4 ms·

The idea that outperformance should be rewarded with wealth is fundamental to the idea of capitalism. It is well represented by the idea of r > g. Also, just be

The idea that outperformance should be rewarded with wealth is fundamental to the idea of capitalism. It is well represented by the idea of r > g. Also, just because r > g, doesn't mean that the economy relies on capital returns. It means it relies on capital returns being able to outstrip increases in output. If you want a system where r = g, you are requiring some sort of top down wealth allocation system to cap r, (a morally and legally supreme government...socialism?). I'll avoid that system. If you think it's actionable perhaps you could suggest an action? If you think no micro action is meaningful, does this mean you would be comfortable walking up to a homeless person and saying that you're not going to bother helping them with their problems because no matter what they do, r > g and they're screwed? That's a pretty lame excuse, I'd feel bad saying that.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The idea that outperformance should be rewarded with wealth is fundamental to the idea of capitalism. It is well represented by the idea of r > g. No, the idea that aggregate performance should redound principally to the benefit of capital holders is fundamental to the idea of capitalism, and, yes, that pretty much implied that r > g leads to greater inequality under capitalism. > If you think it's actionable perhaps you could suggest an action? If the problem is fundamental to capitalism, the action to correct it is to move away from capitalism. > If you think no micro action is meaningful, does this mean you would be comfortable walking up to a homeless person and saying that you're not going to bother helping them with their problems because no matter what they do, r > g and they're screwed? No, it means when I do something to momentarily alleviate the immediate problems of a homeless person, I know that unless I am also working to reform the fundamental politico-economic system to deal with the structural problem, I'm doing nothing more than putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. r > g is not the problem, r > g is aggregate prosperity. Capitalism is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth.
- arkis22 9y ago
  >No, the idea that aggregate performance... You're saying no, but our statements mean essentially the same thing. Aggregate performance rebounds to the benefit of capital holders because they are outperforming. For example, it is better to save and lend than it is to borrow, which is why interest rates exist. I'm not disagreeing that r > g can lead to greater inequality under capitalism. The reason you can have inequality under capitalism is because you have the opportunity for outperformance. I don't want to live somewhere that opportunity doesn't exist. You can if you'd like. How can you say that it's a problem fundamental to capitalism when I can look through history and say these things without a doubt: Socialism is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. Autocracy is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. Communism is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. Dictatorships are the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. It's not a fundamental problem of capitalism, it's a fundamental problem of society. By doing something to alleviate their immediate problems do you mean help them get clothes for a job interview? Point out a way for them to learn a skill to get a job? Locate a homeless shelter for them to spend the night? The longer you take to reform the system, the guiltier you should feel for not simply helping the person with a comparatively more immediate solution: micro actions. All of a sudden micro actions are meaningful. Your suggestion for an action on how to deal with the inequality of capitalism is to adopt... not capitalism? I think you're lacking important details on how to turn that into an action.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The idea that outperformance should be rewarded with wealth is fundamental to the idea of capitalism. It is well represented by the idea of r > g. No, the idea that aggregate performance should redound principally to the benefit of capital holders is fundamental to the idea of capitalism, and, yes, that pretty much implied that r > g leads to greater inequality under capitalism. > If you think it's actionable perhaps you could suggest an action? If the problem is fundamental to capitalism, the action to correct it is to move away from capitalism. > If you think no micro action is meaningful, does this mean you would be comfortable walking up to a homeless person and saying that you're not going to bother helping them with their problems because no matter what they do, r > g and they're screwed? No, it means when I do something to momentarily alleviate the immediate problems of a homeless person, I know that unless I am also working to reform the fundamental politico-economic system to deal with the structural problem, I'm doing nothing more than putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. r > g is not the problem, r > g is aggregate prosperity. Capitalism is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth.

arkis22 9y ago
>No, the idea that aggregate performance... You're saying no, but our statements mean essentially the same thing. Aggregate performance rebounds to the benefit of capital holders because they are outperforming. For example, it is better to save and lend than it is to borrow, which is why interest rates exist. I'm not disagreeing that r > g can lead to greater inequality under capitalism. The reason you can have inequality under capitalism is because you have the opportunity for outperformance. I don't want to live somewhere that opportunity doesn't exist. You can if you'd like. How can you say that it's a problem fundamental to capitalism when I can look through history and say these things without a doubt: Socialism is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. Autocracy is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. Communism is the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. Dictatorships are the problem that turns aggregate prosperity into greater relative deprivation and narrow concentration of wealth. It's not a fundamental problem of capitalism, it's a fundamental problem of society. By doing something to alleviate their immediate problems do you mean help them get clothes for a job interview? Point out a way for them to learn a skill to get a job? Locate a homeless shelter for them to spend the night? The longer you take to reform the system, the guiltier you should feel for not simply helping the person with a comparatively more immediate solution: micro actions. All of a sudden micro actions are meaningful. Your suggestion for an action on how to deal with the inequality of capitalism is to adopt... not capitalism? I think you're lacking important details on how to turn that into an action.