"lost money"

[Bourne]

Maybe you guys can help me understand something...

"they used that money to bribe officials, which is money that could have been used for other, better purposes in society"


Typically, people talking about that money will call it lost or wasted. "The economy lost $2B due to bribery in 2015" etc..

that money is not lost. it has been burned. it hasnt been removed from the economy. it will continue to circulate.

Why do people say it is "lost"? And I mean from an overall economy/society standpoint, not for the individual parties involved

[highwhey]

Bc it is a lost opportunity that would have resulted in financial gain, relatively speaking.

Are you in the 3rd grade?

[Nilocon165]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KuMfCqRptoE/maxresdefault.jpg

Jesus Christ that's Jason Bourne

[Bourne]

Bc it is a lost opportunity that would have resulted in financial gain, relatively speaking.

Are you in the 3rd grade?

Read my last sentence and try again

[Richesly]

You dumb?

If someone is rich, they will have more money in there savings that is not circulated AT ALL. Same when its not being spent.

Being rich hurts the economy, which is why they want as least rich people as possible. The more money you usually have, the less you use.

If you have a check of $40k a year, you can live off that while having enough for entertainment.

But if you make $100M a year, how would you spend it all? Only athletes can burn through money because they mostly live a fun lifestyle.

Bill Gates has a networth of about $3.5B. Thats basically the money hes circulated in the economy. Now tell me, how much do you actually think he has?

[KyrieTheFuture]

You dumb?

If someone is rich, they will have more money in there savings that is not circulated AT ALL. Same when its not being spent.

Being rich hurts the economy, which is why they want as least rich people as possible. The more money you usually have, the less you use.

If you have a check of $40k a year, you can live off that while having enough for entertainment.

But if you make $100M a year, how would you spend it all? Only athletes can burn through money because they mostly live a fun lifestyle.

Bill Gates has a networth of about $3.5B. Thats basically the money hes circulated in the economy. Now tell me, how much do you actually think he has?
Bill Gates does not have a net worth of 3.5 Billion

[highwhey]

Read my last sentence and try again
Just because it wasn't spent on a particular industry does not guarantee it will be spent on another. That's why they say it is lost, because without that bribe or whatever that stopped the money from being spent on a particular industry, that money would have certainly been introduced into the economy and now ir hasn't and there is no guarantee it will be introduced via another manner.

[Richesly]

Bill Gates does not have a net worth of 3.5 Billion

I'm sorry, I was thinking of someone else lol. You're correct, I knew that was WAY too low.

$78.4B. He probably has quadrupled that stashed up.

The fact is, products that cost someone $50 still costs someone with 1000x more money $50.

[Bourne]

You dumb?

If someone is rich, they will have more money in there savings that is not circulated AT ALL. Same when its not being spent.

Being rich hurts the economy, which is why they want as least rich people as possible. The more money you usually have, the less you use.

If you have a check of $40k a year, you can live off that while having enough for entertainment.

But if you make $100M a year, how would you spend it all? Only athletes can burn through money because they mostly live a fun lifestyle.

Bill Gates has a networth of about $3.5B. Thats basically the money hes circulated in the economy. Now tell me, how much do you actually think he has?

People having too much money to use it, thus having it stagnate and not help anyone, is 100% NOT what I was talking about. at all. where did you get that from lol

[Bourne]

Just because it wasn't spent on a particular industry does not guarantee it will be spent on another. That's why they say it is lost, because without that bribe or whatever that stopped the money from being spent on a particular industry, that money would have certainly been introduced into the economy and now ir hasn't and there is no guarantee it will be introduced via another manner.

It is fairly likely that the person who ends up with the funds is going to use them. So I don't think that's it.

I think the logic is that people who are "losing" that money are losing incentive and motivation to do positive actions. Sure, the money may still be in circulation, but $X of motivation has been stripped. We all know the feeling of losing

[Richesly]

It is fairly likely that the person who ends up with the funds is going to use them. So I don't think that's it.

I think the logic is that people who are "losing" that money are losing incentive and motivation to do positive actions. Sure, the money may still be in circulation, but $X of motivation has been stripped. We all know the feeling of losing

I was just using that as an example of how it can happen any way. What if you bribed someone and it ended up in their savings? They should only estimating around 5% of what the person was bribed though.

If someone was bribed like $50, and then took it, then yeah they probably will burn it.