Exactly. We are arguing the same thing.
When I spend my money I choose which producer best meets my needs. That is the extent of my influence.
The more people who choose the same as me, the more money that producer earns.
Those who are the best earn the most (at least that is the theory in a perfect market).
The money may start with me and you and everyone else… but it ends up with the best producers who pay the best people.
They can then spend it as they see fit to meet their own needs.
If you read the story I wrote, you’ll understand why just having more money does not mean they will invest more in productive resources to produce more or pay people more. As history shows, they just stock pile it in the form of ‘bank deposits’ and ‘securities’. These add no new real wealth… they are just numbers in a computer or on a piece of paper.
What if producers could produce more, but others have no money and there are no jobs for them. Or, even if there are jobs, they pay so little that the extra money still does not max out the producers capacity when spent?
If we allocate money to everyone equally, they each get a share of the extra capacity.
Or are you saying that the extra money should be allocated in proportion to what people earn?
In that case, those earning nothing would get nothing and those already earning the most would just sock it away in the bank or securities along with the rest of their money.
How does that help?
Or are you just going to let those without a job starve?
What happens in the next fifty years when automation and AI wipes out virtually all ‘jobs’ needed to produce our goods and services.
How do you suggest people will gain access to the output of the automated factories if they have no money? Or if the money they earn is insufficient to support themselves and their family, even though the productive capacity of the whole system could produce more?