4 ms·

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I think it's an extremely positive thing for society that people who are dumb enough to squander their fortunes are

by mjfl 8y ago

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I think it's an extremely positive thing for society that people who are dumb enough to squander their fortunes are given an opportunity to squander it, especially if those fortunes are unearned. It's very meritocratic. I hope Las Vegas is filled with the children of billionaires.

yetihehe 8y ago
I think that if they gave those fortunes for something more worthy like progress of science or charities, it would be much more positive for society. Squandering is just spending money on unimportant things, which DO NOT give benefit to society. Yeah, some of this money will make it into hands of other people, but most of this is just removing value from society.
- mjfl 8y ago
  none of the money evaporates, all of it makes it into the hands of other people.
  - yetihehe 8y ago
    You are right, but goods represented by money can be destroyed. Maybe we should all break some windows [1] from time to time, to stimulate economy? This will transfer some money to the other people. Or buy some lemons and dump them in volcano. This will be very good for all lemon farmers and if we do this often enough, prices for lemons will increase, so farmers will have even more money... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- southerndrift 8y ago
  Where is value removed? The money ends up in the hands of casino companies that spend it on architecture and arts or it is paid out to shareholders who will invest it in new opportunities. It's really difficult to remove value from society. Even if they burn bills, it will only increase the value of every other Dollar because the supply of Dollars just shrunk. You have to maliciously commission bad art or create toxic waste to remove value.
  - yetihehe 8y ago
    Imagine a millionaire, which went through towns breaking windows for fun (he likes the noise and throwing rocks) or art (broken windows make nice reflections on sidewalk) and payed for every broken window. Is this not destroying value?
    - GFischer 8y ago
      Yes, but there's an upper bound on how much value he can destroy that way. There are other ways they can destroy more value, of course...
    - southerndrift 8y ago
      You also destroy value if you throw away your trash with all those nice boxes and bottles. The value is not in the objects but in the production knowledge. Increasing the demand for glass will improve production and drive down costs for everybody in the long run. Breaking windows is only taxing on society if there is full employment and there are not enough people to do all available tasks.
- zazen 8y ago
  > some of this money will make it into hands of other people, but most of this is just removing value from society. I'm not an economist, but... surely near-as-anything 100% of this money is going to other people? Some tiny fraction is paid to the electricity company to keep the lights on at the casino, and some tiny faction of that is the cost of the fuel that is literally burned for that purpose. I think basically the same goes for the various luxury consumables the casinos are comping to these guests. The actual cost of the base raw materials that are consumed is going to be tiny (relative to the huge sums being gambled, anyway). Sure it would be better if these gamblers gave their money to science/charities instead. If you think you know how to convince them to do so, then go for it.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    The money is being moved between people who don't need it, so they can keep score in a game that only they are playing. Definitions of value in this economy are tautologous. What has monetary value? Anything that can make more money - the quicker the better. It's actually rather stupid.
  - idrios 8y ago
    A number of people made a similar comment to yours and that the money isn't lost, it just changes hands. The response that most people are giving is that it's an example of the broken window fallacy. With gambling, though, there's nothing being broken but the money is still stagnant and it's frustrating for poor folk to watch. If you treat the 0.1% as a single entity, then the transfer of money between those who are extremely wealthy--while nothing is being produced for it--is equivalent to no economic activity happening (effectively the same as a father and daughter handing a million-dollar bill back and forth). The electricity and consumables you mention -- you're right that those are the most broken-windowy of all the expenses, but I'd say the real loss is that the money effectively doesn't move at all. There are billions of dollars changing hands, but the money gets stuck in a small, closed system that it doesn't seem to come out of. If the rich people who make money from casinos were the type of people to donate to science/charity, then gambling would be an unusual and convoluted way of paying for that science or public well-being. Since they're actually more likely the type of people to hold on to their money or invest in things that only benefit themselves, then giving them more money absolutely is just removing value from society.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Eccentric billionaire gives $300K tip to casino dealer. Casino dealer pays for kid's college education. Kid grows up to become scientist. Eccentric billionaire has now made a charitable contribution to advancing the sciences! (I'm half joking, but only half. The actual consequences of economic activity are often strange and difficult to predict. Oftentimes, a billionaire giving millions to science means scientists get paid more but no more actual science gets done. Similarly, a billionaire giving millions to charity pays the salary of many grant-writers, but the effect on the ostensible beneficiaries is muted or even negative. Meanwhile, the biggest driver of American scientific dominance post-WW2 was Adolf Hitler, who a.) forced all the good scientists in Europe to emigrate or die b.) convinced America that they really needed an atom bomb before Germany got it, which got all of the best scientists in the world working together in close proximity and c.) setup the Cold War, which was the gift that kept on giving for U.S. government science & technology funding.)
  - baud147258 8y ago
    > a.) forced all the good scientists in Europe to emigrate or die I'm sure that some scientists could and did stay in Germany, like Von Braun.
    - HelloNurse 8y ago
      a2) collected Germany-friendly scientists, like Von Braun, in easy to poach organizations.
- de_watcher 8y ago
  Well, it's just transferred from one bank to another with some taxes/salaries/products paid. Nothing has really happened or disappeared. Maybe that second bank got bolder in giving loans for science or whatever.
cm2187 8y ago
The reality is that most children of billionaires have no idea how to make money, know it, and stick to whatever conservative investment strategy their banker tell them too to do.
- ido 8y ago
  Where did you get the data about "most" children of billionaires? Or do you know so many of them to do a statistically significant comparison?
  - cm2187 8y ago
    I don't but I talk to private bankers or people who work with family offices.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
As you mention downthread, the money does not evaporate. Given where it ends up, I don't see it as a net positive in society.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Well, it does go to someone who probably needs it more. Except for when it goes to fuelling drug wars in Mexico or providing a market for human trafficking (which always seemed like a too-polite word for what it is - slaving).
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    It goes to the casino, owned by yet another member of the 1%-of-the-1%. There is some trickle down in the form of big tips, but $500 when tens of millions have passed hands is just loose change.
distant_hat 8y ago
As long as it is not fueling more criminal stuff, it is better for that money to be circulating around. At least a part of that money is being redistributed around to people working the casino, making it possible for them to do other things. The bad part is not these people, it is people who are going into debt and stealing from their children to fuel their gambling addiction. I don't mind the Singapore model where you have to have an income above a certain level to gamble in the country.
anentropic 8y ago
tax them

by mjfl 8y ago

yetihehe 8y ago

I think that if they gave those fortunes for something more worthy like progress of science or charities, it would be much more positive for society. Squandering is just spending money on unimportant things, which DO NOT give benefit to society. Yeah, some of this money will make it into hands of other people, but most of this is just removing value from society.

mjfl 8y ago
none of the money evaporates, all of it makes it into the hands of other people.
- yetihehe 8y ago
  You are right, but goods represented by money can be destroyed. Maybe we should all break some windows [1] from time to time, to stimulate economy? This will transfer some money to the other people. Or buy some lemons and dump them in volcano. This will be very good for all lemon farmers and if we do this often enough, prices for lemons will increase, so farmers will have even more money... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
southerndrift 8y ago
Where is value removed? The money ends up in the hands of casino companies that spend it on architecture and arts or it is paid out to shareholders who will invest it in new opportunities. It's really difficult to remove value from society. Even if they burn bills, it will only increase the value of every other Dollar because the supply of Dollars just shrunk. You have to maliciously commission bad art or create toxic waste to remove value.
- yetihehe 8y ago
  Imagine a millionaire, which went through towns breaking windows for fun (he likes the noise and throwing rocks) or art (broken windows make nice reflections on sidewalk) and payed for every broken window. Is this not destroying value?
  - GFischer 8y ago
    Yes, but there's an upper bound on how much value he can destroy that way. There are other ways they can destroy more value, of course...
  - southerndrift 8y ago
    You also destroy value if you throw away your trash with all those nice boxes and bottles. The value is not in the objects but in the production knowledge. Increasing the demand for glass will improve production and drive down costs for everybody in the long run. Breaking windows is only taxing on society if there is full employment and there are not enough people to do all available tasks.
zazen 8y ago
> some of this money will make it into hands of other people, but most of this is just removing value from society. I'm not an economist, but... surely near-as-anything 100% of this money is going to other people? Some tiny fraction is paid to the electricity company to keep the lights on at the casino, and some tiny faction of that is the cost of the fuel that is literally burned for that purpose. I think basically the same goes for the various luxury consumables the casinos are comping to these guests. The actual cost of the base raw materials that are consumed is going to be tiny (relative to the huge sums being gambled, anyway). Sure it would be better if these gamblers gave their money to science/charities instead. If you think you know how to convince them to do so, then go for it.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  The money is being moved between people who don't need it, so they can keep score in a game that only they are playing. Definitions of value in this economy are tautologous. What has monetary value? Anything that can make more money - the quicker the better. It's actually rather stupid.
- idrios 8y ago
  A number of people made a similar comment to yours and that the money isn't lost, it just changes hands. The response that most people are giving is that it's an example of the broken window fallacy. With gambling, though, there's nothing being broken but the money is still stagnant and it's frustrating for poor folk to watch. If you treat the 0.1% as a single entity, then the transfer of money between those who are extremely wealthy--while nothing is being produced for it--is equivalent to no economic activity happening (effectively the same as a father and daughter handing a million-dollar bill back and forth). The electricity and consumables you mention -- you're right that those are the most broken-windowy of all the expenses, but I'd say the real loss is that the money effectively doesn't move at all. There are billions of dollars changing hands, but the money gets stuck in a small, closed system that it doesn't seem to come out of. If the rich people who make money from casinos were the type of people to donate to science/charity, then gambling would be an unusual and convoluted way of paying for that science or public well-being. Since they're actually more likely the type of people to hold on to their money or invest in things that only benefit themselves, then giving them more money absolutely is just removing value from society.
nostrademons 8y ago
Eccentric billionaire gives $300K tip to casino dealer. Casino dealer pays for kid's college education. Kid grows up to become scientist. Eccentric billionaire has now made a charitable contribution to advancing the sciences! (I'm half joking, but only half. The actual consequences of economic activity are often strange and difficult to predict. Oftentimes, a billionaire giving millions to science means scientists get paid more but no more actual science gets done. Similarly, a billionaire giving millions to charity pays the salary of many grant-writers, but the effect on the ostensible beneficiaries is muted or even negative. Meanwhile, the biggest driver of American scientific dominance post-WW2 was Adolf Hitler, who a.) forced all the good scientists in Europe to emigrate or die b.) convinced America that they really needed an atom bomb before Germany got it, which got all of the best scientists in the world working together in close proximity and c.) setup the Cold War, which was the gift that kept on giving for U.S. government science & technology funding.)
- baud147258 8y ago
  > a.) forced all the good scientists in Europe to emigrate or die I'm sure that some scientists could and did stay in Germany, like Von Braun.
  - HelloNurse 8y ago
    a2) collected Germany-friendly scientists, like Von Braun, in easy to poach organizations.
de_watcher 8y ago
Well, it's just transferred from one bank to another with some taxes/salaries/products paid. Nothing has really happened or disappeared. Maybe that second bank got bolder in giving loans for science or whatever.

cm2187 8y ago

The reality is that most children of billionaires have no idea how to make money, know it, and stick to whatever conservative investment strategy their banker tell them too to do.

ido 8y ago
Where did you get the data about "most" children of billionaires? Or do you know so many of them to do a statistically significant comparison?
- cm2187 8y ago
  I don't but I talk to private bankers or people who work with family offices.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

As you mention downthread, the money does not evaporate. Given where it ends up, I don't see it as a net positive in society.

CalRobert 8y ago
Well, it does go to someone who probably needs it more. Except for when it goes to fuelling drug wars in Mexico or providing a market for human trafficking (which always seemed like a too-polite word for what it is - slaving).
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  It goes to the casino, owned by yet another member of the 1%-of-the-1%. There is some trickle down in the form of big tips, but $500 when tens of millions have passed hands is just loose change.

distant_hat 8y ago

As long as it is not fueling more criminal stuff, it is better for that money to be circulating around. At least a part of that money is being redistributed around to people working the casino, making it possible for them to do other things. The bad part is not these people, it is people who are going into debt and stealing from their children to fuel their gambling addiction. I don't mind the Singapore model where you have to have an income above a certain level to gamble in the country.

anentropic 8y ago

tax them