5 ms·

What specific action do you believe the wealthy will take when they "usurp" the non-wealthy markets? Provide goods that the non-wealthy consumers want at lower

What specific action do you believe the wealthy will take when they "usurp" the non-wealthy markets? Provide goods that the non-wealthy consumers want at lower prices than non-wealthy producers? Given that the non-wealthy consumers have nothing of value to the rich people, why bother? Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out? You've postulated a world where non-rich humans are as economically useless to the rich as monkeys are to modern day humans. In the real world, we don't generally engage in any of the behaviors you describe.

chongli 11y ago
Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out? Who says we have to spitefully "usurp" the monkey markets? Don't we do enough damage by casually destroying their habitats and driving their species into endangered status or even extinct? Same goes for wealthy people. You don't have to ascribe an utterly destructive mentality to them in order to explain the harms of what they do. All it takes is simple pride; the pride they have for the companies they've grown, the profits they've amassed, and the technologies they've developed. To then say we want to take those things away and redistribute them to the public for the greater good is to make that person into our public enemy. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to hang on?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  You've ignored the real question yet again. One more time: "But how does this prevent non-rich humans from producing goods for other non-rich humans?" Is it really your belief that after the rich go galt, the non-rich have no possible way to survive except by robbing them? That's a surprisingly Randian view.
  - chongli 11y ago
    It's simple, really. Picture an apple orchard, as it operates today. Hundreds or even thousands of migrant labourers employed to tend the orchard and pick the apples at harvest time. Now imagine small aerial drones which have been developed to harvest the apples automatically and bring them to the warehouse. Extrapolate this idea across a vast array of industries and you begin to see a pattern: huge numbers of jobs which have been replaced by automation. Where will all of these people go? Who will they work for? Now imagine a time much further into the future. Unemployment has skyrocketed. Millions of people are starving and they can't afford the apples they used to pick for a living. So what? They decide to "invade" the orchard and steal the apples for themselves! Ahh, but drones come to the rescue again! Machine-gun wielding aerial drones patrol the orchard day and night, efficiently defending the property from any and all would-be thieves. How does this prevent the former apple-pickers from growing their own apples? On whose land do you expect them to grow?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      They can grow apples on other land. The world is hardly overpopulated and the rich don't own anything close to every parcel of land. Heck, the rich have no reason to even waste drones defending their surplus landholdings, just as most owners of large tracts of land don't typically defend it against deer. As long as the non-rich don't interfere with the drones harvesting apples for consumption by the rich, why would the rich care what they do? Further, you seem to think the rich own most land. They may own most parcels of currently valuable land (e.g. Manhattan) weighted by land value, but that's not remotely the same thing. There are large amounts of land in the world which are currently laying fallow because there is no current use for them. E.g., Detroit is more or less abandoned (but well suited for industry), as are large amounts of flyover country which were formerly used for farming.

chongli 11y ago

Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out? Who says we have to spitefully "usurp" the monkey markets? Don't we do enough damage by casually destroying their habitats and driving their species into endangered status or even extinct? Same goes for wealthy people. You don't have to ascribe an utterly destructive mentality to them in order to explain the harms of what they do. All it takes is simple pride; the pride they have for the companies they've grown, the profits they've amassed, and the technologies they've developed. To then say we want to take those things away and redistribute them to the public for the greater good is to make that person into our public enemy. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to hang on?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
You've ignored the real question yet again. One more time: "But how does this prevent non-rich humans from producing goods for other non-rich humans?" Is it really your belief that after the rich go galt, the non-rich have no possible way to survive except by robbing them? That's a surprisingly Randian view.
- chongli 11y ago
  It's simple, really. Picture an apple orchard, as it operates today. Hundreds or even thousands of migrant labourers employed to tend the orchard and pick the apples at harvest time. Now imagine small aerial drones which have been developed to harvest the apples automatically and bring them to the warehouse. Extrapolate this idea across a vast array of industries and you begin to see a pattern: huge numbers of jobs which have been replaced by automation. Where will all of these people go? Who will they work for? Now imagine a time much further into the future. Unemployment has skyrocketed. Millions of people are starving and they can't afford the apples they used to pick for a living. So what? They decide to "invade" the orchard and steal the apples for themselves! Ahh, but drones come to the rescue again! Machine-gun wielding aerial drones patrol the orchard day and night, efficiently defending the property from any and all would-be thieves. How does this prevent the former apple-pickers from growing their own apples? On whose land do you expect them to grow?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    They can grow apples on other land. The world is hardly overpopulated and the rich don't own anything close to every parcel of land. Heck, the rich have no reason to even waste drones defending their surplus landholdings, just as most owners of large tracts of land don't typically defend it against deer. As long as the non-rich don't interfere with the drones harvesting apples for consumption by the rich, why would the rich care what they do? Further, you seem to think the rich own most land. They may own most parcels of currently valuable land (e.g. Manhattan) weighted by land value, but that's not remotely the same thing. There are large amounts of land in the world which are currently laying fallow because there is no current use for them. E.g., Detroit is more or less abandoned (but well suited for industry), as are large amounts of flyover country which were formerly used for farming.