Milton Friedman isn't the best source to quote when it comes to economics. If you read Naomi Klein or even Joseph Stiglitz, you'll quickly learn that Friedman and his school of Chicago boys are one of the driving sources of the increased inequality in the world. He also died in 2006, so he never witnessed the backlash that it caused with the 2008 crisis.
Kuwanger is spot in in saying that banks print
virtual money. It's not the same as actual money, but in the long run it comes down to the same thing. Lemme explain...say I own a bank with MORE THAN 1000 bucks on it. I then loan 1000 bucks to someone who'll pay me back within a year, along with interest. I'm not sure if you've ever went to a bank for a loan, but as someone who did it twice, I can tell you this: they do not give you the actual money. They don't give me stacks of paper. Heck...my girlfriend and me have recently loaned over 220'000 euro's, and literally speaking, we haven't seen a cent from the bank. What we instead got was a very expensive paper saying that we've gotten the loan, and some phone calls to our notary promising it'll be transferred to the people we'd buy a house from. Of course they never actually SEE the money either, but use it to buy a house with themselves.
This isn't a coincidence. To get back to that earlier example: banks don't really loan money...they loan IOU's. They hand out pamflets saying that whomever gets it, can trade it back for 1000 bucks.
Thus far, it's a "same difference" situation. But what banks then do, is simply allow the next person to loan 1000 bucks as well. This one also gets an IOU worth 1000 dollars. And that's the thing: banks don't even really hide the truth anymore...they call it "leverage". As long as they can pay back
some clients who want actual money for their loan, they don't consider themselves to be in problem. More so: because they charge pretty hefty on the interest rates* they can often cover any real money they need to pay on that alone.
I've heard that one before. And I admit, there is certainly something to be said about it. I mean...does it really matter that the rich get (super super SUPER) rich when the poor have seen their standards raised as well? I mean...I admit I don't know whether the last year was still a net gain for the poor, but earlier on I've read on the paradox that the poor see their net worth lower (without proper education, your chances for a job are lower than ever)and yet at the same time things like mortality rates and life expectancy are going the right way.
The problems are a bit deeper. I know at least two.
For one: "economic mobility" is a pipedream. If you work hard and smart and aren't struck with serious misfortune, then you might get rich. You might. And 'rich' meaning: 'having more than the people directly around you'. You might become the richest person in the street, your neighborhood or even your local village. Richer than that becomes harder once you get in a territory where competition is involved. You see, modern capitalism is a long stretch from how I would assume it is handed out on flyers that is given out to former communists or socialists. Modern capitalism gives the already wealthy all the tools to prey and feed on the 'slightly less rich'. Through market manipulation, tax evasion, politics intermingling, patent wars and all that jazz, the extremely wealthy have an army at their disposal to make sure that they remain on top. Not so much by being the best at something (though of course: if you can hinder your opponents out of the market, you are the best by default) but by praying upon others. So no...a poor person cannot become the 1%. I'm willing to concede that most people still believe that lie, but that's changing. More and more understand that they aren't fed the rule but the exception. And that they are the suckers for believing in it.
The second problem is on the social aspect of it. While there are quite some rich heirs on the world, the TRULY rich all own multinational companies. And these go beyond merely feeding upon the lesser rich to feeding upon governments. All the benefits are internalized while all (or as much as possible of) the costs are externalized. If you break down an apple product down to its core features, then you'd be amazed how much parts of it were originally created or funded by the government or state-driven colleges or universities.
On the flip side: they play out states or even countries, hoping to get the best deal FOR THEM when it comes to labour costs. This also funnels the wealth in the world towards the leaders of these organisations.
This all is getting to a boiling point. From what I can see, the only thin thread that is holding back a second french revolution is that very idea that "if you work long and hard enough, maybe there's a place for you on the hill". And when I look at those yellow vests, students going on strike because of the climate or even things like the brexit and that moron in the oval office, I see it as signs that that thread is getting REALLY thin.
Heh...I hope I'm wrong, obviously. But with this sort of news, I doubt it. Or do you think that anyone can work hard and long enough so that in the end, they can earn as much wealth as HALF THE WORLD COMBINED?
* honestly: please don't pretend that banks just charge interest to cover inflation costs. The interest rates and calculations are set as such that dumb people don't understand how much they pay for the privilege and smart people realise that they don't have other options. Meanwhile, rich people don't take loans. They give them at others to get even more rich.
Hmm...it can also be that your source (or you) misinterpret what was originally said. You said that there isn't enough food, nor enough possible farmland available to feed the entire world. Again: that is untrue. However: it is not "simply" a matter of being less greedy. It is also true that the diet of the average Western man (US, Europe) isn't sustainable if everyone adopts it. The obvious example is meat: if everyone should start eating meat every day, then either the production cannot follow (even with perfect distribution), or it would lead to an ecological disaster. So in that aspect, it isn't exactly
wrong to say that there isn't enough food for everyone. It's just that we're pretty spoiled in terms of what "food" really means.