6 ms·

There are some positive aspects to rising global inequality. Massive wealth, concentrated in a few hands, does not really make the rest of us poorer. They are n

by a008t 8y ago

There are some positive aspects to rising global inequality. Massive wealth, concentrated in a few hands, does not really make the rest of us poorer. They are not competing for the same goods and services as we are. It only really hurts the rest of the population if they go on a frivolous consumption spree - building monuments to themselves or otherwise burning resources. What it does potentially enable, however, is grand projects that can push humanity forward as a whole. Elon Musk with SpaceX is maybe one example. But I would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point which would involve also building a Lunar base. Once these advancements are available to the super-rich, it will not be long until they are available to the rest of us - according to history, anyway. I do not have the research, but from anecdotal observations, wealth created by building legitimate businesses tends to be spent more carefully and responsibly than wealth acquired through political connections, natural resources, granted monopolies etc.

annabellish 8y ago
As nice as that sounds, at what point do we consider it immoral for for-profit megaprojects to come before little things, like ensuring people don't go hungry, have adequate healthcare, or have enough savings that they can weather minor problems? We have commercial megaprojects like SpaceX, but the cost of this is the society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space projects, and b) can't afford to keep the baseline level of support for its citizens high enough for them to not spend more time worrying about how to allocate their meager resources than they can doing things which actually advance society. Is that a fair tradeoff?
- wongarsu 8y ago
  >but the cost of this is the society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space projects How so? SpaceX spends money in the US, meaning they generate taxes which directly increase the government's ability to run more expensive not-for-profit space projects. The problem is that the government decides to spend only 0.5% of its funds on NASA. The same argument goes for all your other points. SpaceX spending money means they employ people (both directly, and indirectly by buying stuff), which should always improve the overall situation for society (even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing). It also means they generate lots of taxes, which improves the government's ability to do all the other stuff you list. Megaproject like SpaceX seem like a good thing for society no matter how you look at it (unless you assume Elon Musk should donate all his money to a better cause, but that seems unreasonable in a capitalistic system). Megacooperations like Apple might be another matter. Apple takes money in the US, uses it for production in China, and keeps the profits stashed in tax havens. You could argue that this activity is harmful.
  - annabellish 8y ago
    >they generate taxes which directly increase the government's ability SpaceX _received_ a lot of tax money, and megacorporations in general tend not to pay anywhere near as much tax as they "should", so in this sense is likely to be a net negative in terms of short term government finances. There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport, healthcare, et cetera - I'm not sure we have enough information to suggest for sure that space travel is likely to be one of these, but I don't think it's an obvious "win" to privatize either, especially not to the point we can suggest that giving taxpayer dollars to for-profit spacex instead of not-for-profit nasa is the best thing to do. >even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_. Even a hypothetical hypercapitalist dystopia can still point to a choice between "work for peanuts or die" as saying it's better to have the job than not. Regardless, it can also be true for a company to be a net negative for society overall while still being beneficial for a small number of direct employees. That merges into the ethical concerns of automation basically immediately, for example.
    - wongarsu 8y ago
      >SpaceX _received_ a lot of tax money Yes, but most of that money was either for doing resupply missions to the ISS for developing the capability of tranporting humans to the ISS. The resupply missions to the ISS are cheaper than what NASA can do themselves, and SpaceX transporting crew is likely to save money compared to Russia doing it (because Russia raised the prices as competition disappeared). So in a very real sense the government is gaining money here by spending less on something they need anyways. >There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport It's rare to have a public transport system set up to even allow for fair and open competition. Most started as state monopolies and transitioned to private monopolies (which are hardly capitalism). The areas of transportation where the capitalist model actually happens seem to do great (for example airlines, with the possible exception of the united states where mergers and consolidation seem to limit competition). >This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_. Just to be clear, I am against monopolies and for government-ensured workers rights. But in a hypothetical scenario where workers rights vanish, workers still continue to be a limited resource. If I offer a job, but everybody willing and able to work already has a better one I won't find a candidate. I have to make the job desirable enough to outcompete everyone else looking for employees (for example by raising pay or improving working conditions). The more jobs offered on the market, the higher that competition. With higher unemployment of course the bargaining power of the individual emplyee sinks, and with that the working conditions and pay. But high unemployment also means higher social unrest, which means the state is incentiviced to provide sufficient benefits/insurance/whatver to keep the unemployed happy, simultanously giving the employees another way out of entirly undesirable jobs. The true danger is if companies try to find creative ways to make their job "attractive" without actually benefitting the person employed, or if they manage to prevent employees from switch to a better job. That's where exploitation begins.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Going by OP's argument, that is just another megaproject. See e.g. Bill Gates' attempts to eradicate polio or to reduce poverty.
  - redisman 8y ago
    Is Apple doing anything like that? Last I checked they are buying up some companies and sitting on their cash like a dragon.
    - sp527 8y ago
      There are no good deals in a swollen economy. Sitting on cash is what you do until there's a downturn.
- d_burfoot 8y ago
  A what point do we consider it immoral for the government to consume 40% of GDP, given the catastrophically poor efficiency with which that money is spent? Take a look at the homelessness, trash- and isht-strewn streets of San Francisco. Then observe that SF is one of the richest cities in the world, with a ten billion dollar budget for a population of less than one million - more than ten thousand dollars per person. How can we accept this tragicomic failure?
  - marnett 8y ago
    I think plenty of people would consider that. Granted, naming the city that generates most of that wealth from the very people that work for the companies in question probably isn't the best example. The tech billionaires are the most important constituents of SF. Governments are, at least in theory, accountable to the masses if an issue is collectively pushed for. I'd rather rely on that accountability than the altruism of the elite.
  - PopsiclePete 8y ago
    Since when is "Government efficiency" supposed to be such an important goal in itself? Let me guess - "It should be run like a corporation!" No, it really, really shouldn't.
    - chrisdhoover 8y ago
      There is corporate corruption that periodically gets regulated and a few corrupt people are thrown in jail as an example. Then there is government corruption which is unbounded by regulation. Occasionaly you get Leland Yee who ventured out of government corruption and into out right mafia crime but for the most part politians stay in their lanes and reap the bennies of corruption.
lawlessone 8y ago
> Massive wealth, concentrated in a few hands, does not really make the rest of us poorer. Yes it does. >But I would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point Your view of what the very wealthy have an interest in is naive.
- sjwright 8y ago
  > Yes it does. No, it doesn't. It doesn't actually matter how much money Bill Gates has sitting in the bank; there's still the same number of bananas on the banana trees and the same number of mouths that want to eat bananas. The price of a banana is set by supply and demand, so unless Bill chose to buy up an unusually large number of bananas for himself, the real cost of a banana is unaffected by Bill having a lot more money than you. If money is held but not invested, effectively it doesn't exist. If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank. If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected. This isn't my field, but I would guess that concentrating on the disparity in purchasing power of the middle 90% would be far more instructive.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    It does create some problems, in particular when wealth buys politicians and laws to feather its own nest. There is also some evidence that more equal societies tend to be healthier, even for the wealthiest.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      I agree there; economic disparity is bad insofar as it can be spent in ways that could manipulate the overall system. However that is really the fault of an imperfect political system with broken incentives, not a fault of wealthy people being wealthy. (It always amazes me how politicians manage to forget that they represent their constituents, not corporations or their lobbyists. It has gotten to the point where pointing this out is somehow seen as socialist or anti-business. But it's plain fact. Politicians are there to literally represent people.)
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
So what exactly are Apple doing to advance humanity? Their charitable giving, especially in the Jobs era, was nonexistent.
- a008t 8y ago
  I don't know, but you have to look at what the major shareholders - who are the beneficiaries of Apple's profits - are doing. My guess is that they are consuming significantly less than what they earn. That in itself makes their behaviour altruistic - they add N$ of value to society (represented by their profits), while they personally consume only M$, where my guess would be M << N. The rest of their wealth is probably investments - that is, them using their skill to allocate and manage resources for the benefit of others. But I would not mind the very wealthy going on massive consumption sprees where the consumption is in the form of very high risk grand projects - like longevity research or space exploration.
pjc50 8y ago
> It only really hurts the rest of the population if they go on a frivolous consumption spree Political donations. Apple seem to be pretty restrained on this front, but other industries can just buy entire carveouts for themselves. The insurance industry holding back healthcare; the tax preparation industry holding back tax reform.
zjaffee 8y ago
I have to disagree here, rising wealth inequality can be better measured through the impact that things such as private equity have on our economy. It contributes to the rising cost of real estate, and it holds unnecessary leverage over the ability to raise the needed funds to implement critical investment projects since risk adjusted profitability matters more than how it will benefit society or even the individuals that will consume said products. The rich aren't a necessary piece of the puzzle when it comes to investment in areas that help the public good either, the money that is handed out by NASA, NSF, NIH, DOJ, ect is just as effective at enabling research as money from private benefactors. The reason we it looks like the private sector has provided such huge benefits here is the amount of money they are spending has risen considerably while public funding has fallen considerably. Now, I'm not saying there is something wrong with multi billionares existing, but to suggest that they are in anyway a positive force beyond what can be provided by the public sector (where at least then there's accountability), shouldn't be a reason to let the rich run around and do whatever they want gobbling up even more of the resources within our economy.
jsweojtj 8y ago
Global inequality has been going down, not up. References: - https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequality-unu-wider-press-release.html#info https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequ... - https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality#the-latest-data-on-global-inequality-and-a-look-into-the-future https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality#the-la...

by a008t 8y ago

annabellish 8y ago

As nice as that sounds, at what point do we consider it immoral for for-profit megaprojects to come before little things, like ensuring people don't go hungry, have adequate healthcare, or have enough savings that they can weather minor problems? We have commercial megaprojects like SpaceX, but the cost of this is the society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space projects, and b) can't afford to keep the baseline level of support for its citizens high enough for them to not spend more time worrying about how to allocate their meager resources than they can doing things which actually advance society. Is that a fair tradeoff?

wongarsu 8y ago
>but the cost of this is the society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space projects How so? SpaceX spends money in the US, meaning they generate taxes which directly increase the government's ability to run more expensive not-for-profit space projects. The problem is that the government decides to spend only 0.5% of its funds on NASA. The same argument goes for all your other points. SpaceX spending money means they employ people (both directly, and indirectly by buying stuff), which should always improve the overall situation for society (even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing). It also means they generate lots of taxes, which improves the government's ability to do all the other stuff you list. Megaproject like SpaceX seem like a good thing for society no matter how you look at it (unless you assume Elon Musk should donate all his money to a better cause, but that seems unreasonable in a capitalistic system). Megacooperations like Apple might be another matter. Apple takes money in the US, uses it for production in China, and keeps the profits stashed in tax havens. You could argue that this activity is harmful.
- annabellish 8y ago
  >they generate taxes which directly increase the government's ability SpaceX _received_ a lot of tax money, and megacorporations in general tend not to pay anywhere near as much tax as they "should", so in this sense is likely to be a net negative in terms of short term government finances. There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport, healthcare, et cetera - I'm not sure we have enough information to suggest for sure that space travel is likely to be one of these, but I don't think it's an obvious "win" to privatize either, especially not to the point we can suggest that giving taxpayer dollars to for-profit spacex instead of not-for-profit nasa is the best thing to do. >even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_. Even a hypothetical hypercapitalist dystopia can still point to a choice between "work for peanuts or die" as saying it's better to have the job than not. Regardless, it can also be true for a company to be a net negative for society overall while still being beneficial for a small number of direct employees. That merges into the ethical concerns of automation basically immediately, for example.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    >SpaceX _received_ a lot of tax money Yes, but most of that money was either for doing resupply missions to the ISS for developing the capability of tranporting humans to the ISS. The resupply missions to the ISS are cheaper than what NASA can do themselves, and SpaceX transporting crew is likely to save money compared to Russia doing it (because Russia raised the prices as competition disappeared). So in a very real sense the government is gaining money here by spending less on something they need anyways. >There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport It's rare to have a public transport system set up to even allow for fair and open competition. Most started as state monopolies and transitioned to private monopolies (which are hardly capitalism). The areas of transportation where the capitalist model actually happens seem to do great (for example airlines, with the possible exception of the united states where mergers and consolidation seem to limit competition). >This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_. Just to be clear, I am against monopolies and for government-ensured workers rights. But in a hypothetical scenario where workers rights vanish, workers still continue to be a limited resource. If I offer a job, but everybody willing and able to work already has a better one I won't find a candidate. I have to make the job desirable enough to outcompete everyone else looking for employees (for example by raising pay or improving working conditions). The more jobs offered on the market, the higher that competition. With higher unemployment of course the bargaining power of the individual emplyee sinks, and with that the working conditions and pay. But high unemployment also means higher social unrest, which means the state is incentiviced to provide sufficient benefits/insurance/whatver to keep the unemployed happy, simultanously giving the employees another way out of entirly undesirable jobs. The true danger is if companies try to find creative ways to make their job "attractive" without actually benefitting the person employed, or if they manage to prevent employees from switch to a better job. That's where exploitation begins.
Vinnl 8y ago
Going by OP's argument, that is just another megaproject. See e.g. Bill Gates' attempts to eradicate polio or to reduce poverty.
- redisman 8y ago
  Is Apple doing anything like that? Last I checked they are buying up some companies and sitting on their cash like a dragon.
  - sp527 8y ago
    There are no good deals in a swollen economy. Sitting on cash is what you do until there's a downturn.
d_burfoot 8y ago
A what point do we consider it immoral for the government to consume 40% of GDP, given the catastrophically poor efficiency with which that money is spent? Take a look at the homelessness, trash- and isht-strewn streets of San Francisco. Then observe that SF is one of the richest cities in the world, with a ten billion dollar budget for a population of less than one million - more than ten thousand dollars per person. How can we accept this tragicomic failure?
- marnett 8y ago
  I think plenty of people would consider that. Granted, naming the city that generates most of that wealth from the very people that work for the companies in question probably isn't the best example. The tech billionaires are the most important constituents of SF. Governments are, at least in theory, accountable to the masses if an issue is collectively pushed for. I'd rather rely on that accountability than the altruism of the elite.
- PopsiclePete 8y ago
  Since when is "Government efficiency" supposed to be such an important goal in itself? Let me guess - "It should be run like a corporation!" No, it really, really shouldn't.
  - chrisdhoover 8y ago
    There is corporate corruption that periodically gets regulated and a few corrupt people are thrown in jail as an example. Then there is government corruption which is unbounded by regulation. Occasionaly you get Leland Yee who ventured out of government corruption and into out right mafia crime but for the most part politians stay in their lanes and reap the bennies of corruption.

lawlessone 8y ago

> Massive wealth, concentrated in a few hands, does not really make the rest of us poorer. Yes it does. >But I would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point Your view of what the very wealthy have an interest in is naive.

sjwright 8y ago
> Yes it does. No, it doesn't. It doesn't actually matter how much money Bill Gates has sitting in the bank; there's still the same number of bananas on the banana trees and the same number of mouths that want to eat bananas. The price of a banana is set by supply and demand, so unless Bill chose to buy up an unusually large number of bananas for himself, the real cost of a banana is unaffected by Bill having a lot more money than you. If money is held but not invested, effectively it doesn't exist. If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank. If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected. This isn't my field, but I would guess that concentrating on the disparity in purchasing power of the middle 90% would be far more instructive.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  It does create some problems, in particular when wealth buys politicians and laws to feather its own nest. There is also some evidence that more equal societies tend to be healthier, even for the wealthiest.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    I agree there; economic disparity is bad insofar as it can be spent in ways that could manipulate the overall system. However that is really the fault of an imperfect political system with broken incentives, not a fault of wealthy people being wealthy. (It always amazes me how politicians manage to forget that they represent their constituents, not corporations or their lobbyists. It has gotten to the point where pointing this out is somehow seen as socialist or anti-business. But it's plain fact. Politicians are there to literally represent people.)

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

So what exactly are Apple doing to advance humanity? Their charitable giving, especially in the Jobs era, was nonexistent.

a008t 8y ago
I don't know, but you have to look at what the major shareholders - who are the beneficiaries of Apple's profits - are doing. My guess is that they are consuming significantly less than what they earn. That in itself makes their behaviour altruistic - they add N$ of value to society (represented by their profits), while they personally consume only M$, where my guess would be M << N. The rest of their wealth is probably investments - that is, them using their skill to allocate and manage resources for the benefit of others. But I would not mind the very wealthy going on massive consumption sprees where the consumption is in the form of very high risk grand projects - like longevity research or space exploration.

pjc50 8y ago

> It only really hurts the rest of the population if they go on a frivolous consumption spree Political donations. Apple seem to be pretty restrained on this front, but other industries can just buy entire carveouts for themselves. The insurance industry holding back healthcare; the tax preparation industry holding back tax reform.

zjaffee 8y ago

I have to disagree here, rising wealth inequality can be better measured through the impact that things such as private equity have on our economy. It contributes to the rising cost of real estate, and it holds unnecessary leverage over the ability to raise the needed funds to implement critical investment projects since risk adjusted profitability matters more than how it will benefit society or even the individuals that will consume said products. The rich aren't a necessary piece of the puzzle when it comes to investment in areas that help the public good either, the money that is handed out by NASA, NSF, NIH, DOJ, ect is just as effective at enabling research as money from private benefactors. The reason we it looks like the private sector has provided such huge benefits here is the amount of money they are spending has risen considerably while public funding has fallen considerably. Now, I'm not saying there is something wrong with multi billionares existing, but to suggest that they are in anyway a positive force beyond what can be provided by the public sector (where at least then there's accountability), shouldn't be a reason to let the rich run around and do whatever they want gobbling up even more of the resources within our economy.

jsweojtj 8y ago

Global inequality has been going down, not up. References: - https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequality-unu-wider-press-release.html#info https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequ... - https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality#the-latest-data-on-global-inequality-and-a-look-into-the-future https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality#the-la...