to be relevant.
The government always controls the money supply. It does this by adjudicating debts only in the currency that it has the sole legal right to create and regulate. It does this by levying taxes. And, in a more complex system impossible for libertardians to understand, sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.
I see use of the term, "libertardians" here. Real classy that.
The huge problem with your entire post is that it treats debt as if there was only one side, the borrower. There however is also the lender. And everything about inflation that is good for the borrower is equally bad for the lender. That's because lending is a trade and inflation is directly adjusting the relative costs and benefits of the trade in a zero sum game.
That leads to two flaws in your argument. First, we still have lending despite this bias in favor of borrowers. What happens is lenders increase their interest rates (the costs of the loan) and the supposed advantages of inflation for the borrower go away.
Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender? I'll note here that borrowers tend to be a lot less competent and disciplined than lenders. Encouraging them to borrow more doesn't seem a sane thing to do and there have been problems with excessive debt in every recession the US (to give a country I know a lot about) has had.
What's really going on here is that country-level governments tend to both have control of their money supply and borrow a lot. So inflation, particularly an increasing rate of inflation helps cut the cost of the debt they imprudently acquired as well as the liabilities they have promised. And due to the immense propaganda mechanisms at their control, they get to spin that as inflation being a good thing without significant opposition.
Trump would have to make a carrier type deal every week for 6.5 years to match just the autobailout's jobs saved
The alleged jobs saved. I don't take those numbers seriously. I'm pointing that even when we take those numbers at face value, we're looking at huge costs per job "created or saved". My view is that Trump doesn't need to do a carrier type deal every week. He just needs to undo part of the mess of the last eight years, such as removing the Obama obstructions on oil drilling and pipelines, to give a notorious example or cleaning up the health care mess even a little (for example, removing the incentive to employ people part time).
Where did the borrowers get the cash flow and profits to pay off the TARP loans? The economy didn't completely collapse, but it did drop in activity by a large amount and those huge liabilities didn't magically vanish. They simply didn't have the money then to pay off those loans and they probably still don't.
But the federal government does have more than enough money running through it to pay off TARP loans. I don't know how those loans were paid off - whether by another loan, purchase of the worst debt, or an outright gift of money, but I know who did it.
And at this point, what does it matter that TARP "made a profit" when the Feds have put a lot more than that into the businesses that originally received TARP funds?
If I swing back and forth on an office chair I too can move without expelling reactionary mass.
No net change in momentum means no need to expel reactionary mass from your local space. Plus, your reactionary mass for the state changes in chair motion you describe are the ground and parts of the chair you are pushing against to move. Even if you are merely rocking, shifting your body back and forth, you're pushing your body against the seat of your chair (and they are the reaction mass for each other's motion).
$7 million for 1000 jobs over 10 years, about $700 per job per year in a TAX CUT not spending.
I'll note when it was the fad to boast about jobs "created or saved", the Obama administration was routinely bragging about projects that had costs in the tens to several hundred dollars per job per year range (for example, this bragging about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which had $250k spent in stimulus per job "created or saved" for jobs that lasted from a few months to a few years, until the stimulus went away). That's two to three orders of magnitude better than anything the Obama administration does.
There's no difference technically between bank accounts held by individuals or companies. The money that represents goes back into the economy just the same.
Look, you assertion doesn't make sense on multiple levels. Somehow rich people don't care about the effects of inflation when there's an easy solution that makes more money? Since when have rich people not cared about that?
There's a basic maxim of economics: there's no such thing as a free lunch. What that means in part is that people won't typically leave a profitable opportunity just sitting there, whether it be the allegorical free lunch or a near trivial way to earn more wealth from their existing wealth.
Then you assert (as I might add several other people did too in this thread, so it's not just you) without even a shred of evidence that "cash hoarding" is going on. Or ignoring the routine money recycling that happens with bank accounts, bonds, etc. You know, all those near trivial things that earn more than just cash.
Your arguments and the huge contrary evidence you ignore are exactly why I asserted in the beginning that "money hoarding" is a top indicator of economic ignorance. What has surprised me to some degree is how this very comment drew all this clueless rebuttal from at least half a dozen different parties. It's quite a phenomenon.
Sure, it's Slashdot and there are always a lot of clueless people here. But comments such as mine generally aren't that visible unless they're modded way up. Currently, my parent post is hanging around 2.
That indicates to me that there are a lot of people, vastly more than who responded to my original post, who need help understanding economics. Maybe you could be one of the ones helped?
Hey, it's your excuse. You people keep pointing fingers at others for (ab)using government. It's only fair the finger gets pointed at rich people too.
I'll point out that the welfare state provides plenty of opportunities both for corporate welfare (it's in the name after all) and ways to bribe voters to look the other way when corporate welfare happens.
It's just a straight wealth transfer.
Ok. Doesn't change my point that the rich (and their wealth) is protected by the government.
But does happen to be highly relevant to my observation that we probably don't have an oversupply of capital which was a thing earlier in this thread.
The World Wildlife Fund burned through $260 million in 2015. $48 million of that was government funding. The IPCC alone consumes almost $10 million a year, so that's somewhere around $60 million in strictly catastrophic AGW advocacy right there, almost as much just by itself as what the Koch brothers are alleged to have spent on a far larger category.
And Greenpeace International which is nearly pure propaganda spending has a budget of almost 240 million Euros.
This is just two people.
This is just two incredibly wealthy people who happen to be the largest donors in the very areas you mentioned in your link.
Asserting something doesn't make it true. To the contrary, we see it is easily false, not only for the very reason I mentioned.
For example, while Apple shows a bunch of cash on its non-US-based balance sheets, that was actually US bonds. Bank accounts in the Bahamas, Cooks Islands, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, etc still mean the resulting money is somewhere else in the economy doing something other than just sitting there.
Lobbying can be done for other reasons and certainly does not influence the electorate. You haven't shown that the lobbying in question is climate related. I'll also note that you or some AC who sounds remarkably like you, slid the goalposts over from a discussion of propaganda to lobbying.
But when we see donations to propaganda groups with an explicit orientation, either pro or con, then we have something to talk about. Here, as I noted earlier, the fossil fuel industry is vastly overspent by those governments and NGOs.
Besides, if a person has more money than they could possibly spend in ten lifetimes, why should they care so much about inflation that is pretty low anyway?
Because with near trivial effort that wealth could be growing a little faster than inflation. For example, they could buy bonds from the more reliable governments or businesses. In a higher inflation environment where bonds aren't so good, they could put it into stocks.
And once the wealth is in an investment, it's no longer out of circulation being "hoarded" somewhere.
The problem is the current system makes providing housing to people who have no stable income non-viable because the ones who turn out stable-ish won't be able to afford to offset the risk of the others--i.e. you have to charge those people more for rent than their income can pay. A UBI system ensures 100% of everyone has a stable income, thus reducing that risk.
Your model is broken. Chapter 13 removes the landlords who can't provide affordable housing to this group.
As you can see, the lowest class can't afford the lowest-affordable housing right now.
And the lowest class probably still won't after UBI, due to some combination of financial incompetence, drug use (legal or not), mental illness, and inflation of basic needs. My view is that when you're that far down, they will need more than just money to cure their problems (and many of those problems are things we just can't do anything about in a free country).
Having said that, I don't oppose UBI per se. But I'm seeing a lot of rationalizing away of real concerns about UBI as well as exaggerations of what UBI can do. For example, I think it will be a net loss for society, if we keep all the current paraphernalia of the welfare state and just add the UBI on top of that.
I also think we have a serious problem with creating a constituency that will vote to increase UBI without concern for the future of society. If most people are pushing the "more magic" button by voting for the politician who promises the most increases in UBI, then it won't be long before disaster strikes. There has to be some bound to what UBI does or it's going to be another mess. The revenue neutral model that is often proposed seems to be able to deal with that, but you still have the issue of the people who think that they can keep finding revenue sources to push UBI higher and higher.
Most Hispanics are white. There's already been some attempts to classify a good portion of Asians as white too. And the melting pot didn't stop melting just because of multi-culturalism. Finally, a lot of minority activism and propaganda needs a majority identity to play off of as a scapegoat.
So I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see whites still as a majority in fifty years, just with a bunch more ethnic groups glued onto it.
Depends on who is "white" in the future. It''ll be amusing if in 50 years, we still have pinheads blathering about the end of the white power structure solely because "white" has been enlarged.
I suppose that could be. Money hoarding really is a complaint about perceived low performing capital. And having an oversupply of capital would do that. But OTOH, an oversupply of capital would negatively affect the net worth of the wealthy. We're just not seeing that.
No, the real reason is that it's quite hard to get money to go marauding across Asia on horseback.
Well, the Mongols were hardcore about inflation control. Maidens with gold nuggets on their heads could wander around the empire without the nugget losing any value.
You fail because they are making money faster than the rate of inflation, and also because they have ways to hide their money from taxation.
You have the wrong dimensions for the comparison you're trying to make. Making money is a rate of change and has inverse time as part of its units dimension, amount of money does not. Now, if you're trying to claim that money has a return that is higher than inflation, then that is wrong by definition. Inflation is the return on investment for money (and traditionally negative because you're losing on that investment, except in cases of deflation which tend to be rare).
For example, Bill Gates is personally invested in Big Pharma, and his foundation (which is likewise invested) makes "donations" which promote the ends of the corporations in which he is invested. He is able to spend money which he allegedly doesn't own in ways which make him money.
Note that your sole example has nothing to do with hoarding money.
Paying a MGI is "getting out of the way of employing people". If you institute a MGI then you can eliminate the minimum wage.
Which again has nothing to do with hoarding money.
And it's not "if" corporations are sitting on big piles of cash, we know for a fact that they are.
Well, I can think of corporations that are sitting on big piles of debt and liabilities rather than cash. For example, there's a fair portion of older businesses that are pension funds that also do things like build cars (General Motors) or fly people around (American Airlines).
That money translates directly into power, which is then exercised in ways which make more money without transferring [much of] it downwards.
Right. There's the obvious counterexample, employment. Money doesn't magically do anything on its own. Capital doesn't either. You need someone to kick things along.
Why is it necessary to pretend that swimming in a pool of money is an alternative to investment?
You tell me. Several repliers have made that mistake. And the rest of your post is irrelevant to my observation.
No one is trying to claim that "hoarding money" means keeping it in your basement, but that large sums of money do not have a direct influence on local economies.
Actually, yes, they have. And since I don't know which posts you've posted, being AC, you may be one of those people who has made that mistake.
Explain how the rich aren't hoarding money and how their capital isn't just a way of taking money out of the economy?
Inflation.
But I've heard a considerable amount of agreement from people far more qualified than me that concentration of wealth and the non-movement of that wealth is a major problem.
Wealth is not money. Money is merely a form of wealth that decays in value over time due to inflation. There are plenty of things out there that don't do that.
Further, economists are pretty cheap. I wouldn't on your budget, but someone rich can afford a few.
Governments are often looking for ways to get corporations to stop sitting on piles of cash and actually hire some people at decent wages to get the economy moving.
What piles of cash? Don't those governments have better things to do (or not do, such as getting out of the way of employing people, for example) even if corporations are sitting on piles of cash?
Slashdot Mirror
The living always find a way, because the dead can't fight back.
Unless there's a powerful AI on the side of the dead.
The goal is technology that would automate most of the firmâ(TM)s management. It would represent a culmination of Mr. Dalioâ(TM)s life work to build Bridgewater into an altar to radical opennessâ"and a place that can endure without him.
At Bridgewater, most meetings are recorded, employees are expected to criticize one another continually, people are subject to frequent probes of their weaknesses, and personal performance is assessed on a host of data points, all under Mr. Dalioâ(TM)s gaze.
Bridgewaterâ(TM)s new technology would enshrine his unorthodox management approach in a software system. It could dole out GPS-style directions for how staff members should spend every aspect of their days, down to whether an employee should make a particular phone call.
I think the Wall Street story (here gets you past the paywall once) is obsessing over the micromanagement side of the thing and missing the big picture.
This is among the first examples of someone using AI to try to maintain strategic and organizational integrity of an organization after their death. While there's a good chance this just fails utterly (particularly with the obsession on micromanagement and dysfunctional business dynamics), it does lead to a potential problem or opportunity down the road when many of these things have been set up with conflicting interests. There have been many examples through history of powerful people trying to create an enduring legacy through creation and propagation of something throughout time. These endeavors often fail merely because successors have different interests and high levels of incompetency, leading eventually to dissolution of the thing.
Here is a possibility to create something enduring, a machine capable of surviving long durations and implementing its creators' will long after their deaths. Here, the alleged goal is retention of a particular business culture, but who knows what else has been tossed in? There could be all sorts of covert purposes and priorities, some introduced by the patron and perhaps, some introduced by other parties?
Then there's the matter of what happens in the distant future, if this approach turns out to be successful without a corresponding improvement in human longevity? Either it's the only one of its kind, and we have a build up of economic power not subject to the usual restrictions of human lifespan or we have multiple powerful parties in permanent conflict with each other.
This need not be universally bad. For example, an AI could be set up to further environmentalism or poverty elimination goals just as easily as it could a particular business's interests.
Inflation is good for the economy because it reduces the relative percentage of the GDP that must be devoted to debt service.
Not everyone borrows as much as they can. Ignoring significant parts of the economy while making blanket claims about the economy is not good for the economy.
What people like yourself don't understand is that the vast majority of money that exists in bank deposit accounts was not created by the government. It was created by banks, with debts credited as assets on the bank's balance sheet. All of that money that was created all came with a future interest obligation.
Quite simply, if you do not inflation not only do people get poorer, but everyone defaults on their debts.
Unless they don't owe enough debt for that to be relevant.
The government always controls the money supply. It does this by adjudicating debts only in the currency that it has the sole legal right to create and regulate. It does this by levying taxes. And, in a more complex system impossible for libertardians to understand, sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.
I see use of the term, "libertardians" here. Real classy that.
The huge problem with your entire post is that it treats debt as if there was only one side, the borrower. There however is also the lender. And everything about inflation that is good for the borrower is equally bad for the lender. That's because lending is a trade and inflation is directly adjusting the relative costs and benefits of the trade in a zero sum game.
That leads to two flaws in your argument. First, we still have lending despite this bias in favor of borrowers. What happens is lenders increase their interest rates (the costs of the loan) and the supposed advantages of inflation for the borrower go away.
Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender? I'll note here that borrowers tend to be a lot less competent and disciplined than lenders. Encouraging them to borrow more doesn't seem a sane thing to do and there have been problems with excessive debt in every recession the US (to give a country I know a lot about) has had.
What's really going on here is that country-level governments tend to both have control of their money supply and borrow a lot. So inflation, particularly an increasing rate of inflation helps cut the cost of the debt they imprudently acquired as well as the liabilities they have promised. And due to the immense propaganda mechanisms at their control, they get to spin that as inflation being a good thing without significant opposition.
Trump would have to make a carrier type deal every week for 6.5 years to match just the autobailout's jobs saved
The alleged jobs saved. I don't take those numbers seriously. I'm pointing that even when we take those numbers at face value, we're looking at huge costs per job "created or saved". My view is that Trump doesn't need to do a carrier type deal every week. He just needs to undo part of the mess of the last eight years, such as removing the Obama obstructions on oil drilling and pipelines, to give a notorious example or cleaning up the health care mess even a little (for example, removing the incentive to employ people part time).
that was a loan.
You're thinking of TARP.
the us government made a profit off the deal.
Where did the borrowers get the cash flow and profits to pay off the TARP loans? The economy didn't completely collapse, but it did drop in activity by a large amount and those huge liabilities didn't magically vanish. They simply didn't have the money then to pay off those loans and they probably still don't.
But the federal government does have more than enough money running through it to pay off TARP loans. I don't know how those loans were paid off - whether by another loan, purchase of the worst debt, or an outright gift of money, but I know who did it.
And at this point, what does it matter that TARP "made a profit" when the Feds have put a lot more than that into the businesses that originally received TARP funds?
If I swing back and forth on an office chair I too can move without expelling reactionary mass.
No net change in momentum means no need to expel reactionary mass from your local space. Plus, your reactionary mass for the state changes in chair motion you describe are the ground and parts of the chair you are pushing against to move. Even if you are merely rocking, shifting your body back and forth, you're pushing your body against the seat of your chair (and they are the reaction mass for each other's motion).
I agree. The number of dollars spent per job allegedly "created or saved" is bigger for Obama.
FYI, it costs $150 to drill, process, and ship a barrel of oil from the Arctic. If you want to cover costs.
Unless, of course, it costs less. Things like this obstruction don't happen because the powers-that-be think oil production will stay that costly.
$7 million for 1000 jobs over 10 years, about $700 per job per year in a TAX CUT not spending.
I'll note when it was the fad to boast about jobs "created or saved", the Obama administration was routinely bragging about projects that had costs in the tens to several hundred dollars per job per year range (for example, this bragging about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which had $250k spent in stimulus per job "created or saved" for jobs that lasted from a few months to a few years, until the stimulus went away). That's two to three orders of magnitude better than anything the Obama administration does.
You are talking about companies
There's no difference technically between bank accounts held by individuals or companies. The money that represents goes back into the economy just the same.
Look, you assertion doesn't make sense on multiple levels. Somehow rich people don't care about the effects of inflation when there's an easy solution that makes more money? Since when have rich people not cared about that?
There's a basic maxim of economics: there's no such thing as a free lunch. What that means in part is that people won't typically leave a profitable opportunity just sitting there, whether it be the allegorical free lunch or a near trivial way to earn more wealth from their existing wealth.
Then you assert (as I might add several other people did too in this thread, so it's not just you) without even a shred of evidence that "cash hoarding" is going on. Or ignoring the routine money recycling that happens with bank accounts, bonds, etc. You know, all those near trivial things that earn more than just cash.
Your arguments and the huge contrary evidence you ignore are exactly why I asserted in the beginning that "money hoarding" is a top indicator of economic ignorance. What has surprised me to some degree is how this very comment drew all this clueless rebuttal from at least half a dozen different parties. It's quite a phenomenon.
Sure, it's Slashdot and there are always a lot of clueless people here. But comments such as mine generally aren't that visible unless they're modded way up. Currently, my parent post is hanging around 2.
That indicates to me that there are a lot of people, vastly more than who responded to my original post, who need help understanding economics. Maybe you could be one of the ones helped?
Hey, it's your excuse. You people keep pointing fingers at others for (ab)using government. It's only fair the finger gets pointed at rich people too.
I'll point out that the welfare state provides plenty of opportunities both for corporate welfare (it's in the name after all) and ways to bribe voters to look the other way when corporate welfare happens.
It's just a straight wealth transfer.
Ok. Doesn't change my point that the rich (and their wealth) is protected by the government.
But does happen to be highly relevant to my observation that we probably don't have an oversupply of capital which was a thing earlier in this thread.
Damn it, hoarding. Second, time I've made that typo. Must be a Freudian slip.
And Greenpeace International which is nearly pure propaganda spending has a budget of almost 240 million Euros.
This is just two people.
This is just two incredibly wealthy people who happen to be the largest donors in the very areas you mentioned in your link.
They could, but they don't, that's the point.
Asserting something doesn't make it true. To the contrary, we see it is easily false, not only for the very reason I mentioned.
For example, while Apple shows a bunch of cash on its non-US-based balance sheets, that was actually US bonds. Bank accounts in the Bahamas, Cooks Islands, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, etc still mean the resulting money is somewhere else in the economy doing something other than just sitting there.
Lobbying can be done for other reasons and certainly does not influence the electorate. You haven't shown that the lobbying in question is climate related. I'll also note that you or some AC who sounds remarkably like you, slid the goalposts over from a discussion of propaganda to lobbying.
But when we see donations to propaganda groups with an explicit orientation, either pro or con, then we have something to talk about. Here, as I noted earlier, the fossil fuel industry is vastly overspent by those governments and NGOs.
Besides, if a person has more money than they could possibly spend in ten lifetimes, why should they care so much about inflation that is pretty low anyway?
Because with near trivial effort that wealth could be growing a little faster than inflation. For example, they could buy bonds from the more reliable governments or businesses. In a higher inflation environment where bonds aren't so good, they could put it into stocks.
And once the wealth is in an investment, it's no longer out of circulation being "hoarded" somewhere.
The problem is the current system makes providing housing to people who have no stable income non-viable because the ones who turn out stable-ish won't be able to afford to offset the risk of the others--i.e. you have to charge those people more for rent than their income can pay. A UBI system ensures 100% of everyone has a stable income, thus reducing that risk.
Your model is broken. Chapter 13 removes the landlords who can't provide affordable housing to this group.
As you can see, the lowest class can't afford the lowest-affordable housing right now.
And the lowest class probably still won't after UBI, due to some combination of financial incompetence, drug use (legal or not), mental illness, and inflation of basic needs. My view is that when you're that far down, they will need more than just money to cure their problems (and many of those problems are things we just can't do anything about in a free country).
Having said that, I don't oppose UBI per se. But I'm seeing a lot of rationalizing away of real concerns about UBI as well as exaggerations of what UBI can do. For example, I think it will be a net loss for society, if we keep all the current paraphernalia of the welfare state and just add the UBI on top of that.
I also think we have a serious problem with creating a constituency that will vote to increase UBI without concern for the future of society. If most people are pushing the "more magic" button by voting for the politician who promises the most increases in UBI, then it won't be long before disaster strikes. There has to be some bound to what UBI does or it's going to be another mess. The revenue neutral model that is often proposed seems to be able to deal with that, but you still have the issue of the people who think that they can keep finding revenue sources to push UBI higher and higher.
We're not seeing that because the wealthy have bought government to protect the value of their wealth. This is often called corporate welfare.
Always an excuse, eh? Corporate welfare isn't in the least about inflating the cost of capital. It's just a straight wealth transfer.
Most Hispanics are white. There's already been some attempts to classify a good portion of Asians as white too. And the melting pot didn't stop melting just because of multi-culturalism. Finally, a lot of minority activism and propaganda needs a majority identity to play off of as a scapegoat.
So I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see whites still as a majority in fifty years, just with a bunch more ethnic groups glued onto it.
Depends on who is "white" in the future. It''ll be amusing if in 50 years, we still have pinheads blathering about the end of the white power structure solely because "white" has been enlarged.
Too much capital on the supply side is a problem.
I suppose that could be. Money hoarding really is a complaint about perceived low performing capital. And having an oversupply of capital would do that. But OTOH, an oversupply of capital would negatively affect the net worth of the wealthy. We're just not seeing that.
No, the real reason is that it's quite hard to get money to go marauding across Asia on horseback.
Well, the Mongols were hardcore about inflation control. Maidens with gold nuggets on their heads could wander around the empire without the nugget losing any value.
You fail because they are making money faster than the rate of inflation, and also because they have ways to hide their money from taxation.
You have the wrong dimensions for the comparison you're trying to make. Making money is a rate of change and has inverse time as part of its units dimension, amount of money does not. Now, if you're trying to claim that money has a return that is higher than inflation, then that is wrong by definition. Inflation is the return on investment for money (and traditionally negative because you're losing on that investment, except in cases of deflation which tend to be rare).
For example, Bill Gates is personally invested in Big Pharma, and his foundation (which is likewise invested) makes "donations" which promote the ends of the corporations in which he is invested. He is able to spend money which he allegedly doesn't own in ways which make him money.
Note that your sole example has nothing to do with hoarding money.
Paying a MGI is "getting out of the way of employing people". If you institute a MGI then you can eliminate the minimum wage.
Which again has nothing to do with hoarding money.
And it's not "if" corporations are sitting on big piles of cash, we know for a fact that they are.
Well, I can think of corporations that are sitting on big piles of debt and liabilities rather than cash. For example, there's a fair portion of older businesses that are pension funds that also do things like build cars (General Motors) or fly people around (American Airlines).
That money translates directly into power, which is then exercised in ways which make more money without transferring [much of] it downwards.
Right. There's the obvious counterexample, employment. Money doesn't magically do anything on its own. Capital doesn't either. You need someone to kick things along.
Why is it necessary to pretend that swimming in a pool of money is an alternative to investment?
You tell me. Several repliers have made that mistake. And the rest of your post is irrelevant to my observation.
No one is trying to claim that "hoarding money" means keeping it in your basement, but that large sums of money do not have a direct influence on local economies.
Actually, yes, they have. And since I don't know which posts you've posted, being AC, you may be one of those people who has made that mistake.
Explain how the rich aren't hoarding money and how their capital isn't just a way of taking money out of the economy?
Inflation.
But I've heard a considerable amount of agreement from people far more qualified than me that concentration of wealth and the non-movement of that wealth is a major problem.
Wealth is not money. Money is merely a form of wealth that decays in value over time due to inflation. There are plenty of things out there that don't do that.
Further, economists are pretty cheap. I wouldn't on your budget, but someone rich can afford a few.
Governments are often looking for ways to get corporations to stop sitting on piles of cash and actually hire some people at decent wages to get the economy moving.
What piles of cash? Don't those governments have better things to do (or not do, such as getting out of the way of employing people, for example) even if corporations are sitting on piles of cash?