4 ms·

You don't even need to get all this righteous anger involved; the rich benefit more from the stable functioning of society than the poor precisely because they

You don't even need to get all this righteous anger involved; the rich benefit more from the stable functioning of society than the poor precisely because they are rich. If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. It's not only reasonable to expect them to invest more proportionally in the continued functioning of society: it's in their best interest if they're smart enough to look past their balance sheet at the end of the year.

justicezyx 9y ago
> If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. If history says anything, it's that humans only see this when the structure collapse, not when it's still working. And to be harsh and potentially thought as rude: all you have been saying is a dream, a dream of impractical theorist.
dclowd9901 9y ago
They only invest in those things that prop them up. Like donating to police or lawmakers, or the very poor with next to nothing to lose (and thus the most dangerous).
cornholio 9y ago
That's a clearly defective model from a game theoretical point of view. A certain rich person can do very little to preserve the stability of the society, so their actions would be concentrated on things that give them direct benefits, that may or may not help society. It's essentially an externality problem, everybody is marginally hurt by say pollution, but some have local gains that far outweigh the costs, motivating them to pollute, bribe politicians and regulators, skirt taxes and so on, leaving other rich or poor people to support the welfare of the society. When the scales tip in favor of the freeriders, you have a failed state that no rich profiteer could have prevented, working individually.
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  Working individually, yes. But realistically this is more of an iterative prisoner's dilemma than a straight prisoner's dilemma. If the rich don't hold up their part of the social contract, the poor tend to eat them (eventually). So the rich are only incentivized to screw the system if they can get away with it. The problems start happening when we let them get away with it.
cmurf 9y ago
Who says they're smart enough? There's a very long history of aristocracies perfectly content to exploit the lower classes, and then got all shocked when the peons wanted the wealthy executed - assuming of course the aristocrats hadn't first riled up the ignorant masses with some reason to start a war.

justicezyx 9y ago

> If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. If history says anything, it's that humans only see this when the structure collapse, not when it's still working. And to be harsh and potentially thought as rude: all you have been saying is a dream, a dream of impractical theorist.

dclowd9901 9y ago

They only invest in those things that prop them up. Like donating to police or lawmakers, or the very poor with next to nothing to lose (and thus the most dangerous).

cornholio 9y ago

That's a clearly defective model from a game theoretical point of view. A certain rich person can do very little to preserve the stability of the society, so their actions would be concentrated on things that give them direct benefits, that may or may not help society. It's essentially an externality problem, everybody is marginally hurt by say pollution, but some have local gains that far outweigh the costs, motivating them to pollute, bribe politicians and regulators, skirt taxes and so on, leaving other rich or poor people to support the welfare of the society. When the scales tip in favor of the freeriders, you have a failed state that no rich profiteer could have prevented, working individually.

aalleavitch 9y ago
Working individually, yes. But realistically this is more of an iterative prisoner's dilemma than a straight prisoner's dilemma. If the rich don't hold up their part of the social contract, the poor tend to eat them (eventually). So the rich are only incentivized to screw the system if they can get away with it. The problems start happening when we let them get away with it.

cmurf 9y ago

Who says they're smart enough? There's a very long history of aristocracies perfectly content to exploit the lower classes, and then got all shocked when the peons wanted the wealthy executed - assuming of course the aristocrats hadn't first riled up the ignorant masses with some reason to start a war.