3 ms·

Except when it comes to wealth there is no limit. Ones success does not mean another's demise. If I mine for Bitcoin and make millions, who did I steal wealth f

Except when it comes to wealth there is no limit. Ones success does not mean another's demise. If I mine for Bitcoin and make millions, who did I steal wealth from to get mine? Your Skittles analogy does not work.

elsewhen 9y ago
To be pedantic, is not the "skittles" part that is the problem but ratherthe "bag" part of the analogy, since it implies a fixed amount. If the OP somehow weaved a skittles factory into the analogy, the analogy could be spared.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  There are no truly open systems in the whole universe if physicists are correct. Much less on Earth alone. Entropy is a thing. About three only abundant energy resource we have is the Sun and it is quite hard to extract it's output. Then there are certain biological restrictions like having to eat - a chemical input. Arable land is worth quite a lot, fertile much more still. It is not evenly distributed over Earth. (Similar with fertile paths of the oceans and seas.) Dense energy sources are yet more scarce.
dvdhnt 9y ago
That's not true at all. For one, you're talking about a digit currency derived from a (currently) finite resource: electricity. While you suck up electricity mining BTC, you add to the demand for said electricity. Higher demand means higher prices, meaning those with money can afford more electricity and mine more BTC, while those who can't afford more electricity to mine cannot. Additionally, those who could afford just enough power for non-BTC mining now struggle to afford power at all; and even if they do, they now must save less, growing the gap. I didn't say the word "steal"; that's something you derived from my analogy because my analogy is obvious. Resources, and wealth, are all finite; so more for one literally means less or none for another if that one takes as much as they please. Otherwise, I could walk into any bank in the world and just take out as much money as I wanted to. I was once told that if I were in the middle of a discussion with my wife and she completely refocused the discussion onto something else, I should be happy internally that I was right, but externally I should take the loss. You're talking about BTC now, so I guess I'll take that L.
bendmorris 9y ago
It's not so simple. Wealth can be used to gain access to limited resources such as land. Greater wealth inequality means a small segment of the population can afford to buy up all of the housing, driving up prices and blocking others (who may not otherwise be any worse off than they ever were) from owning land. They can then perpetually rent out this land, creating an effortless income for themselves and siphoning value from everyone else.
- mcguire 9y ago
  You are not thinking big enough. Wealth is about power. Siphoning value is a distant second order to commanding the peons to trim your lawn with nail scissors.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Both feed back into one another if used well. Rich can buy power to stay rich and keep their progeny rich until some major levelling drift catches them. (Say a catastrophe of dumb successor or major misfortune.)

elsewhen 9y ago

To be pedantic, is not the "skittles" part that is the problem but ratherthe "bag" part of the analogy, since it implies a fixed amount. If the OP somehow weaved a skittles factory into the analogy, the analogy could be spared.

AstralStorm 9y ago
There are no truly open systems in the whole universe if physicists are correct. Much less on Earth alone. Entropy is a thing. About three only abundant energy resource we have is the Sun and it is quite hard to extract it's output. Then there are certain biological restrictions like having to eat - a chemical input. Arable land is worth quite a lot, fertile much more still. It is not evenly distributed over Earth. (Similar with fertile paths of the oceans and seas.) Dense energy sources are yet more scarce.

dvdhnt 9y ago

That's not true at all. For one, you're talking about a digit currency derived from a (currently) finite resource: electricity. While you suck up electricity mining BTC, you add to the demand for said electricity. Higher demand means higher prices, meaning those with money can afford more electricity and mine more BTC, while those who can't afford more electricity to mine cannot. Additionally, those who could afford just enough power for non-BTC mining now struggle to afford power at all; and even if they do, they now must save less, growing the gap. I didn't say the word "steal"; that's something you derived from my analogy because my analogy is obvious. Resources, and wealth, are all finite; so more for one literally means less or none for another if that one takes as much as they please. Otherwise, I could walk into any bank in the world and just take out as much money as I wanted to. I was once told that if I were in the middle of a discussion with my wife and she completely refocused the discussion onto something else, I should be happy internally that I was right, but externally I should take the loss. You're talking about BTC now, so I guess I'll take that L.

bendmorris 9y ago

It's not so simple. Wealth can be used to gain access to limited resources such as land. Greater wealth inequality means a small segment of the population can afford to buy up all of the housing, driving up prices and blocking others (who may not otherwise be any worse off than they ever were) from owning land. They can then perpetually rent out this land, creating an effortless income for themselves and siphoning value from everyone else.

mcguire 9y ago
You are not thinking big enough. Wealth is about power. Siphoning value is a distant second order to commanding the peons to trim your lawn with nail scissors.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Both feed back into one another if used well. Rich can buy power to stay rich and keep their progeny rich until some major levelling drift catches them. (Say a catastrophe of dumb successor or major misfortune.)