6 ms·

This is wrong economically. Conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources. If a wealthy person and all her descendants save their money forever, then t

This is wrong economically. Conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources. If a wealthy person and all her descendants save their money forever, then there's no harm to the economy. The money is just numbers in a computer, nothing concrete. (Politically, it could be dangerous, since there is always the threat that they could spend it.) If she spends it digging holes, on the other hand, then that's wasting real resources. It employs people, yes, but in a pointless task. Their labor could have been better deployed. There's obviously a continuum, but $100 million yachts are probably closer to the digging-holes side of the continuum. (But maybe not. For example, spending $10 million on a painting for that yacht has very little real effect, since aside from the purchase transfer overhead, it is mostly moving numbers from one bank account to another.)

covercash 8y ago
I imagine some of the r&d (tech, materials, manufacturing processes) leads to improvements in areas that less wealthy people benefit from.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
macspoofing 8y ago
And how do you know what the correct usage of resources is? This is why communism _always_ fails. Every attempt at a top-down control of the entire economy will lead to failure. The economy is too complicated and chaotic for that to ever work.
- jordanbeiber 8y ago
  I see this a lot — the jump straight to ”communism”, and it’s tiresome. I believe in this day and age we know a lot of things we didnt’t at the start of industrialization. As soon as someone starts talking about keeping mindful about consumption they somehow end up being supportive of full blown communism. Looking at the state of our earth you could easily say that capitalism doesn’t work, at all. It’s more nuanced than that though.
  - Pristina 8y ago
    > capitalism doesn’t work, at all. i look at north korea then i look at south korea. if capitalism doesn't work, at all, then communism must negatively work.
    - jordanbeiber 8y ago
      Questioning the end result of capitalism is obviously touchy for many... My comment was simply that you can question the state of capitalism in the world today without suggesting that communism should take it’s place. P.s Also, have a talk to the insects, polar bears, cheetahs (only 7000 of them beauties left), etc. Out of whack and out of balance.
      - mc32 8y ago
        I would agree that communism is better at regulating population than other forms of government. And since population pressure is the main driver behind incursion into wildernesses, I’d agree communism would handle over pop more “efficiently” but not morally better. On the other hand communism typically suffered from stunted innovation, outside of targeted areas, so they probably would be worse off, if they didn’t import tech from non communist states.
        jordanbeiber 8y ago
        I kind of agree with what you’re saying, but it still lacks a lot of nuance. Most good stuff arises from public funded research imo. How and why? Because it’s down to individuals that are allowed to do their thing. This gets stiffled in a short term, for profit organization. What we’re left with is often conservatism. Too many big orgs with big money simply want to keep things as they are, and it’s clear (or should be to everyone) that this is not wanted or sustainable. Regarding man earth balance it’s currently down to over consumtion by us in the west. As your average Swede I consume approximately 4 earths worth of resources. We either changes this behaviour volontarily or bad things will happen eventually. There’s a lot of power in those piles of cash though so anyone that want’s to change anything is in for a tough fight. Also, morality... you probably consume stuff originating from sweat shops and child labour. We’ll it’s not our children! Lot of high horses in the ”west” unfortunateley.
- pluma 8y ago
  You're assuming the only alternative to laissez-faire capitalism is a centrally planned economy, fine, but please don't call that "communism" and pretend the two are interchangeable just because the USSR called itself communist. If we had a marginal tax rate of 100% for all profits beyond $10 million, would that be communism? If we banned the sale of certain consumer goods, would that be communism? If we banned the private ownership of certain consumer goods, would that be communism? If we mandated shared ownership by all employees of businesses exceeding a certain size or revenue, would that be communism? If so, how is the criticism of centrally planned economies relevant? If not, why are you talking about communism? There are gazillions of ideas other than "let the government control the entire economy" (aka state capitalism) or "let the winners of the free market do what they want and f* everyone else".
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >pretend the two are interchangeable just because the USSR called itself communist. You're not one of those that's still waiting for real communism to be implemented, because all the other attempts were done all wrong, are you? >You're assuming the only alternative to laissez-faire capitalism Where did I argue for laissez-faire capitalism? Pretty sure I only made the case for a market economy. >why are you talking about communism OP didn't make a case for regulating certain products or industries. OP made a case that individuals choosing how to spend their earnings is essentially misaligned societal resources ... as if they knew better. >If we mandated shared ownership by all employees of businesses exceeding a certain size or revenue, would that be communism? Yeah, you're on your way now. There are many Venezuelas on the road to Soviet Union.
    - pluma 8y ago
      Ah, because everything socialist is a slippery slope towards gulags, autocrats, mass starvation and military imperialism. You still haven't given an argument about why "conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources" and "there's obviously a continuum" means "state capitalism now", though. You also haven't bothered explaining how "every company beyond a certain size or revenue must be organised as a worker's cooperative" leads to state capitalism (or whatever you're trying to express by invoking the Soviet Union as the scary end), but I'd be fine if you at least bothered actually addressing the OP you replied to rather than just a strawman. To reiterate, this is what you say you replied to: > individuals choosing how to spend their earnings is essentially misaligned societal resources (and also, more implicitly "OP thinks OP knows better how those earnings should be spent and therefore advocates a centrally planned economy, i.e. state capitalism") This is what you actually replied to: > Conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources. > If a wealthy person and all her descendants save their money forever, then there's no harm to the economy. > If she spends it digging holes, on the other hand, then that's wasting real resources. > There's obviously a continuum, but $100 million yachts are probably closer to the digging-holes side of the continuum. Note that this is a refutation of the GP: > Those who invest or conspicuously splurge are a boon to the economy and to workers. I don't see how you can go from "rich people splurging are not actually great for the overall economy" to "state capitalism now", yet that is your interpretation. OP didn't say "rich people shouldn't be allowed to waste resources", OP only said "rich people wasting resources is bad". There's an obvious solution that doesn't require controlling the entire economy: increase marginal tax rates to reduce wealth gain and make it harder for millionaires to become billionaires. But I suppose that too inevitably leads to the Soviet Union?
- magpi3 8y ago
  I think the history of capitalism, communism, and economics as a field of study are all too young to make such an absolute statement. And don't you think that the birth of machine learning might change this equation just a bit?
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >I think the history of capitalism, communism, and economics as a field of study are all too young to make such an absolute statement. I'll agree with this statement on capitalism. But we know communism is a disaster. That won't change.
Pristina 8y ago
the entirely of what you are saying is wrong economically. all forms of economic transaction involves transferring money from one account to another. conspicuous splurging is a waste not in itself, but because of the opportunity cost of instead spending that money on capital investment, which will lead to higher production and consumption in the future for more people. if a rich person has extra money, he can use it to pleasure himself, or he can spend it on investment, hoping to make even more money. if he were to buy machinery for example, that would mean higher production and lower price, and many people will benefit from that. the aggregate benefit is higher in the long term. but the goal of an economy is to allow as much conspicuously splurging as possible over the longest time possible. it is clearly utopic to have a society with such surpluses that everybody can own 10 space yachts, endless supply of the best food etc.

covercash 8y ago

I imagine some of the r&d (tech, materials, manufacturing processes) leads to improvements in areas that less wealthy people benefit from.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

macspoofing 8y ago

And how do you know what the correct usage of resources is? This is why communism _always_ fails. Every attempt at a top-down control of the entire economy will lead to failure. The economy is too complicated and chaotic for that to ever work.

jordanbeiber 8y ago
I see this a lot — the jump straight to ”communism”, and it’s tiresome. I believe in this day and age we know a lot of things we didnt’t at the start of industrialization. As soon as someone starts talking about keeping mindful about consumption they somehow end up being supportive of full blown communism. Looking at the state of our earth you could easily say that capitalism doesn’t work, at all. It’s more nuanced than that though.
- Pristina 8y ago
  > capitalism doesn’t work, at all. i look at north korea then i look at south korea. if capitalism doesn't work, at all, then communism must negatively work.
  - jordanbeiber 8y ago
    Questioning the end result of capitalism is obviously touchy for many... My comment was simply that you can question the state of capitalism in the world today without suggesting that communism should take it’s place. P.s Also, have a talk to the insects, polar bears, cheetahs (only 7000 of them beauties left), etc. Out of whack and out of balance.
    - mc32 8y ago
      I would agree that communism is better at regulating population than other forms of government. And since population pressure is the main driver behind incursion into wildernesses, I’d agree communism would handle over pop more “efficiently” but not morally better. On the other hand communism typically suffered from stunted innovation, outside of targeted areas, so they probably would be worse off, if they didn’t import tech from non communist states.
      - jordanbeiber 8y ago
        I kind of agree with what you’re saying, but it still lacks a lot of nuance. Most good stuff arises from public funded research imo. How and why? Because it’s down to individuals that are allowed to do their thing. This gets stiffled in a short term, for profit organization. What we’re left with is often conservatism. Too many big orgs with big money simply want to keep things as they are, and it’s clear (or should be to everyone) that this is not wanted or sustainable. Regarding man earth balance it’s currently down to over consumtion by us in the west. As your average Swede I consume approximately 4 earths worth of resources. We either changes this behaviour volontarily or bad things will happen eventually. There’s a lot of power in those piles of cash though so anyone that want’s to change anything is in for a tough fight. Also, morality... you probably consume stuff originating from sweat shops and child labour. We’ll it’s not our children! Lot of high horses in the ”west” unfortunateley.
pluma 8y ago
You're assuming the only alternative to laissez-faire capitalism is a centrally planned economy, fine, but please don't call that "communism" and pretend the two are interchangeable just because the USSR called itself communist. If we had a marginal tax rate of 100% for all profits beyond $10 million, would that be communism? If we banned the sale of certain consumer goods, would that be communism? If we banned the private ownership of certain consumer goods, would that be communism? If we mandated shared ownership by all employees of businesses exceeding a certain size or revenue, would that be communism? If so, how is the criticism of centrally planned economies relevant? If not, why are you talking about communism? There are gazillions of ideas other than "let the government control the entire economy" (aka state capitalism) or "let the winners of the free market do what they want and f* everyone else".
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >pretend the two are interchangeable just because the USSR called itself communist. You're not one of those that's still waiting for real communism to be implemented, because all the other attempts were done all wrong, are you? >You're assuming the only alternative to laissez-faire capitalism Where did I argue for laissez-faire capitalism? Pretty sure I only made the case for a market economy. >why are you talking about communism OP didn't make a case for regulating certain products or industries. OP made a case that individuals choosing how to spend their earnings is essentially misaligned societal resources ... as if they knew better. >If we mandated shared ownership by all employees of businesses exceeding a certain size or revenue, would that be communism? Yeah, you're on your way now. There are many Venezuelas on the road to Soviet Union.
  - pluma 8y ago
    Ah, because everything socialist is a slippery slope towards gulags, autocrats, mass starvation and military imperialism. You still haven't given an argument about why "conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources" and "there's obviously a continuum" means "state capitalism now", though. You also haven't bothered explaining how "every company beyond a certain size or revenue must be organised as a worker's cooperative" leads to state capitalism (or whatever you're trying to express by invoking the Soviet Union as the scary end), but I'd be fine if you at least bothered actually addressing the OP you replied to rather than just a strawman. To reiterate, this is what you say you replied to: > individuals choosing how to spend their earnings is essentially misaligned societal resources (and also, more implicitly "OP thinks OP knows better how those earnings should be spent and therefore advocates a centrally planned economy, i.e. state capitalism") This is what you actually replied to: > Conspicuously splurging is just a waste of resources. > If a wealthy person and all her descendants save their money forever, then there's no harm to the economy. > If she spends it digging holes, on the other hand, then that's wasting real resources. > There's obviously a continuum, but $100 million yachts are probably closer to the digging-holes side of the continuum. Note that this is a refutation of the GP: > Those who invest or conspicuously splurge are a boon to the economy and to workers. I don't see how you can go from "rich people splurging are not actually great for the overall economy" to "state capitalism now", yet that is your interpretation. OP didn't say "rich people shouldn't be allowed to waste resources", OP only said "rich people wasting resources is bad". There's an obvious solution that doesn't require controlling the entire economy: increase marginal tax rates to reduce wealth gain and make it harder for millionaires to become billionaires. But I suppose that too inevitably leads to the Soviet Union?
magpi3 8y ago
I think the history of capitalism, communism, and economics as a field of study are all too young to make such an absolute statement. And don't you think that the birth of machine learning might change this equation just a bit?
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >I think the history of capitalism, communism, and economics as a field of study are all too young to make such an absolute statement. I'll agree with this statement on capitalism. But we know communism is a disaster. That won't change.

Pristina 8y ago

the entirely of what you are saying is wrong economically. all forms of economic transaction involves transferring money from one account to another. conspicuous splurging is a waste not in itself, but because of the opportunity cost of instead spending that money on capital investment, which will lead to higher production and consumption in the future for more people. if a rich person has extra money, he can use it to pleasure himself, or he can spend it on investment, hoping to make even more money. if he were to buy machinery for example, that would mean higher production and lower price, and many people will benefit from that. the aggregate benefit is higher in the long term. but the goal of an economy is to allow as much conspicuously splurging as possible over the longest time possible. it is clearly utopic to have a society with such surpluses that everybody can own 10 space yachts, endless supply of the best food etc.