Asset security is exactly one of the reasons people seek foreign shelters. If you've got a ton of value to control, you want it to be secure, and sometimes your own government is the primary threat.
If I buy a bunch of baseball cards at 1c each and later it turns out that the market values them at $100 each, I never actually "took" money from anyone. Yes it's patently unfair that I got that lucky, but it wasn't necessarily at anyone's expense.
Now, when I actually go to sell those cards then I do actually "take" money from someone else, but while those gains are unrealized it's just paper wealth.
In such a case it's also not clear who I am "taking" from. The person buying them off of me gave me the money, but you could also say the baseball card company was exploited and lost out on pricing their cards at $100?
No wealth was created by "discovering value" or finding someone with money to buy something that was already there before. If this new person decided to spend $100 on a baseball card, then they didn't spend money on something else, so the market for those other things is naturally going to price them lower. So the $100 came from somewhere[1].
All of these open system chains of thought that assume any "non-zero sum game" either improperly account for devaluation of other goods or they assume accumulation of labor, and typically add a side helping of assumed exponential growth.
[1] Which is not say that money cannot be created from nothing. In fact, it is all the time. Debt--loans, stocks, bonds, IOUs--is money creation.
The baseball card company is in the business of selling lottery tickets. If there wasn't a secondary market for the ones that get really valuable, they'd sell a lot fewer new cards to people looking for a winning lottery ticket.
It's a weird business for them because they're selling lottery tickets, but don't necessarily know which ones will be winners. Although with all the statistics and moneyball stuff, they'd sell a probably have a better idea now than in the past.
I think it's more like gambling on horse races. They make money by making the opportunity, and it's mostly the participants who prey upon one another.
In other words, you owe taxes on the capital gains because someone is working to make those gains for you.
They're linked but it's not 1:1. The whole point of a corporation and a value-add economy is to do a force multiplier on the cost of labor. It doesn't matter how hard you work when digging with a shovel, a lazy guy with an excavator will create value faster than you can.
The guy providing the excavator is currently keeping the lion's share of the productivity gains, and that's not good. But it's also not quite the same as saying all of the wealth comes from exploitation.
So in my world view, yes, all wealth is exploitative. No one person can do enough work to earn millions and billions more than others.
it's not unfair since you took the risk of potentially losing your original investment; you also put in the time to learn about baseball cards, while other people were interested in antiques and studied and bought those, also with a risk that what they bought would decrease in value.
Can I interest you in some Beanie Babies?
I suggest that you could count on one hand the number of people in the entire history of humanity who could and would hide this kind of wealth who didn't earn it through somehow relying on others and/or society's structure.
Lots of transactions actually destroy value, they just do so in a way that externalizes this cost.
A good example is advertising: companies are incentivized to dump all available resources into marketing, because those who don't get out-competed by those who do. It is a winner-takes-all game where the strategy that maximizes global value is nowhere close to being a Nash equilibrium.
A more extreme example would be hiring someone to go rob a bank. No value is created (lots is destroyed) but both parties to the transaction come out ahead.
Doesn't this assume perfect information?
Edit: concrete example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_(automobile)
Edit2: metaphorical example. I have a very valuable bridge to sell you. Just hope the value you receive isn't different than the value you perceive at transaction time. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/I_have_a_bridge_to_sell_you
says who?
No argument that printing money devalues everyone else (this is the definition of inflation). End the Fed.
— Leona Helmsley
What a horrible human being.
So USD flows into Cayman banks, and those banks need to do something with the massive amounts of money just sitting there. So what do they do? They buy U.S. Treasuries. And half a trillion dollars is just their holdings in U.S. debt, imagine how much more money is hidden in those accounts and invested in other assets.
1. https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent...
And as allies of the USA, the navy ain't coming.
No.
None of this stuff is permanent.