4 ms·
Wealth inquality (up to a point, of course) is, in general, actually a good thing. The more concentrated wealth is, the more easily and more cheaply it can leve
by mruts 8y ago
Wealth inquality (up to a point, of course) is, in general, actually a good thing. The more concentrated wealth is, the more easily and more cheaply it can leveraged to affect change. A good example might be the Gates Foundation. Through Bill Gates’ concentration of wealth, he can allocate money to help the world with very little friction and overhead
Other examples include VC or hedge funds. While they don’t own the money themselves (they merely aggregate and invest it on the behalf of others), the reason this happens is because it’s much more profitable and efficient to invest one large pot of cash vs many small pots of cash.
PS: If someone wants to bring up that index funds are better, it’s still the same principle at work. The expense ratio of a S&P 500 index fund are much smaller than what most individuals could manage themselves.
- piahoo 8y agotldr; wealth inquality is good, because it is easier to distribute wealth (fight with wealth inquality) disease is good, because it easier to fight with disease when you are ill
- username90 8y agoI think it is better that Gates has billions to distribute to poor people rather than each American millionaire having a couple of thousand dollars extra to spend on their vacations.
- UweSchmidt 8y agoIt's the wealth inequality that creates the problems for so many people in the first place. Superrich people are basically royalty at this point. Affecting change as they see fit, mostly busy with themselves.
- casual_slacker 8y agoIt's an interesting point seldom discussed: governments use money in boring safe ways, eccentric rich people "waste" money in unique and unpredictable ways. Both seem essential to the equation of production, just maybe not in the current proportions.
- crc32 8y ago> governments use money in boring safe ways, eccentric rich people "waste" money in unique and unpredictable ways. I think many would dispute this point, at least in a general sense; although personally I might agree that current governments seem a bit paralysed in the face of some of global society's larger problems. It does seem like we are living in an almost Victorian era age of high profile philanthropy/industrial barons.
- nikanj 8y agoWith the current wealth distribution, it makes more sense to take something great and market it to a few ultra rich at $$$$, instead of letting the general public enjoy it for $. Examples of this range from vacation spots to high-end restaurants. Making things /more/ exclusive and accessible to an ever smaller number of people seems to be the trend for most nice things in life.