3 Comments

Good write up. Ive also always found the term “afford” to be a bit of a loaded one. As a species we are always of the opinion that other people can always “afford” things. As if rich people’s money is tucked under there mattress just wasting away, being eaten by inflation, and taking up space. We tend to act as if that money (another misunderstood concept) is wasting away. Which, especially in this day and age, is almost never true. If you’re money is in a bank. It is doing something. It could be gaining interest. It could be being loaned out. You could also have just invested your money. Which then influences all kinds of other tangential sectors of society.

So yea. They can “afford” it. But realistically you’re not taking that money from a rich person. If it’s in the bank or invested they don’t actually “have” that money. They’ve loaned it out already. In order form them to reroute that money they have to take back a portion of that loan and give it to the needy. Which is taking money from banks, or startups, or businesses, or brokers or a thousand other places or could be.

Now on an individual level one wealthy person donating a few thousand bucks has no real effect. A drop in a bucket. But enough drops and that bucket is going to overflow.

So it’s never as simple as “you have money, help!” What people are really saying is “you’re spending your money wrong, and putting it in the wrong places.” Which might be true. But that just leads us to a macro version of bastiat’s broken window fallacy. What people will “see” is rich people helping poor people. Which I agree can be good. What people will not see however is the people who now have less opportunity elsewhere because financing, investment, and purchasing power is lower, however slightly there is an alternate universe where down the line of that money being directed elsewhere a poor person actually will be hurt.

Either way. It’s far more complicated than they can “afford” it.

Expand full comment