5 ms·

Even if this is true, you're limiting your options by not trying to understand the technicalities behind it. Why don't the people at the top want to share? What

Even if this is true, you're limiting your options by not trying to understand the technicalities behind it. Why don't the people at the top want to share? What are we even sharing? How does sharing happen? By what means does sharing occur? The only reason you believe the people at the top don't want to share is because of centuries of thinking that has lead you to see the structure of the world in a way that this is useful. Summing up centuries of thought into a single phrase, and then throwing out the data and ideas that got you there is...risk at best.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is the one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it." -Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went, John Kenneth Galbraith >Why don't the people at the top want to share? Ideology and power >What are we even sharing? Money >How does sharing happen? >By what means does sharing occur? Computer databases >The only reason you believe the people at the top don't want to share is because of centuries of thinking that has lead you to see the structure of the world in a way that this is useful. The history of union busting in the US clearly shows that many people don't want to share their wealth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_...
- Agebor 9y ago
  But what is wealth, and how do you want to share it? It's not a zero sum game. Let's say a billionaire wants to part his ways with $500M. They need to: 1. Sell $500M of shares they are keeping, hence dropping the price of the companies they are invested in. Employees of these companies lose. 2. Give the $500M, but to whom? Can be to "the poor", but what will be generated this way? The people will be better off temporarily (some of them permanently, of course), but the money will randomly radiate away to the whole economy. But you can alternatively give the money by investing in e.g. startups, incubators, hence magnifying the potential success of ideas you believe in, and people who can statistically get things done better that the average person. The side effect is that you'll be probably richer from the new investments. Money is not a static resource rotated around the world. - It's a measure of capability/intelligence/luck/circumstances of birth. - It can be generated out of (generally) 'getting things done'. Two people creating things out of nowhere are both richer. - It's a magnifying glass you can use to advance ideas you believe in. - It flows from those who spend it, to those who generate more than spending (so, by definition, are able generate more of it by using it - the statistically "rich")
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >It's not a zero sum game >1. Sell $500M of shares they are keeping, hence dropping the price of the companies they are invested in. Employees of these companies lose. What you just described is a zero sum game. >It's a measure of capability/intelligence/luck/circumstances of birth. Capability and intelligence are starkly contrasted by luck and birth, and this is a problem. One creates meritocracy, the other monarchy - It can be generated out of (generally) 'getting things done'. Two people creating things out of nowhere are both richer. It can also be generated out of nothing, and by destroying wealth a la broken window fallacy
    - Agebor 9y ago
      > What you just described is a zero sum game. Not if the amounts are different. > Capability and intelligence are starkly contrasted by luck and birth, and this is a problem. One creates meritocracy, the other monarchy Yes, and that is unfortunate. I don't have the numbers at hand, but at least in US, it's still on capability side, if I remember well. Not sure about Europe. > It can also be generated out of nothing, and by destroying wealth a la broken window fallacy. Sure, it can. Yet an interventional/evil government must be taken outside of this argument I think, just as e.g. thermonuclear war. The rules indeed break down then.
schiffern 9y ago
> Why don't the people at the top want to share? There are people like that in every wealth bracket. The difference is, the people at the top are uniquely empowered to make it happen. As Dana Meadows warned us over 40 years ago, the numerous "[more] success to the successful" feedback loops in our society have overcome the wealth-equalizing negative feedback loops, with the (predictable) result being runaway exponential wealth concentration.[1] Limits to Growth, despite its convenient "debunking" in the popular zeitgeist, is tracking well with real-world data.[2] [1] 1h long, worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg [2] http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/M..., via https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...
- schiffern 9y ago
  (too late to edit) [1] timecode link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=3m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=3m55s direct link to the part on "success to the successful" loops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=18m48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=18m48s
jhoechtl 9y ago
Again, many words for still a simple answer: > Why don't the people at the top want to share? Greed
- cle 9y ago
  That's not an answer, that's a tautology.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is the one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it." -Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went, John Kenneth Galbraith >Why don't the people at the top want to share? Ideology and power >What are we even sharing? Money >How does sharing happen? >By what means does sharing occur? Computer databases >The only reason you believe the people at the top don't want to share is because of centuries of thinking that has lead you to see the structure of the world in a way that this is useful. The history of union busting in the US clearly shows that many people don't want to share their wealth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_...

Agebor 9y ago
But what is wealth, and how do you want to share it? It's not a zero sum game. Let's say a billionaire wants to part his ways with $500M. They need to: 1. Sell $500M of shares they are keeping, hence dropping the price of the companies they are invested in. Employees of these companies lose. 2. Give the $500M, but to whom? Can be to "the poor", but what will be generated this way? The people will be better off temporarily (some of them permanently, of course), but the money will randomly radiate away to the whole economy. But you can alternatively give the money by investing in e.g. startups, incubators, hence magnifying the potential success of ideas you believe in, and people who can statistically get things done better that the average person. The side effect is that you'll be probably richer from the new investments. Money is not a static resource rotated around the world. - It's a measure of capability/intelligence/luck/circumstances of birth. - It can be generated out of (generally) 'getting things done'. Two people creating things out of nowhere are both richer. - It's a magnifying glass you can use to advance ideas you believe in. - It flows from those who spend it, to those who generate more than spending (so, by definition, are able generate more of it by using it - the statistically "rich")
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >It's not a zero sum game >1. Sell $500M of shares they are keeping, hence dropping the price of the companies they are invested in. Employees of these companies lose. What you just described is a zero sum game. >It's a measure of capability/intelligence/luck/circumstances of birth. Capability and intelligence are starkly contrasted by luck and birth, and this is a problem. One creates meritocracy, the other monarchy - It can be generated out of (generally) 'getting things done'. Two people creating things out of nowhere are both richer. It can also be generated out of nothing, and by destroying wealth a la broken window fallacy
  - Agebor 9y ago
    > What you just described is a zero sum game. Not if the amounts are different. > Capability and intelligence are starkly contrasted by luck and birth, and this is a problem. One creates meritocracy, the other monarchy Yes, and that is unfortunate. I don't have the numbers at hand, but at least in US, it's still on capability side, if I remember well. Not sure about Europe. > It can also be generated out of nothing, and by destroying wealth a la broken window fallacy. Sure, it can. Yet an interventional/evil government must be taken outside of this argument I think, just as e.g. thermonuclear war. The rules indeed break down then.

schiffern 9y ago

> Why don't the people at the top want to share? There are people like that in every wealth bracket. The difference is, the people at the top are uniquely empowered to make it happen. As Dana Meadows warned us over 40 years ago, the numerous "[more] success to the successful" feedback loops in our society have overcome the wealth-equalizing negative feedback loops, with the (predictable) result being runaway exponential wealth concentration.[1] Limits to Growth, despite its convenient "debunking" in the popular zeitgeist, is tracking well with real-world data.[2] [1] 1h long, worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg [2] http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/M..., via https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...

schiffern 9y ago
(too late to edit) [1] timecode link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=3m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=3m55s direct link to the part on "success to the successful" loops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=18m48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg&t=18m48s

jhoechtl 9y ago

Again, many words for still a simple answer: > Why don't the people at the top want to share? Greed

cle 9y ago
That's not an answer, that's a tautology.