| logic?
Garuda2001 said having an infinite supply of money would be pointless if you spent a dollar. But Arachnid claims that you'd have a smaller set of infinity. In either case, why? They apparently believe that the infinite supply would exist all at once, which is completely absurd.
Since physics dictates that matter in the universe is finite, to have an infinite supply of anything concrete (as opposed to abstract) would require some sort of magic. There would be no non-magical way of achieving that wish.
So, given that it is magical in nature, and that the wish stipulates an infinite amount of whatever (doesn't have to be money), you would never be decreasing the supply even if you used as much as you could. More would magically be available.
The whole idea is not so much that there exists a complete supply of the item somewhere, but that when you want it, it is magically made available. And that you can never reach "the end of the supply".
So, if you were somehow capable of pulling out a grossly large amount of money (let's say a billion times more than the current world supply), then yes, you'd devalue money to the point we'd be back on the barter system and you'd be poor.
If, on the other hand, you were limited to pulling it out of a bag, one handful at a time, and you wished to achieve the end of devaluing the world's currency, you'd die before you finished; even if you didn't take time to eat, sleep, or spend it.
It's a given that "money" would be restricted to actually existing denominations. No pulling out a billion dollar bill, since no one makes those as legal tender.
Now, Arachnid further claims some sort of logical relation between having an infinite amount of money and being infinitely evil. We can only assume he is basing this on the pithy saying about money being the root of all evil. If he had actually stipulated that, his claim would have made a certain kind of sense. As it is, he has given no connection between evil and money, thus making a mistaken assumption.
Taking his ideas further, let's stipulate that you _had_ managed to devalue the entire world's currency (and could pull out any new type of money that was devised). We'd be back on the barter system (as posited above) and "poverty" may or may not strike. Given, the currently rich people would find their situations gravely affected. The poor would not notice much difference, if not, in fact, an improvement. And the middle class would carry on pretty much as before - trading services and goods instead of cash.
Okay, I'm spent for now. Please rebut. |
