3 ms·

The real issue is here is how much assets with finite supply and cruicial to human existence (e.g. food and water supply, real estate, cruicial technology) can

by karol 10y ago

The real issue is here is how much assets with finite supply and cruicial to human existence (e.g. food and water supply, real estate, cruicial technology) can be brought under control of few individuals with such wealth. For example if someone buys the majority of land, there will not be an easy way out even if the monetary wealth distribution will change. I am wondering why isn't it more often discussed that wealth yields assets that yields even more wealth, because this is how capitalism is set up. This means that the situation cannot be easily improved because wealthy individuals have supeior knowledge and assets to enrich themselves further.

maxerickson 10y ago
It's been frequently discussed, even more since the publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century. (which is thematically centered on wealth concentration)
EGreg 10y ago
You hit the nail on the head. I don't care how rich the rich are as long as our systems are set up to guarantee a minimum level of access to basic resources including housing, drinkable water, food, internet access, safety, healthcare and education. As long as these minimums are guaranteed with a large buffer (and every century the minimums go up) I am fine with the wealthy having a lot of money. In our system, the banks invest that money anyway, when the rich aren't using it. These investments represent belief about future demand -- which may result more and more in a plutocracy. But as long as the rest of humanity lives comfortably, I don't care. Safety nets produce real choice. They allow you to spend time raising your kids and educating them. The kids can join the new knowledge-based workforce. You can as well, since you can take time off to learn. We can maybe travel to the stars. But without the basic guarantees (vouchers, single payer based) many people are stuck in dead end jobs or worse, grinding poverty. It's like a poker tournament where most people have a really small stack AND can't afford to fly out of the tournament. So much wasted opportunity for human knowledge. The other thing is smashing the knowledge silos - patents on drugs etc. The way science and open source grew is that anyone could stand on the shoulders of giants and their contributons added to the growing body of knowledge. That's how you serve the long tail eg cure malaria the same way wikipedia has articles on obscure topics and linux runs on toasters. Public platforms outperform private ones. To sum up: tax the robots, guarantee the basic safety net, put education online and use colleges for tutoring and certification only, promote patentleft for drugs and open source for software.
dagw 10y ago
However looking at the 8 names on the list, non of them are great land owners or the inheritors of massive fortunes or business empires. They're 'normal' hard working people who came up with a clever idea and worked really really hard (and got very lucky)

by karol 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

It's been frequently discussed, even more since the publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century. (which is thematically centered on wealth concentration)

EGreg 10y ago

You hit the nail on the head. I don't care how rich the rich are as long as our systems are set up to guarantee a minimum level of access to basic resources including housing, drinkable water, food, internet access, safety, healthcare and education. As long as these minimums are guaranteed with a large buffer (and every century the minimums go up) I am fine with the wealthy having a lot of money. In our system, the banks invest that money anyway, when the rich aren't using it. These investments represent belief about future demand -- which may result more and more in a plutocracy. But as long as the rest of humanity lives comfortably, I don't care. Safety nets produce real choice. They allow you to spend time raising your kids and educating them. The kids can join the new knowledge-based workforce. You can as well, since you can take time off to learn. We can maybe travel to the stars. But without the basic guarantees (vouchers, single payer based) many people are stuck in dead end jobs or worse, grinding poverty. It's like a poker tournament where most people have a really small stack AND can't afford to fly out of the tournament. So much wasted opportunity for human knowledge. The other thing is smashing the knowledge silos - patents on drugs etc. The way science and open source grew is that anyone could stand on the shoulders of giants and their contributons added to the growing body of knowledge. That's how you serve the long tail eg cure malaria the same way wikipedia has articles on obscure topics and linux runs on toasters. Public platforms outperform private ones. To sum up: tax the robots, guarantee the basic safety net, put education online and use colleges for tutoring and certification only, promote patentleft for drugs and open source for software.

dagw 10y ago

However looking at the 8 names on the list, non of them are great land owners or the inheritors of massive fortunes or business empires. They're 'normal' hard working people who came up with a clever idea and worked really really hard (and got very lucky)