6 ms·

Wealth concentration of this magnitude seems like an extremely inefficient allocation of capital. Dollars get things done and having them concentrated and contr

by debt 8y ago

Wealth concentration of this magnitude seems like an extremely inefficient allocation of capital. Dollars get things done and having them concentrated and controlled in a just a few spots seems like the worst way to apply their value. A person of this level of wealth has no problem using the wealth simply for personal gain. The concentration of wealth seems to undermine democracy. Democracy seems to be working out decently well, concentration of wealth seems to run counter to democratic ideals. I guess that's how it has always been in capitalism: undemocractically-selected application of larger amounts of capital. For instance, if one of these wealthy people decides to spend on a $1BB on PR campaign to run for office and they win; they will have effectively bought the outcome of the election like any other off-the-shelf product. This level of wealth inequality could be a national security risk. If the level of wealth concentration gets too high, we could start seeing a new market of privately-owned paramilitary sharing the space with what was originally occupied by branches of the military.

cma 8y ago
When you make the Coase Theorem account for the marginal utility of money, the whole thing falls apart.
megablooper23 8y ago
Sure enough, out of the woodwork comes the Marxist brigade, ready to pounce on anything that does not privilege the good of the group over that of the individual. It's an irreconcilable difference that lives at the very heart of an individual's soul and that no amount of intelligent discourse can tackle. You're either putting the individual first and the other side immediately and without a second thought classifies you as an arseh*le, or putting society above the individual and the other side immediately sees you as a sheep that has surrendered everything that makes humans interesting, who willingly chooses to be an ant, trading his pride and individuality for the safe and warm meekness of being protected by the group. Pick your camp. I know which side I'm on.
- mnctvanj 8y ago
  There are certainly public/tax policy sets that could serve both: to help and/or protect those who don't have the opportunity or ability to become an Ayn Rand hero, but also still allow for those that choose to fight down that path. Yes that means that the richer one becomes, the less they take home as a percentage of their gross (more so than current tax policy requires). But it means that there are more than two extremes to the issue.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Or maybe instead there are a huge number of views somewhere in the middle. Like, maybe a stable society is one that both rewards individual achievement while trying to maintain a level playing field and providing a basic level of support for everybody in society. I don’t recognise your mischaracterisation and this sort of thinking is why we are presently so completely fucked.
- lovich 8y ago
  The Marxist brigade? Even a pro capitalist should be against increasing wealth inequality. A healthy market has plenty of competition and competition reduces profits. If the vast majority of wealth gets concentrated into relatively few people then that indicates a lack of competition and leads to inefficiencies. Every billionaire or mega corp is a market failure
  - s2g 8y ago
    The "market" inevitably leads to conglomeration and monopolization. It's the natural state for the bigger entities to devour the smaller weaker ones and grow.
    - lovich 8y ago
      That's the reality of an in perfect market, but it's not something that anyone other than the owners of the large companies want
s2g 8y ago
> Democracy seems to be working out decently well Doesn't seem to be working particularly well in the US.
- debt 8y ago
  Meh it has a few bugs, definitely currently on an unstable build, but it's a huge enterprise system with hundreds of thousands of lines of code and technical debt but it's still running though after almost 200+ years.

by debt 8y ago

cma 8y ago

When you make the Coase Theorem account for the marginal utility of money, the whole thing falls apart.

megablooper23 8y ago

Sure enough, out of the woodwork comes the Marxist brigade, ready to pounce on anything that does not privilege the good of the group over that of the individual. It's an irreconcilable difference that lives at the very heart of an individual's soul and that no amount of intelligent discourse can tackle. You're either putting the individual first and the other side immediately and without a second thought classifies you as an arseh*le, or putting society above the individual and the other side immediately sees you as a sheep that has surrendered everything that makes humans interesting, who willingly chooses to be an ant, trading his pride and individuality for the safe and warm meekness of being protected by the group. Pick your camp. I know which side I'm on.

mnctvanj 8y ago
There are certainly public/tax policy sets that could serve both: to help and/or protect those who don't have the opportunity or ability to become an Ayn Rand hero, but also still allow for those that choose to fight down that path. Yes that means that the richer one becomes, the less they take home as a percentage of their gross (more so than current tax policy requires). But it means that there are more than two extremes to the issue.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
Or maybe instead there are a huge number of views somewhere in the middle. Like, maybe a stable society is one that both rewards individual achievement while trying to maintain a level playing field and providing a basic level of support for everybody in society. I don’t recognise your mischaracterisation and this sort of thinking is why we are presently so completely fucked.
lovich 8y ago
The Marxist brigade? Even a pro capitalist should be against increasing wealth inequality. A healthy market has plenty of competition and competition reduces profits. If the vast majority of wealth gets concentrated into relatively few people then that indicates a lack of competition and leads to inefficiencies. Every billionaire or mega corp is a market failure
- s2g 8y ago
  The "market" inevitably leads to conglomeration and monopolization. It's the natural state for the bigger entities to devour the smaller weaker ones and grow.
  - lovich 8y ago
    That's the reality of an in perfect market, but it's not something that anyone other than the owners of the large companies want

s2g 8y ago

> Democracy seems to be working out decently well Doesn't seem to be working particularly well in the US.

debt 8y ago
Meh it has a few bugs, definitely currently on an unstable build, but it's a huge enterprise system with hundreds of thousands of lines of code and technical debt but it's still running though after almost 200+ years.