Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
I had a big problem with the "deal = fight" metaphor to begin with. In an ideal deal, both parties benefit. In an ideal fight, only one party profits. Now if you were to apply that metaphor to the stock market, where money gets divorced from what it's supposed to buy, you may have point. But then you have a royal rumble, not a one-on-one fight. But if you have a "winner", i.e. all the money in one hand, money's become worthless, because you can't do anything with it. (Everyone else is too ruined to produce anything.)
They might have tried just that, but it didn't really work for me. I mean Kimimaro started out as a character who's afraid to spend money, lest he has too little in the future, but this ended up counting for little more than "a guy treasuring his asset".
Typical fighting show, different flavour. Occasionally interesting. 6/10
|
In capitalism, you basically get 2 parties that consent to trading something. There's an agreement of minds. Trading takes place. Sometimes one person is the big loser and the other is a big winner. The whole deal idea made sense to me. You make bad deals and you can go bankrupt, just like in real life.
With the whole "money becomes worthless when you have all of it" idea..I'm not sure exactly at what point that would happen. There are many banana republics on this planet but people with all the money still have what all the poor people want. So as long as there is confidence in the money rich people don't have to worry about whether their money will be accepted or not. And even if money were to fall into one person's hand with the rest of the population having virtually none, the one rich person would simply convert his money to assets.