4 ms·

We disagree because I find a flawed premise in your argument that undermines the entire rest of your conclusions. Capitalism is not equal access. Those who alre

We disagree because I find a flawed premise in your argument that undermines the entire rest of your conclusions. Capitalism is not equal access. Those who already have lots of capital have access to the tools of capitalism. Those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access.

logicallee 9y ago
>Those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access. explain how the Russian immigrant Sergey Brin had "lots of capital" or how the South African immigrant Elon Musk had "lots of capital". Yet they are billionaires. So what do we do about this unequal outcome? Turn off people's right to make startups without requiring any capital? The simple fact is that while Marx wrote in the 19th century when you needed millions to start up a factory, today the cost for starting to create dynastic, millionaire or billionaire wealth is: $0. It has no capital cost. Of any kind. At east, in silicon valley. what is to keep this from spreading in the future? What is Piketty's response? In fact there is no such response. There is no way to stop unequal wealth except by taking people's computers away. You state that you follow my argument but I don't believe you are able to follow it. Can you agree with this statement please: If owning a purple rock gives people unequal utility (some people get great pleasure out of it while others do not) then if everyone owns a purple rock, people will have unequal purple rock-related utility under this world scenario. Please agree, it's quite specific and formal. (I realize this is only the proxy argument.) Now suppose our most important value were equality of outcome. What shall we do? We must measure people's utility, and somehow take from people who get greater utility from purple rocks, enough of their purple rocks, that they end up with the same net utility. So someone who gets huge utility from owning a purple rock might need to be given just a gram, whereas someone who gets almost no utility from it may need to be given a mountain. Okay, now apply it to money. If someone gets huge capital out of almost capital, do you have to take it all away? If you took away 99.999% of Sergey Brin's capital away when he was founding Google, then today's $50 billion net worth that he has would be $50 billion * 0.001% = $500,000. Unfortunately, that is still too much - it's more than average. So should he have had 99.9999% taken away, since taking away 99.999% does not lead to an equal outcome? This is not a theoretical question. It's a practical question you must address. In 2017 there are no capital requirements of any kind that are necessary in order to create billions of dollars, dynastic-level wealth. Zero. I am afraid you are not following my argument, and that's okay. You are simply wrong that "those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access." It is similar to saying only a white male can become President. Why would you say that, when it's demonstrably false? Since you are arguing from false facts, and also don't seem to follow my argument, this is not going to be a productive exchange. Sorry - I tried.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  Sergey Brin was enrolled in an advanced PhD candidate program at a super-elite technology university. Brin's parents were highly educated academics. Brin himself was highly educated and was raised in an environment of middle-class affluence. This is not the story of a struggling immigrant who struggled to pay rent. Brin had a priviliged upbringing. Elon Musk also had a middle class upbringing with highly educated parents who provided him with an affluent middle class childhood. He enrolled at elite universities (UPenn, NYU Wharton, Standford) where he started his career surrounded by wealth and access to capital. Musk is an interesting case in particular in that luck and timing account for most of his initial capital. He started a website (Zip2.com) in the middle of the dotcom bubble and it was purchased from him $300 million. The site was acquired by Compaq in 1999 and ceased operations in 1999. The dotcom bubble burst less than one year later. The money from that sale positioned Musk as a member of the capitalist class and he leveraged the money and connections from that for all his future businesses. While he did, technically, bootstrap his career, it would be naive and foolish to ignore the element of luck involved here. I'm having trouble taking you seriously because you choose such bad examples to make your points and ignore the obvious counter-examples. In short, the system just works differently for people of low socio-economic status. Musk and Brin were not of low socio-economic status. They started as very high status and ascended to become ultra-elite status. You make another assumption that is flawed and unfounded, and makes it seem like you are arguing against a strawman. I do not assume that equality of outcome is desirable. There are some in the social justice left that believe this but I don't, and in fact very few Americans do (as can be seen by election results). I believe that sane policy must acknowledge that inequality of opportunity is an endemic problem in our society and that success in capitalism is based on opportunities, which are not distributed in a fair manner.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    oh hey if your definition of capital included education (and the education and professions of one's family), luck, timing, and socioeconomic class then we're in complete agreement. Let me state it for the record: in 2017 it's impossible to build great wealth without your updated definition of great capital. completely agreed. as we're in agreement this conversation is over. nice chatting with you.

logicallee 9y ago

>Those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access. explain how the Russian immigrant Sergey Brin had "lots of capital" or how the South African immigrant Elon Musk had "lots of capital". Yet they are billionaires. So what do we do about this unequal outcome? Turn off people's right to make startups without requiring any capital? The simple fact is that while Marx wrote in the 19th century when you needed millions to start up a factory, today the cost for starting to create dynastic, millionaire or billionaire wealth is: $0. It has no capital cost. Of any kind. At east, in silicon valley. what is to keep this from spreading in the future? What is Piketty's response? In fact there is no such response. There is no way to stop unequal wealth except by taking people's computers away. You state that you follow my argument but I don't believe you are able to follow it. Can you agree with this statement please: If owning a purple rock gives people unequal utility (some people get great pleasure out of it while others do not) then if everyone owns a purple rock, people will have unequal purple rock-related utility under this world scenario. Please agree, it's quite specific and formal. (I realize this is only the proxy argument.) Now suppose our most important value were equality of outcome. What shall we do? We must measure people's utility, and somehow take from people who get greater utility from purple rocks, enough of their purple rocks, that they end up with the same net utility. So someone who gets huge utility from owning a purple rock might need to be given just a gram, whereas someone who gets almost no utility from it may need to be given a mountain. Okay, now apply it to money. If someone gets huge capital out of almost capital, do you have to take it all away? If you took away 99.999% of Sergey Brin's capital away when he was founding Google, then today's $50 billion net worth that he has would be $50 billion * 0.001% = $500,000. Unfortunately, that is still too much - it's more than average. So should he have had 99.9999% taken away, since taking away 99.999% does not lead to an equal outcome? This is not a theoretical question. It's a practical question you must address. In 2017 there are no capital requirements of any kind that are necessary in order to create billions of dollars, dynastic-level wealth. Zero. I am afraid you are not following my argument, and that's okay. You are simply wrong that "those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access." It is similar to saying only a white male can become President. Why would you say that, when it's demonstrably false? Since you are arguing from false facts, and also don't seem to follow my argument, this is not going to be a productive exchange. Sorry - I tried.

metaphorm 9y ago
Sergey Brin was enrolled in an advanced PhD candidate program at a super-elite technology university. Brin's parents were highly educated academics. Brin himself was highly educated and was raised in an environment of middle-class affluence. This is not the story of a struggling immigrant who struggled to pay rent. Brin had a priviliged upbringing. Elon Musk also had a middle class upbringing with highly educated parents who provided him with an affluent middle class childhood. He enrolled at elite universities (UPenn, NYU Wharton, Standford) where he started his career surrounded by wealth and access to capital. Musk is an interesting case in particular in that luck and timing account for most of his initial capital. He started a website (Zip2.com) in the middle of the dotcom bubble and it was purchased from him $300 million. The site was acquired by Compaq in 1999 and ceased operations in 1999. The dotcom bubble burst less than one year later. The money from that sale positioned Musk as a member of the capitalist class and he leveraged the money and connections from that for all his future businesses. While he did, technically, bootstrap his career, it would be naive and foolish to ignore the element of luck involved here. I'm having trouble taking you seriously because you choose such bad examples to make your points and ignore the obvious counter-examples. In short, the system just works differently for people of low socio-economic status. Musk and Brin were not of low socio-economic status. They started as very high status and ascended to become ultra-elite status. You make another assumption that is flawed and unfounded, and makes it seem like you are arguing against a strawman. I do not assume that equality of outcome is desirable. There are some in the social justice left that believe this but I don't, and in fact very few Americans do (as can be seen by election results). I believe that sane policy must acknowledge that inequality of opportunity is an endemic problem in our society and that success in capitalism is based on opportunities, which are not distributed in a fair manner.
- logicallee 9y ago
  oh hey if your definition of capital included education (and the education and professions of one's family), luck, timing, and socioeconomic class then we're in complete agreement. Let me state it for the record: in 2017 it's impossible to build great wealth without your updated definition of great capital. completely agreed. as we're in agreement this conversation is over. nice chatting with you.