3 ms·

"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

"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.

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.