9 ms·

“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates go

“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates got rich with an invention that also generated probably a trillion dollars in economic growth for everyone. Including most people on this sites income.

jrhurst 8y ago
Likely because money and wealth is a zero sum game. There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around.
- fastball 8y ago
  There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around. True(ish). False. False. I say "ish" for the first one because hopefully humanity will grow beyond Earth in the near future. Generally, all of the above are false unless you are talking about a population which never stops growing, and in that case that would be the problem. Not wealth inequality.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    If you have a population that did stop growing, but in which class divisions exist, and the upper class keeps taking larger and larger share of overall wealth generated by the society, you're going to have a similar problem.
- NeonVice 8y ago
  Money is just a tool to represent value. Value is not a zero-sum game. If a person creates something of value, she is creating something that did not exist before.
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    For that item to have quantifiable value to others though, they must be willing to exchange their money for the new item. The money that is to be exchanged already existed and is supposed to be limited in supply via fiscal policy. If the majority of that supply is owned by a small group of people the value that can be exchanged for the newly created item is limited as well unless those with the wealth want it.
    - NeonVice 8y ago
      Assuming that the monetary supply is fixed, then there is a deflationary effect. Even those with less money are able to purchase more value as more value is created. This is why incentives for creating value are important to an economy as opposed to just increasing the monetary supply.
    - Dumblydorr 8y ago
      Non monetary value exists, look at entertainment or education, both gained free via YT
      - wonderwonder 8y ago
        Its not free. You are the product. Advertisers pay google and google is then able to provide the infrastructure to provide your entertainment. Its provided to you in hopes that you will buy something based on the ads you are shown. It must also be effective advertising if people continue to pay for it.
wonderwonder 8y ago
Just one example. If I live in city A and all rental properties are owned by a select few wealthy companies and individuals, they are able to set the rental market. If they raise prices and I am a wage earner, I have no other option but to pay what they want, reducing my net income and increasing theirs. The vast majority of people are not able to spin a startup into being in their garages, they simply live and pay their bills the best that they can. I am not suggesting we vilify the wealthy but to suggest that one set of people earning greater portions of the total wealth does not negatively affect the less wealthy is disingenuous. The same concepts can be applied to the wealthy having access to lobbyists and consequently the ability to reduce regulations leading to long term health care costs for those forced to live in now less regulated environments. Gentrification is another venue for this. People live in a neighborhood, wealthier people move in and property taxes go up. Poor people are forced out. The actions of the wealthy have ramifications on the lives and incomes of the less wealthy.
- SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
  They can't really set price of the rental market, cant they? Salaries either have to keep pace with the rents, or renters get displaced. Displacement can only be sustained so long as there are transplants take their place, who can afford the rents, and there is usually finite supply. I've read conflicting things about gentrification. But on the "gentrification is good" side, the theory goes that areas that tend to "suffer" the most gentrification, tend to be areas that have very high levels of displacement already. They tend to be poor, lots of foreclosures or dead beat renters. In other words, gentrification doesn't necessarily increase levels of displacement. Owners in gentrified areas stand to greatly benefit from gentrification. The renters... they get displaced - but that was happening whether the area was gentrified or not.
peisistratos 8y ago
> if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? There is an easy way to see that and it is if the median inflation-adjusted hourly wage has risen in the US since the early 1970s. Or if inflation-adjusted weekly earnings have risen. They have not, with GDP growth, both have fallen. That this even has to be discussed shows the deep control those heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from workers have over discourse, the media, forums like this (run and controlled by an accelerator) etc. Workers create wealth at a mature company. Some of that pays the electricity bills etc., but then the rest goes to either dividends to the heirs, or to wages. That is the "preclusion". The heirs expropriate the profits of the surplus labor time from the workers creating the wealth. They are shorted on their wages. Sometimes this is explicit like the cabal between Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt that came out in the lawsuit. Insofar as Bill Gates and invention - it takes a hell of a lot of gullibility to swallow the fantasy you concocted. Kemeny and Kurtz created BASIC. Gates hacks into a military research computer at Harvard and steals computer time from it according to Paul Allen's book (and Harvard admin found out and had proceedings) - they port BASIC to the Altair. Then IBM comes to Microsoft. IBM got wealthy with computers on taxpayer funded government contracts and a monopoly which was lightly overseen. Gates's mother is on the United Way board with IBM CEO Opel who helps makes this meeting happen. Microsoft sells Seattle Computer Product's Qdos to IBM (Gary Kildall said it was a complete ripoff of his Drdos). A purchased ripoff of another product, sold thanks to family connections. So much for "invention". At times like the current one, with real wages falling since the early 1970s despite economic growth, that this is even discussed is a sign of how the heirs have bought and paid for the narrative as well.
- smokeyj 8y ago
  If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? The question was really simple. Your answer is the kind that inevitably ends with "you just have to read Das Kapital". That is not an answer.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Nobody, and Marx doesn't say that anyone is in such a case. >Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? In some way, it is possible - after all, the worker is richer than he was before (he has more money thanks to his wage) as is the capitalist (who has made money from the sale). Now what wealth is created? Arguably, social wealth in the case of new technology being developed, for example. But Marx doesn't deal with this concept of "wealth" or even immediately money, he deals with the concept of value, which works at a different level of abstraction to money. The value-form only becomes the price-form, they're not identical. I'd suggest looking up theories of exploitation as they have been figured in Marxisms that don't rely on a labour theory of value. It's too much[0] to summarize in one HN comment, but you don't need to read Capital either (though it would be helpful). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
cma 8y ago
What was Bill Gates invention? Wasn't that PARC?
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Microsoft.
  - cma 8y ago
    I mean which invention that created a trillion dollars in economic growth. Microsoft's main thing was to retard the progress of web browsers for half a decade.
    - kakaorka 8y ago
      Really unfair to discredit Microsoft from anything but the web browsers issue. They massively pushed the idea of personal computers, probably more than any other company in history.
      - bsanr 8y ago
        Commodore? ...Apple?
wasdfff 8y ago
So you can’t see how a CEO being compensated 1000x more than whoever cleans their office is a problem? Money flows like a river, and when every executive diverts egregious amounts of money that they’d never spend in their lifetime into their little pools, theres less money flowing downstream along the river. Do you really think that Bill Gates needed to become one of the richest men on earth to proselytize ms dos? Beyond paying the man enough to keep him fed and working, thats millions and millions of dollars of compensation thats removed from the broader economy solely to generate Mr. Gates a comfortable dividend.
- Dumblydorr 8y ago
  Gates is not the best example as he does tremendous good with his fortune unlike the kochs who spread lies with their earnings
  - wasdfff 8y ago
    The Gates foundation does do tremendous good. However, certainly Bill Gates pays for a good deal of luxury premium in his life that ultimately is a dollar that could have gone to the gates foundation instead of, say, luxury airfare (unless Gates does indeed fly economy). Maybe that’s also a dollar that could have gone to employees at the bottom of his payroll who struggle to exist in Seattle.
- throwawaymsft 8y ago
  Do I care if someone has 1000x the artistic talent I do? Is there a shared river of inspiration we're all drinking from? You seem to believe there's a fixed pile of money in the world that every human competes for (e.g., 16th century Mercantilism). Go into the woods and turn a tree into a chair. Where did that value come from? Will it run out?
  - hoaw 8y ago
    I think it is hard to make that into a constructive argument. Either you care and the 'allocation' is unfair. Or you don't care, which means that the market doesn't work since you caring is what is supposed to allocate resources fairly, and it is still unfair.
randcraw 8y ago
Gates succeeded by creating a 40 year monopoly which established and largely controlled the heartbeat of the computer revolution. That's about as exclusive as it gets. Any monopoly tilts the playing field so 90% of the business sector's profits pour into the pockets of a tiny few, leaving others high and dry. And virtually all the notable tech successes of the past 20 years arose and thrived via monopoly. So it's little wonder why VCs like unicorns so much. The profits involved aren't shared with others.
hoaw 8y ago
The whole purpose of a business is to capture the wealth they create. Business will create less wealth if they can capture more. Housing market being a prime example.
zjaffee 8y ago
Because that's how our economy works, there is a limited cash supply dictated by the central bank, the only way for more liquid cash to be created is through central banks buying up securities and in turn introducing more liquidity into the economy (which then results in all other sorts of consequences). The ability for new wealth to be created is predicated on the fact that we have an expansionist monetary policy, or else people would simply never invest and we'd have a society comparable to a feudal state.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
When the statistics back it up? Yes, it's possible for the rich to get richer while the poor also get richer. It's also possible for the rich to get richer by taking all the economic gains for themselves, leaving the poor to stagnate or to get poorer. Over the past 40 years the bottom half of the economy in the US has seen zero growth. This despite massive growth overall. This despite rising house prices, growing student loan debt, etc. The rich have gotten richer and the poor and the middle class have been edged out. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is. Why? Because of wage suppression, union busting, wage theft, predatory and usurious student loans, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, and on and on and on.
branchless 8y ago
Wealth creation is good. But a huge chunk of the old wealth, and a big chuck of where the newly wealthy put their loot, is in the wealth appropriation game. That tilts the table.

jrhurst 8y ago

Likely because money and wealth is a zero sum game. There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around.

fastball 8y ago
There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around. True(ish). False. False. I say "ish" for the first one because hopefully humanity will grow beyond Earth in the near future. Generally, all of the above are false unless you are talking about a population which never stops growing, and in that case that would be the problem. Not wealth inequality.
- int_19h 8y ago
  If you have a population that did stop growing, but in which class divisions exist, and the upper class keeps taking larger and larger share of overall wealth generated by the society, you're going to have a similar problem.
NeonVice 8y ago
Money is just a tool to represent value. Value is not a zero-sum game. If a person creates something of value, she is creating something that did not exist before.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  For that item to have quantifiable value to others though, they must be willing to exchange their money for the new item. The money that is to be exchanged already existed and is supposed to be limited in supply via fiscal policy. If the majority of that supply is owned by a small group of people the value that can be exchanged for the newly created item is limited as well unless those with the wealth want it.
  - NeonVice 8y ago
    Assuming that the monetary supply is fixed, then there is a deflationary effect. Even those with less money are able to purchase more value as more value is created. This is why incentives for creating value are important to an economy as opposed to just increasing the monetary supply.
  - Dumblydorr 8y ago
    Non monetary value exists, look at entertainment or education, both gained free via YT
    - wonderwonder 8y ago
      Its not free. You are the product. Advertisers pay google and google is then able to provide the infrastructure to provide your entertainment. Its provided to you in hopes that you will buy something based on the ads you are shown. It must also be effective advertising if people continue to pay for it.

wonderwonder 8y ago

Just one example. If I live in city A and all rental properties are owned by a select few wealthy companies and individuals, they are able to set the rental market. If they raise prices and I am a wage earner, I have no other option but to pay what they want, reducing my net income and increasing theirs. The vast majority of people are not able to spin a startup into being in their garages, they simply live and pay their bills the best that they can. I am not suggesting we vilify the wealthy but to suggest that one set of people earning greater portions of the total wealth does not negatively affect the less wealthy is disingenuous. The same concepts can be applied to the wealthy having access to lobbyists and consequently the ability to reduce regulations leading to long term health care costs for those forced to live in now less regulated environments. Gentrification is another venue for this. People live in a neighborhood, wealthier people move in and property taxes go up. Poor people are forced out. The actions of the wealthy have ramifications on the lives and incomes of the less wealthy.

SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
They can't really set price of the rental market, cant they? Salaries either have to keep pace with the rents, or renters get displaced. Displacement can only be sustained so long as there are transplants take their place, who can afford the rents, and there is usually finite supply. I've read conflicting things about gentrification. But on the "gentrification is good" side, the theory goes that areas that tend to "suffer" the most gentrification, tend to be areas that have very high levels of displacement already. They tend to be poor, lots of foreclosures or dead beat renters. In other words, gentrification doesn't necessarily increase levels of displacement. Owners in gentrified areas stand to greatly benefit from gentrification. The renters... they get displaced - but that was happening whether the area was gentrified or not.

peisistratos 8y ago

> if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? There is an easy way to see that and it is if the median inflation-adjusted hourly wage has risen in the US since the early 1970s. Or if inflation-adjusted weekly earnings have risen. They have not, with GDP growth, both have fallen. That this even has to be discussed shows the deep control those heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from workers have over discourse, the media, forums like this (run and controlled by an accelerator) etc. Workers create wealth at a mature company. Some of that pays the electricity bills etc., but then the rest goes to either dividends to the heirs, or to wages. That is the "preclusion". The heirs expropriate the profits of the surplus labor time from the workers creating the wealth. They are shorted on their wages. Sometimes this is explicit like the cabal between Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt that came out in the lawsuit. Insofar as Bill Gates and invention - it takes a hell of a lot of gullibility to swallow the fantasy you concocted. Kemeny and Kurtz created BASIC. Gates hacks into a military research computer at Harvard and steals computer time from it according to Paul Allen's book (and Harvard admin found out and had proceedings) - they port BASIC to the Altair. Then IBM comes to Microsoft. IBM got wealthy with computers on taxpayer funded government contracts and a monopoly which was lightly overseen. Gates's mother is on the United Way board with IBM CEO Opel who helps makes this meeting happen. Microsoft sells Seattle Computer Product's Qdos to IBM (Gary Kildall said it was a complete ripoff of his Drdos). A purchased ripoff of another product, sold thanks to family connections. So much for "invention". At times like the current one, with real wages falling since the early 1970s despite economic growth, that this is even discussed is a sign of how the heirs have bought and paid for the narrative as well.

smokeyj 8y ago
If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? The question was really simple. Your answer is the kind that inevitably ends with "you just have to read Das Kapital". That is not an answer.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Nobody, and Marx doesn't say that anyone is in such a case. >Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? In some way, it is possible - after all, the worker is richer than he was before (he has more money thanks to his wage) as is the capitalist (who has made money from the sale). Now what wealth is created? Arguably, social wealth in the case of new technology being developed, for example. But Marx doesn't deal with this concept of "wealth" or even immediately money, he deals with the concept of value, which works at a different level of abstraction to money. The value-form only becomes the price-form, they're not identical. I'd suggest looking up theories of exploitation as they have been figured in Marxisms that don't rely on a labour theory of value. It's too much[0] to summarize in one HN comment, but you don't need to read Capital either (though it would be helpful). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/

cma 8y ago

What was Bill Gates invention? Wasn't that PARC?

pnw_hazor 8y ago
Microsoft.
- cma 8y ago
  I mean which invention that created a trillion dollars in economic growth. Microsoft's main thing was to retard the progress of web browsers for half a decade.
  - kakaorka 8y ago
    Really unfair to discredit Microsoft from anything but the web browsers issue. They massively pushed the idea of personal computers, probably more than any other company in history.
    - bsanr 8y ago
      Commodore? ...Apple?

wasdfff 8y ago

So you can’t see how a CEO being compensated 1000x more than whoever cleans their office is a problem? Money flows like a river, and when every executive diverts egregious amounts of money that they’d never spend in their lifetime into their little pools, theres less money flowing downstream along the river. Do you really think that Bill Gates needed to become one of the richest men on earth to proselytize ms dos? Beyond paying the man enough to keep him fed and working, thats millions and millions of dollars of compensation thats removed from the broader economy solely to generate Mr. Gates a comfortable dividend.

Dumblydorr 8y ago
Gates is not the best example as he does tremendous good with his fortune unlike the kochs who spread lies with their earnings
- wasdfff 8y ago
  The Gates foundation does do tremendous good. However, certainly Bill Gates pays for a good deal of luxury premium in his life that ultimately is a dollar that could have gone to the gates foundation instead of, say, luxury airfare (unless Gates does indeed fly economy). Maybe that’s also a dollar that could have gone to employees at the bottom of his payroll who struggle to exist in Seattle.
throwawaymsft 8y ago
Do I care if someone has 1000x the artistic talent I do? Is there a shared river of inspiration we're all drinking from? You seem to believe there's a fixed pile of money in the world that every human competes for (e.g., 16th century Mercantilism). Go into the woods and turn a tree into a chair. Where did that value come from? Will it run out?
- hoaw 8y ago
  I think it is hard to make that into a constructive argument. Either you care and the 'allocation' is unfair. Or you don't care, which means that the market doesn't work since you caring is what is supposed to allocate resources fairly, and it is still unfair.

randcraw 8y ago

Gates succeeded by creating a 40 year monopoly which established and largely controlled the heartbeat of the computer revolution. That's about as exclusive as it gets. Any monopoly tilts the playing field so 90% of the business sector's profits pour into the pockets of a tiny few, leaving others high and dry. And virtually all the notable tech successes of the past 20 years arose and thrived via monopoly. So it's little wonder why VCs like unicorns so much. The profits involved aren't shared with others.

hoaw 8y ago

The whole purpose of a business is to capture the wealth they create. Business will create less wealth if they can capture more. Housing market being a prime example.

zjaffee 8y ago

Because that's how our economy works, there is a limited cash supply dictated by the central bank, the only way for more liquid cash to be created is through central banks buying up securities and in turn introducing more liquidity into the economy (which then results in all other sorts of consequences). The ability for new wealth to be created is predicated on the fact that we have an expansionist monetary policy, or else people would simply never invest and we'd have a society comparable to a feudal state.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

When the statistics back it up? Yes, it's possible for the rich to get richer while the poor also get richer. It's also possible for the rich to get richer by taking all the economic gains for themselves, leaving the poor to stagnate or to get poorer. Over the past 40 years the bottom half of the economy in the US has seen zero growth. This despite massive growth overall. This despite rising house prices, growing student loan debt, etc. The rich have gotten richer and the poor and the middle class have been edged out. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is. Why? Because of wage suppression, union busting, wage theft, predatory and usurious student loans, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, and on and on and on.

branchless 8y ago

Wealth creation is good. But a huge chunk of the old wealth, and a big chuck of where the newly wealthy put their loot, is in the wealth appropriation game. That tilts the table.