Moved goalposts:

I'd rather rich people spend their time spending all their money, then at least they're benefiting the economy which has SOME minor gains to everyday people.

[…] more demand creates more profit incentive which causes businesses to produce more […]

[…] The faster the cycle goes […] the more good it does. If $20 is circulated only once in a year and only purchased one $20 meal, it only stimulates one meal's worth of demand and only pays 1 meal's worth of wages. If it's circulated twice…

See, you almost got it…you touched on it, but then didn't stop to consider. You just dismissed the central facet of modern economics as an "external factor".

Investment prompts technological change. That is the entire point. Greater velocity of money, more investment, more technology, more efficiency, better quality of life.

What you were originally talking about was higher velocity and demand directly and immediately stimulating higher production in presumably linear proportion with no downsides. Double the velocity, get double the goods, which is just plainly nonsense.

What you're now pretending you were always talking about is higher demand stimulating technological change which then later increases the efficiency of the economy, allowing more goods to be produced overall. Double the demand, maybe 50 years later get 15% more goods, which is not the same.

If you had started out with the second position, then that would be mostly fine. "Rich people should spend their money in ways that will stimulate innovation to benefit us all later on" is somewhat reasonable! But you didn't go with that. At first, you didn't even specify, and then you went with this weird take implying a much more direct relationship than is physically and technologically possible between velocity and output. So naturally, I responded to that, the near-term monetary effects of which would likely not be good for most people.

Regurgitating irrelevant basics everybody already knows:

"How that gets distributed amongst people" is dollars and numbers in bank accounts. That's how economics works. Money is just a bunch of IOUs.

[…]

In a functioning industry, more demand creates more profit incentive which causes businesses to produce more, bringing prices into equilibrium.

The recent inflation we've seen has been a result of price gouging by businesses. Businesses use "inflation" as a justification for raising prices but not wages. It's not real, it's just massive collusion.

The role of government is to prevent that. And to prevent inefficient or undesirable allocation of labor and money, by taxing and subsidizing and fining and regulating. So the rich want everyone working on yachts and no one working on roads? Government taxes yachts until it's too expensive to maintain them, and government subsidizes road contractors who offer generous payment terms.

The government is not a dictator, they are a referee.

Every Economics 101 textbook starts with a similar example.

In Florida, the climate is good for growing oranges.

In Kansas, the climate is good for growing corn.

In Washington state, the climate is […]

[Very long-winded rant about specialization.]

Expand that waaaaaaaaay out to the modern day. We have highly specialized facilities for producing car steering wheels that are the best dang car steering wheels that the world has ever seen. They produce them in the most efficient manner that the world has ever seen. Why? Money. Investment. You have a phone in your pocket that is more powerful than a computer that took up a whole room in the 1970s. Money. Investment. The average lifespan (covid excepted) has been steadily trending up for decades. Money. Investment.

Insults:

The 1600s called, they want their economic theories back.

Maybe you just heard the term somewhere.

That's so stunningly wrong I'm not even sure how to begin to address it.

Oh shiiiiiit someone went to www.dictionary.com

"bloviating" lol

I love how blatant it is that you had to look this word up, and then had to project that onto me (thrice, in five sentences!) to protect your ego.

I don't think you're trolling, per se, but something akin to compulsive lying.

You're like a dog latching on to the words "treat" and "walk".

Delusional grandstanding:

That's not how the economy works, and I don't know how long I can keep telling you that.

So no, I'm not going to address each of the things you linked, because you don't understand them.

"I'm not even going to try to defend my point because you're too stupid to understand it, so instead I'm just going to yell at you about irrelevant-but-technically-correct stuff to save face with insults thrown in every now and then."

Lmfao.

What I'm trying to do is explain to you the central ideas underpinning economic theory. Not a specific theory, but ALL economic theory.

Bullshit:

You don't even know what "anecdotally" means.

I debated whether that's the right word. Anecdotal evidence is usually at least factual, just not relevant or representative. Your various allegories aren't even consistently factual. But the basic fallacy fits, of simply telling a story with little to substantiate or even define its implications.

Money that is removed from the economic cycle is money that is not being used to support it. The faster the cycle goes (the greater the velocity of money) the more good it does. If $20 is circulated only once in a year and only purchased one $20 meal […]

MV=PQ, and V doesn't usually change Q. If you wanna go with a different or longer-term perspective, then that's fine, but you have to qualify it or clarify it.

That's so stunningly wrong I'm not even sure how to begin to address it. You're still stuck on this idea of a single limited pie of resources, where you have to pull from one sector to get benefits in another.

Productive capacity has bottlenecks. If you want your point to be that more available capital can stimulate technological change to increase it, then that's fine. But that's not what you were saying, until I showed your original point was not defendable.

[…] If Florida focuses solely on growing oranges, and Washington focuses solely on growing apples, we end up with more apples AND more oranges. This demonstrates that money (and investment) facilitates specialization and technological advancement.

At this point, you've demonstrated specialization, but not technological advancement.

But you fail to understand that Pareto efficiency is a snapshot of a given economic sector (or economy). It's not an eternal state.

At the point where I linked to Pareto efficiency, I literally was talking about a snapshot of the economy in any given moment.

But it is also the equilibrium (or, more accurately, the equilibria), roughly, in a functioning economy. This is one of the other things I referenced you to, which you've conveniently decided is beneath your all-knowing-ness to stoop to the level of acknowledging.

Strawmans:

Your problem is you're starting from the position that money is bad, and you're finding arguments to support that.

Not to mention the whole "there's only a limited pie of goods" view caused incredible suffering in the 1600s and 1700s when European nations decided they wanted to grab the biggest slice they could.

…This one, which you keep repeating, is especially dishonest, because my original reference to "stealing the entire pie" wasn't even about productive capacity at first, but was replying to your opinion that private philanthropy absolves systemic inequality.

Literally all of the things that you claimed are impossible are being done, and they're being done because people are investing in them.

I claimed, as a rough rule, that they cannot be simply magic'd into existence by monetary policy/effects alone, which is what you were suggesting.

I don't know what to make of how you've now folded the entire fields of nuclear physics, electrical engineering, demography, etc. under "Money Good!". Like everything in a market economy, they're affected by and require an appropriate degree of investment. That doesn't mean you can just dump more cash into the economy to get miracles back.

No they're not. Only in a few highly specific areas are we even close to possibly ever running out of required materials […]

You're seriously pretending raw materials, and not, you know, labour or tech for processing those materials, are the main bottleneck for productive capacity.

(And yes, capital also counts, and technology can indeed advance. But it's nowhere near the all-consuming force you're portraying it as, nor guaranteed.)

The sad part is that the basic point you now seem to be reaching for, underneath all the bullshit and vitriol, isn't even wrong. If you're willing to take the immediate social and monetary chaos of trillions of dollars of "rich people"'s money being dumped into and taking over the system, then sure, maybe in the long run it might stimulate technological advancement that will benefit everybody.

But you're so cocky, aggressive, and incapable of forming a coherent point that it's taken you thousands of words to fail to explain that, while apparently directly contradicting both economic theory and the basic math it's defined in, all while making an ass of yourself.

…Block, and move on, perhaps. Or just ignore, maybe .... It's hard for me to understand that sometimes people don't use words to examine the truth, but instead use words to disrupt it for their own ego, pride, or power.... Well, fuck this.

And suddenly, I'm less afraid of LLMs, because no matter how delusional and insidious and oblivious those statistical inferences may be, I'm reminded again that humans like you are already way worse.