3 ms·
> Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the ec
by darawk 8y ago
> Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy.
It has been well documented that when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society.
Everyone's got a narrative, and they're both right. To an extent.
- enraged_camel 8y ago>>when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc. You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich.
- darawk 8y ago> You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc. I'm not making any assumptions. In aggregate, by definition, wealthy people are better at allocating capital than non-wealthy people. Yes, not all wealthy people are good at it. But in general, they are. That's why they're wealthy. The fact that exceptions exist is irrelevant to my point. > You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich. Do you have evidence that the way the poor allocate additional capital is more socially useful?
- maxxxxx 8y agoWhat will these rich capital allocators do when nobody has money to buy their stuff? We need people to produce things and we need people who buy things. Both of these roles are equally important. Considering how housing and other asset prices are going up and companies like Apple are sitting on billions of dollars it seems there are a lot of rich people who don't know how to invest their money productively.
- darawk 8y ago> What will these rich capital allocators do when nobody has money to buy their stuff? We need people to produce things and we need people who buy things. Both of these roles are equally important. Considering how housing and other asset prices are going up and companies like Apple are sitting on billions of dollars it seems there are a lot of rich people who don't know how to invest their money productively. Totally agree. To be clear, i'm not advocating either narrative, just pointing out that both sides have one. I think they're both important. You need efficient allocators productively allocating capital...and you need them to have the capital to do it with. You also need consumers, with the buying power to make the capital allocators allocations work. The debate ends up being around what the right mix is, and I don't know the answer to that, simply pointing out that it's not a one-sided narrative of "give poor people money!" or "give rich people money!".
- maxxxxx 8y agoHow about "Give working people more money"? Maybe if they had some capital they could allocate it for something useful too. When I look at the money that's being thrown around in SV I have my doubts that the professional allocators are doing a good job.
- darawk 8y agoI'm not disagreeing with you. You need both.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]