12 ms·

It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. Th

by psyc 9y ago

It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.

tibbetts 9y ago
It matters, and it might be ok if the wealthy were being nice about it. Unfortunately a very active subset seems to be bringing back feudalism. In the 20s-70s rich people were conveniently afraid of communist revolution and thus inclined to distributed gains. Without another credible threat of global revolution I don’t know how this gets fixed. Of course, communism did have downsides for the people who actually lived under it.
- psyc 9y ago
  I basically agree with your first sentence. Specifically, I don't believe capitalism itself is the root problem, but rather something like a deficit in social cohesion. No sense that we're fellow humans collectively struggling towards a better society. That sense doesn't necessarily imply a communist implementation. It could mean something as simple as an ethos in which those who are better off try to help others up. I couldn't begin to address how that might come about, and I'm as wary as anyone about trying to use a State to do it. Because the State never actually turns out to be the People, except in the naive or fanciful abstract.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    Capitalism works fine, the only 'flaw' I think it has is that excessive capital can compound way too fast. If you have $10m, and you invest that really really really well, you might be making 10 to 30% on that capital. Maybe more if you're an entrepreneur investing strategically. That's fine. But let's say you're worth $1bn, and you compound at 10% per year.. you're making money hand over fist. Add smart use of debt to that, and that's probably too much rent seeking to be healthy. Basically, once you pass a few 100 million, I think it gets really unfair. Below.. it doesn't really matter. No one will live in poverty because someone owns $100m -- it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But wealth is a snowball that doesn't grow fast enough on the low end, and too fast on the high end. The only way to fix that would probably be a global wealth tax, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
- sparkzilla 9y ago
  "downsides"
  - ericd 9y ago
    Largest understatement I've seen in a while.
    - cal5k 9y ago
      Between Mao and Stalin alone you're probably talking 50-100MM deaths. That's one hell of a downside.
      - noobermin 9y ago
        I assure you, capitalism has killed more people than that. We just don't call them victims of capitalism.
        rich-w-big-ego 9y ago
        At least in Capitalism you are allowed to talk about your suffering. In the communist utopias of the 20th century, speaking of your suffering or trying to alleviate it was a capital offence.
        ericd 9y ago
        I'd really like to see your accounting to see if it's apples to apples, because the 50-100M is not counting people who died due to proxy wars, or anything like that, just people who lived directly under communist governments, and died directly because of communist policies that lead to things like mass starvation, and in many cases, because of literal death squads. It's surprising that people already seem to be forgetting how incredibly horrible communism was when implemented.
        dwaltrip 9y ago
        We're going to need more than assurances to see your point.
      - 9y ago
- charlesdm 9y ago
  "Nice about it"? What should they do, hand it out to people?
  - tibbetts 9y ago
    Pay their taxes without whining or trying to take over the government. Don’t try to discredit science to protect your wealth. Consider the social costs of their investments. Engage in substantial philanthropy.
defertoreptar 9y ago
That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.
- cal5k 9y ago
  The main thrust is that this seems to simply be a consequence of differing ability/circumstance, and there is no counter-example in recorded history - even our views on the "noble savage" are probably skewed by the fact that large hunter-gatherer societies with enough wealth to allow accumulation have been stamped out. The follow-on question is: what do we do about it? Attempts to artificially "correct" inequality for the sake of correction are universally disastrous. Progressive taxation and redistribution are, I think, reasonable, as is universal basic income, and sound government has a huge role to play. But the goal should be to provide basic services and create opportunity for the bottom 50%, not wrest control of wealth from the top 1%. The goal of actually stamping out inequality is a fool's errand.
  - wiz21c 9y ago
    Fortunately, thanks to your solution, the basic services for the bottom 50% will make them no less free than slaves... (admittedly, history happens like that but it's been continually fought)
- tdmule 9y ago
  Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.
  - psyc 9y ago
    I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.
whb07 9y ago
It’s not a static group. Those in the 1% are not the same group over the following years. This has been well established. For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid.
- psyc 9y ago
  I think it's more relevant that the vast majority will never be in the group, than that the group's roster changes.
  - zip1234 9y ago
    By definition, only 1% of people can be in the 1%...
    - yazaddaruvala 9y ago
      *At any given time You could have a contrived round robin system where 100% of people eventually end up with 100% of the wealth.
- sp0rk 9y ago
  > For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid. To my eyes, your statement seems to be completely false. http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1998/ http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_arch...
  - whb07 9y ago
    Ooh nitpicking! Okay, I’ll bite, so let’s just go through the top 10 from 1998 and 2017 to see if there is any dynamism or if it’s a static body like you’re suggesting. 1998, 2017: 1) GM, Walmart 2) Ford, Berkshire Hathaway 3) Exxon, Apple 4) Walmart, Exxon 5) GE, McKesson 6) IBM, United health 7) Chrysler, CVS 8) Mobil, GM 9) Altria, ATT 10) ATT, Ford Wow, outstanding ! As you can see there are a number of companies that are new, dropped lower ranking, moved up in ranking, and completely disappeared. We could keep going even further back a decade and the changes will be more visible. There’s a few companies who are entirely gone from the top 10, and I can guarantee that none of them wanted that outcome. So to you, I say, got any more nitpickings?

by psyc 9y ago

tibbetts 9y ago

It matters, and it might be ok if the wealthy were being nice about it. Unfortunately a very active subset seems to be bringing back feudalism. In the 20s-70s rich people were conveniently afraid of communist revolution and thus inclined to distributed gains. Without another credible threat of global revolution I don’t know how this gets fixed. Of course, communism did have downsides for the people who actually lived under it.

psyc 9y ago
I basically agree with your first sentence. Specifically, I don't believe capitalism itself is the root problem, but rather something like a deficit in social cohesion. No sense that we're fellow humans collectively struggling towards a better society. That sense doesn't necessarily imply a communist implementation. It could mean something as simple as an ethos in which those who are better off try to help others up. I couldn't begin to address how that might come about, and I'm as wary as anyone about trying to use a State to do it. Because the State never actually turns out to be the People, except in the naive or fanciful abstract.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  Capitalism works fine, the only 'flaw' I think it has is that excessive capital can compound way too fast. If you have $10m, and you invest that really really really well, you might be making 10 to 30% on that capital. Maybe more if you're an entrepreneur investing strategically. That's fine. But let's say you're worth $1bn, and you compound at 10% per year.. you're making money hand over fist. Add smart use of debt to that, and that's probably too much rent seeking to be healthy. Basically, once you pass a few 100 million, I think it gets really unfair. Below.. it doesn't really matter. No one will live in poverty because someone owns $100m -- it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But wealth is a snowball that doesn't grow fast enough on the low end, and too fast on the high end. The only way to fix that would probably be a global wealth tax, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
sparkzilla 9y ago
"downsides"
- ericd 9y ago
  Largest understatement I've seen in a while.
  - cal5k 9y ago
    Between Mao and Stalin alone you're probably talking 50-100MM deaths. That's one hell of a downside.
    - noobermin 9y ago
      I assure you, capitalism has killed more people than that. We just don't call them victims of capitalism.
      - rich-w-big-ego 9y ago
        At least in Capitalism you are allowed to talk about your suffering. In the communist utopias of the 20th century, speaking of your suffering or trying to alleviate it was a capital offence.
      - ericd 9y ago
        I'd really like to see your accounting to see if it's apples to apples, because the 50-100M is not counting people who died due to proxy wars, or anything like that, just people who lived directly under communist governments, and died directly because of communist policies that lead to things like mass starvation, and in many cases, because of literal death squads. It's surprising that people already seem to be forgetting how incredibly horrible communism was when implemented.
      - dwaltrip 9y ago
        We're going to need more than assurances to see your point.
    - 9y ago
charlesdm 9y ago
"Nice about it"? What should they do, hand it out to people?
- tibbetts 9y ago
  Pay their taxes without whining or trying to take over the government. Don’t try to discredit science to protect your wealth. Consider the social costs of their investments. Engage in substantial philanthropy.

defertoreptar 9y ago

That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.

cal5k 9y ago
The main thrust is that this seems to simply be a consequence of differing ability/circumstance, and there is no counter-example in recorded history - even our views on the "noble savage" are probably skewed by the fact that large hunter-gatherer societies with enough wealth to allow accumulation have been stamped out. The follow-on question is: what do we do about it? Attempts to artificially "correct" inequality for the sake of correction are universally disastrous. Progressive taxation and redistribution are, I think, reasonable, as is universal basic income, and sound government has a huge role to play. But the goal should be to provide basic services and create opportunity for the bottom 50%, not wrest control of wealth from the top 1%. The goal of actually stamping out inequality is a fool's errand.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  Fortunately, thanks to your solution, the basic services for the bottom 50% will make them no less free than slaves... (admittedly, history happens like that but it's been continually fought)
tdmule 9y ago
Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.
- psyc 9y ago
  I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.

whb07 9y ago

It’s not a static group. Those in the 1% are not the same group over the following years. This has been well established. For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid.

psyc 9y ago
I think it's more relevant that the vast majority will never be in the group, than that the group's roster changes.
- zip1234 9y ago
  By definition, only 1% of people can be in the 1%...
  - yazaddaruvala 9y ago
    *At any given time You could have a contrived round robin system where 100% of people eventually end up with 100% of the wealth.
sp0rk 9y ago
> For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid. To my eyes, your statement seems to be completely false. http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1998/ http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_arch...
- whb07 9y ago
  Ooh nitpicking! Okay, I’ll bite, so let’s just go through the top 10 from 1998 and 2017 to see if there is any dynamism or if it’s a static body like you’re suggesting. 1998, 2017: 1) GM, Walmart 2) Ford, Berkshire Hathaway 3) Exxon, Apple 4) Walmart, Exxon 5) GE, McKesson 6) IBM, United health 7) Chrysler, CVS 8) Mobil, GM 9) Altria, ATT 10) ATT, Ford Wow, outstanding ! As you can see there are a number of companies that are new, dropped lower ranking, moved up in ranking, and completely disappeared. We could keep going even further back a decade and the changes will be more visible. There’s a few companies who are entirely gone from the top 10, and I can guarantee that none of them wanted that outcome. So to you, I say, got any more nitpickings?