4 ms·

I'm not sure I agree with this. The yacht could get very little use, but so could a house that you build for someone. If the argument is that we should only b

I'm not sure I agree with this. The yacht could get very little use, but so could a house that you build for someone. If the argument is that we should only build public goods that will be widely used like parks, I disagree, because the concept of private property is very entrenched in our society, even in socialist countries. I also disagree that the Warren Buffet statue would have a negative effect on the wealth of the average citizen. Warren Buffet would be taking capital that is locked up inside assets and spending it to build something, directly contributing significant income to the middle class (laborers) in the economy. This would have a positive beneficial effect on the economy in general. Imagine a wealthy billionaire with all of his assets locked up in gold bars in a swiss vault. Outside of a few hired guards that protect the gold, nobody benefits. If he liquidated that gold and used the proceeds to build statues, quite a lot of people would benefit from the income generated.

yholio 8y ago
Buffet owns stocks in productive companies. If he starts selling this stock and gets enough money for his statue, by definition he's absorbing market capital that would otherwise be invested in productive companies. So he's effectively shifting investment from jobs in companies to jobs in giant statue production. The effect on the middle class jobs is largely nil. If a billionaire is entombed in a safe with his symbols of wealth forever, it's as if his symbolic wealth ceases to exist. Effectively, the symbols of everybody else become more valuable to reflect the total quantity of products and services available. It's just like burning money, no wealth is destroyed, just redistributed to everybody else who holds the same currency.
Matumio 8y ago
The argument works even if no public parks are built. The point is that a higher number of people ("society") profits. They can hire more workers for the same money because workers are not busy building the statue. More people are getting their own needs met, versus a single person getting a very expensive need met. Intrinsic value is not created by spending money, it's created by people doing work for that money. The right question to ask is "whom are they creating value for", not "how many papers did they get for it".

yholio 8y ago

Buffet owns stocks in productive companies. If he starts selling this stock and gets enough money for his statue, by definition he's absorbing market capital that would otherwise be invested in productive companies. So he's effectively shifting investment from jobs in companies to jobs in giant statue production. The effect on the middle class jobs is largely nil. If a billionaire is entombed in a safe with his symbols of wealth forever, it's as if his symbolic wealth ceases to exist. Effectively, the symbols of everybody else become more valuable to reflect the total quantity of products and services available. It's just like burning money, no wealth is destroyed, just redistributed to everybody else who holds the same currency.

Matumio 8y ago

The argument works even if no public parks are built. The point is that a higher number of people ("society") profits. They can hire more workers for the same money because workers are not busy building the statue. More people are getting their own needs met, versus a single person getting a very expensive need met. Intrinsic value is not created by spending money, it's created by people doing work for that money. The right question to ask is "whom are they creating value for", not "how many papers did they get for it".