6 ms·

Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long

Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long as we don't compete for the same resources. Yes. Houses (actually Land). Let them bid up Mona Lisa, Diamonds, old Ferraris til infinity if they want. But don't park your money in land inflating house prices beyond what local wages can support making me pay 30% of my salary in rent for 10 years waiting for a house price "correction". Wealth should be chased out of non productive pure rent seeking "investments".

dxhdr 9y ago
> Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). You're picturing wealth as 0's in a checking account but "more wealth" is control of capital, probably shares in an increasingly valuable company. I don't think we've discovered the limits of capital utility; the power and influence some companies wield is only increasing.
aalleavitch 9y ago
At some point wealth moves past material goods and into the realm of your ability to influence society. If only everyone with money had noble goals when it came to this influence...
- username223 9y ago
  If only we could separate the power to reshape society for personal benefit from the ability to score "mine is bigger than yours" points. Zuck, Gates, the Kochs, and others probably have "buy a President" money, and could probably also develop personal nuclear arsenals. Let them play that video game and compete for new high scores.
  - xtiansimon 9y ago
    Net Neutrality
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Yet the greatest evils in society did not arise from the behavior of the rich but from those that claim they will help the poor.
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    That statement is downright silly; on the whole atrocities have been essentially ideal-neutral. Some dictator uses a popular sentiment to seize power and then uses that power in horrible ways. It's as often due to racial animosity or religious fervor as it is the well-being of the poor; it just has to be something that sells well to the population at large.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > That statement is downright silly; on the whole atrocities have been essentially ideal-neutral I disagree with the premise, but for the sake of argument, even if taken as assumption the point still stands. "Taxing the rich" is a proposition that will help the people that collect the tax far more than the general population. A simple example of this can be Seattle and San Francisco Governments, that have had explosive tax income booms, most of their staff collection 6 figure salaries, and yet both cities enjoy very large homeless populations. Increasing tax income does not mean inequality will decrease. It might even make it worse.
      - aoeusnth1 9y ago
        How did you manage to turn a discussion about atrocities and demagogues into a complaint about your pet peeve of tax collectors being highly compensated? Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed? Absurd.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        > How did you manage to turn a discussion about atrocities and demagogues into a complaint about your pet peeve of tax collectors being highly compensated? I didn't turn anything: they are the same thing more often than not. > Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed? And thus my examples of Seattle and San Francisco: cities that have had exponential tax income at the same time as a net increase in homelessness. + TAX + (extreme?)Poverty simultaneously. It is disproven constantly that what the state gathers, it does not distribute appropriately. The city of san francisco spends 20k+ a year per homeless person, but if you look at the way they live, you can be pretty certain they don't get that. Raising taxes is not the solution to poverty. Specially when everybody pays them.
coldtea 9y ago
>Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). Zero marginal utility in buying stuff. Tons of utility in giving you influence over laws and power over society. Beyond a certain point it's not about wealth as buying utility at all, those people play the game for power, control, and to play the game. That's why I find it ludicrous hearing about this or that "hard working" billionaire. It's not "hard work" when you don't have to do it. It's just doing what you like all day in -- like a 20-yo could play videogames all day in, those people play business and power games. Work is really work (with all the extra weariness and anxiety that comes from it) if you either do what you don't want to do (e.g. are a cog in some company or flipping burgers) or you do what you like but not just because you like it but also to get by (e.g. lots of small business owners, creators, etc fall into this category). Rant off. >I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long as we don't compete for the same resources. The hurt is not them merely being rich, it's about them stifling wages, damaging the economy, buying policies, hurting the future, fostering abusing monopolies, and all that to increase their fortunes and win more...
junkscience2017 9y ago
yet we often celebrate the very wealthy buying up strategic properties and setting them aside as nature preserves just recently a chunk of California coast was preserved in such a way by the founders of map company Esri. we also set aside vast acreage as monuments. this land is also permanently "off the market"
nine_k 9y ago
A huge amount of resources can actually be a requirement (not a nice-to-have) if what you're trying to achieve is huge, too. If your hobby project is e.g. putting humans to Mars, you need a lot, and every tiny million USD counts. Same applies to biotech (defeat deadly diseases, slow down or reverse aging, etc), terraforming (stop deserts from expanding and recultivate them, etc), lowering humanity's greenhouse gases emission, improving or reworking education across the world, etc. These things are normally not what a for-profit company makes its explicit target. It's what some of the super-rich spend their own money on, seeing utility in that.
grwthckrmstr 9y ago
But capitalism has imbibed the thinking - growth over everything. The environment is dying? Who cares, produce more, free markets will take care of the environment. Now apply this mindset blindly to a person with $10mn, $100mn, $1bn and so on.. Technically, they have "enough" to live comfortably for LIFE (and a few generations after them). But capitalism says GROW, so they will put their money somewhere that returns more than bank interest rates or government bonds etc. Because growth is imperative. So, despite the extra wealth having zero marginal utility, the rich try to become wealthier because they are of the MINDSET that growth is the highest goal and nothing trumps growth.
branchless 9y ago
But then they can't be rich. They don't get to keep on bringing in millions and millions because they are creating value. They are appropriating value because that's how our system works. So sorry but they want to keep using land to farm you.
- paulus_magnus2 9y ago
  >>So sorry but they want to keep using land to farm you. Very good point. Rich have cornered housing markets in all #1 cities effectively farming workers & capturing value they create. Road to serfdom?
  - branchless 9y ago
    Progress and Poverty more like.

dxhdr 9y ago

> Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). You're picturing wealth as 0's in a checking account but "more wealth" is control of capital, probably shares in an increasingly valuable company. I don't think we've discovered the limits of capital utility; the power and influence some companies wield is only increasing.

aalleavitch 9y ago

At some point wealth moves past material goods and into the realm of your ability to influence society. If only everyone with money had noble goals when it came to this influence...

username223 9y ago
If only we could separate the power to reshape society for personal benefit from the ability to score "mine is bigger than yours" points. Zuck, Gates, the Kochs, and others probably have "buy a President" money, and could probably also develop personal nuclear arsenals. Let them play that video game and compete for new high scores.
- xtiansimon 9y ago
  Net Neutrality
conanbatt 9y ago
Yet the greatest evils in society did not arise from the behavior of the rich but from those that claim they will help the poor.
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  That statement is downright silly; on the whole atrocities have been essentially ideal-neutral. Some dictator uses a popular sentiment to seize power and then uses that power in horrible ways. It's as often due to racial animosity or religious fervor as it is the well-being of the poor; it just has to be something that sells well to the population at large.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > That statement is downright silly; on the whole atrocities have been essentially ideal-neutral I disagree with the premise, but for the sake of argument, even if taken as assumption the point still stands. "Taxing the rich" is a proposition that will help the people that collect the tax far more than the general population. A simple example of this can be Seattle and San Francisco Governments, that have had explosive tax income booms, most of their staff collection 6 figure salaries, and yet both cities enjoy very large homeless populations. Increasing tax income does not mean inequality will decrease. It might even make it worse.
    - aoeusnth1 9y ago
      How did you manage to turn a discussion about atrocities and demagogues into a complaint about your pet peeve of tax collectors being highly compensated? Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed? Absurd.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        > How did you manage to turn a discussion about atrocities and demagogues into a complaint about your pet peeve of tax collectors being highly compensated? I didn't turn anything: they are the same thing more often than not. > Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed? And thus my examples of Seattle and San Francisco: cities that have had exponential tax income at the same time as a net increase in homelessness. + TAX + (extreme?)Poverty simultaneously. It is disproven constantly that what the state gathers, it does not distribute appropriately. The city of san francisco spends 20k+ a year per homeless person, but if you look at the way they live, you can be pretty certain they don't get that. Raising taxes is not the solution to poverty. Specially when everybody pays them.

coldtea 9y ago

>Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). Zero marginal utility in buying stuff. Tons of utility in giving you influence over laws and power over society. Beyond a certain point it's not about wealth as buying utility at all, those people play the game for power, control, and to play the game. That's why I find it ludicrous hearing about this or that "hard working" billionaire. It's not "hard work" when you don't have to do it. It's just doing what you like all day in -- like a 20-yo could play videogames all day in, those people play business and power games. Work is really work (with all the extra weariness and anxiety that comes from it) if you either do what you don't want to do (e.g. are a cog in some company or flipping burgers) or you do what you like but not just because you like it but also to get by (e.g. lots of small business owners, creators, etc fall into this category). Rant off. >I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long as we don't compete for the same resources. The hurt is not them merely being rich, it's about them stifling wages, damaging the economy, buying policies, hurting the future, fostering abusing monopolies, and all that to increase their fortunes and win more...

junkscience2017 9y ago

yet we often celebrate the very wealthy buying up strategic properties and setting them aside as nature preserves just recently a chunk of California coast was preserved in such a way by the founders of map company Esri. we also set aside vast acreage as monuments. this land is also permanently "off the market"

nine_k 9y ago

A huge amount of resources can actually be a requirement (not a nice-to-have) if what you're trying to achieve is huge, too. If your hobby project is e.g. putting humans to Mars, you need a lot, and every tiny million USD counts. Same applies to biotech (defeat deadly diseases, slow down or reverse aging, etc), terraforming (stop deserts from expanding and recultivate them, etc), lowering humanity's greenhouse gases emission, improving or reworking education across the world, etc. These things are normally not what a for-profit company makes its explicit target. It's what some of the super-rich spend their own money on, seeing utility in that.

grwthckrmstr 9y ago

But capitalism has imbibed the thinking - growth over everything. The environment is dying? Who cares, produce more, free markets will take care of the environment. Now apply this mindset blindly to a person with $10mn, $100mn, $1bn and so on.. Technically, they have "enough" to live comfortably for LIFE (and a few generations after them). But capitalism says GROW, so they will put their money somewhere that returns more than bank interest rates or government bonds etc. Because growth is imperative. So, despite the extra wealth having zero marginal utility, the rich try to become wealthier because they are of the MINDSET that growth is the highest goal and nothing trumps growth.

branchless 9y ago

But then they can't be rich. They don't get to keep on bringing in millions and millions because they are creating value. They are appropriating value because that's how our system works. So sorry but they want to keep using land to farm you.

paulus_magnus2 9y ago
>>So sorry but they want to keep using land to farm you. Very good point. Rich have cornered housing markets in all #1 cities effectively farming workers & capturing value they create. Road to serfdom?
- branchless 9y ago
  Progress and Poverty more like.