4 ms·

This is a really good point, your second paragraph. What you're getting at is that when wealth becomes concentrated enough, you effectively have a centrally-pl

by Frondo 11y ago

This is a really good point, your second paragraph. What you're getting at is that when wealth becomes concentrated enough, you effectively have a centrally-planned economy with all its accompanying inefficiencies. There are some pretty smart economists who've shown that here in this U.S., this is effectively already happening. Basically, when people say "inequality? Who cares? It's capitalism!", what they're missing is, after enough inequality, it's no longer capitalism. You end up with a centrally-planned economy, which is where we are today.

clock_tower 11y ago
Maciej Ceglowski said much the same thing, in the particular context of venture capitalism: "We had people like this back in Poland, except instead of venture capitalists we called them central planners. They too were in charge of allocating vast amounts of money that didn't belong to them." (http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you....)
- icebraining 11y ago
  Ah, but that's a different problem, and the inequality talk actually distracts from it. The thing is that VCs are not that wealthy - even the wealthiest ones, like John Doerr, are not in the Forbes 100 list. What they actually do is invest the money of others, often from not-so-wealthy people - money held in pension funds, 401ks, etc. So you could have a less unequal society in which VCs actually controlled more money - in fact, it wouldn't be surprising, since wealthy people often invest directly, instead of buying into VC funds.
monknomo 11y ago
That is a really compelling way of phrasing the problem with having most money concentrated in few hands. It strikes me as a companion to a lot of "free market" talk really advocating a monopoly with no rules for the monopolist.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Of course it is, especially if you read the capitalist-controlled MSM. As free-market academic advocates have been saying for years, the fact is that Capitalists don’t actually like capitalism[1]. Like Chomsky says, what they want - and usually get - is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. That's why honest supports of capitalism get to frustrated when other people claim they are using No True Scotsman arguments by saying that they want actual capitalism, and not the current system. Capitalists (the actual owners of capital) have co-opted their discourse for their own benefit and have poisoned it to the regular person beyond hope. [1] http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/capitalists-don-t-actually-like-capitalism/ http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/capitalists-don-t-ac...
icebraining 11y ago
But the question is, why did those few get to own so much of the capital? If the thing we had was already capitalism, then doesn't the very fact that they have so much capital prove that they are the best at making the smartest (read: best return) investments? And if not, then doesn't that mean the problem was that we already didn't have capitalism, and fixing inequality by itself is a fool's errand, since we should really be fixing the distortion that lead to the outcome of the bad investors owning the wealth?

by Frondo 11y ago

clock_tower 11y ago

Maciej Ceglowski said much the same thing, in the particular context of venture capitalism: "We had people like this back in Poland, except instead of venture capitalists we called them central planners. They too were in charge of allocating vast amounts of money that didn't belong to them." (http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you....)

icebraining 11y ago
Ah, but that's a different problem, and the inequality talk actually distracts from it. The thing is that VCs are not that wealthy - even the wealthiest ones, like John Doerr, are not in the Forbes 100 list. What they actually do is invest the money of others, often from not-so-wealthy people - money held in pension funds, 401ks, etc. So you could have a less unequal society in which VCs actually controlled more money - in fact, it wouldn't be surprising, since wealthy people often invest directly, instead of buying into VC funds.

monknomo 11y ago

That is a really compelling way of phrasing the problem with having most money concentrated in few hands. It strikes me as a companion to a lot of "free market" talk really advocating a monopoly with no rules for the monopolist.

icebraining 11y ago
Of course it is, especially if you read the capitalist-controlled MSM. As free-market academic advocates have been saying for years, the fact is that Capitalists don’t actually like capitalism[1]. Like Chomsky says, what they want - and usually get - is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. That's why honest supports of capitalism get to frustrated when other people claim they are using No True Scotsman arguments by saying that they want actual capitalism, and not the current system. Capitalists (the actual owners of capital) have co-opted their discourse for their own benefit and have poisoned it to the regular person beyond hope. [1] http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/capitalists-don-t-actually-like-capitalism/ http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/capitalists-don-t-ac...

icebraining 11y ago

But the question is, why did those few get to own so much of the capital? If the thing we had was already capitalism, then doesn't the very fact that they have so much capital prove that they are the best at making the smartest (read: best return) investments? And if not, then doesn't that mean the problem was that we already didn't have capitalism, and fixing inequality by itself is a fool's errand, since we should really be fixing the distortion that lead to the outcome of the bad investors owning the wealth?