• Rinox@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    I mean, if they are fleeing, they are fleeing with their money. Capital is essential for an economy and if capital leaves the country, it means that you have less growth, less investment and less prosperity in general. You can’t even tax that capital once it has left the country.

    Plus, many of those low-millionaires are probably some of the most competent and knowledgeable people (not the hundreds-million industry captain with ties to the government, but the plant manager or lead researcher, lead developer etc. i.e. those who’ve made a small fortune through their ability). Getting rid of lead people is not exactly beneficial for an economy.

    And sure, making everyone poor will reduce apparent wealth inequality, you’re right.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      In fiat economies financial capital isn’t a limiting factor since it can be and is created out of thin air as needed. The need for private citizens’ money to grow the economy is often repeated idea but it doesn’t hold water when you consider how their money was created in the first place. Specifically, currency issuing governments spend money into existence before being able to tax it. Therefore they don’t need to tax in order to spend. If there are the real resources needed for certain economic activity to occur but the limiting factor is the lack of money, a competent government will spend the required money into that sector and the activity will materialize. There’s no need to wait for private individuals to accumulate it over time in order to spend it to enable this economic activity. Crucially, even if you wait, the money is still going to come from a government’s “printing press.”

      Other types of capital such as human, intellectual, can limit growth since they’re not as easily replaceable. That’s why I think your second point about who those people are is important. It is possible that they’re knowledgeable workers in different domains. It is also possible that they’re people skilled in exploiting others. If we assume the former, losing them isn’t ideal. If we assume the latter, then it’s a social value judgement of whether you want to have more or fewer of these types in your society, but they’re not essential for economic growth.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Fiat currency doesn’t work like that. It is a way to hold value so that a potato farmer isn’t exchanging a bushel of potatoes for a dentist appointment. It still needs to be backed by productivity in the economy, otherwise you just get hyperinflation. There is no magic.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          And between every dollar being backed by a bushel of potatoes or a dentist appointment and hyperinflation, lies a vast gap of other possibilities. For example dollars backed by future productivity that people believe will materialise which doesn’t exist today. If you factor in debt and look at fiat as a form of debt it should become more obvious why you can create money today that enables people to do work which they otherwise wouldn’t, without causing inflation, let alone hyperinflation, under the assumption of available real resources (labor, tools, metal, land, knowledge, etc).

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            But you can’t just assume those real resources exist, especially if you have just triggered a brain drain and disrupted your economy.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s actually difficult to bring their money with them due to strict transfer limits. China has strict capital controls.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Even if they exfiltrate the money, China as every other fiat economy can replace it using a keyboard.

        If these folks are indeed knowledgeable and experienced workers, then having them leave isn’t ideal. But whether they’re such people or not is an open question. They might also be people who are good at exploiting others’ labor for profit, just like their western many-multi-mil counterparts.