3 ms·

> the market is working exactly as intended I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but a lot of people tend to treat the market as intrinsically morally cor

by maest 6y ago

> the market is working exactly as intended I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but a lot of people tend to treat the market as intrinsically morally correct. As in, if something is the outcome of the market working correctly, then that thing is the "correct" outcome. So, if billionaires appear as a result of the market doing its thing, then billionaries are morally entitled to their money. I'm not sure I buy that argument.

crazygringo 6y ago
I definitely don't buy it either. The market has nothing to do with morality. It's simply a question of efficiency: are people as a whole better off, utility wise? But as long as everyone is making voluntary, non-coerced trades (labor for $, $ for products), then by definition they are better off. There's no moral aspect to it, just economic efficiency/"progress". But that doesn't mean you get to keep everything you make. The market is a tool, not an end. If you kept everything, there'd be no taxation, no government, no education, nothing else, and it would be a moral disaster. The moral element comes into play with taxation: because you (as a billionaire) benefit extraordinarily from the country's systems put into place -- contract enforcement, courts, roads, education of your workers, everything -- you are morally obligated to pay your "fair share" of that back. The only people who claim people are entitled to 100% of the money they make are a subset of libertarians/anarchists. It's not a very popular opinion, since it makes society pretty much unworkable.
- pmontra 6y ago
  > But as long as everyone is making voluntary, non-coerced trades (labor for $, $ for products), then by definition they are better off. Add "correctly informed" and "able to understand the consequences" to that list. Examples: 1. Financial consultants propose to invest in high interest securities, "trust me they are safe", people invest and lose the money. 2. People lost years of life and tons of money commuting, then suddenly discovered that they can work from home. Many businesses benefitted from that, they are in trouble now. This at least was a common belief, shared by almost everybody. Most of us were wrong though.
  - taneq 6y ago
    Did businesses really benefit from people not working remotely? It seems more to me like the problem was inertia rather than any zero-sum mechanic. Switching to predominantly remote is benefiting everybody.
roenxi 6y ago
I agree that it isn't a moral issue, but here is a perspective that goes hand in hand with the issues: Billionaires have by and large demonstrated the ability to take resources with millions of dollars and transform them into resources worth billions of dollars. That is evidence that they should have disproportionate power. They're obviously competent at creating wealth if given power. They compare favourably to their closest competitors in the social arena, politicians. When dealing with big name politicians they are doing well if they don't cause excess deaths in their tenures, don't accidental destroy the economy and they generally siphon wealth and opportunity to unimpressive insiders. There might be an equilibrium that is better, but there are a lot of equilibriums that are worse. If an Amazon-like entity is going to exist at all it makes sense for someone like Bezos to be running it. There are literally billions of people out there who would do a worse job than him. He does deserve some acknowledgement and support.

by maest 6y ago

crazygringo 6y ago

I definitely don't buy it either. The market has nothing to do with morality. It's simply a question of efficiency: are people as a whole better off, utility wise? But as long as everyone is making voluntary, non-coerced trades (labor for $, $ for products), then by definition they are better off. There's no moral aspect to it, just economic efficiency/"progress". But that doesn't mean you get to keep everything you make. The market is a tool, not an end. If you kept everything, there'd be no taxation, no government, no education, nothing else, and it would be a moral disaster. The moral element comes into play with taxation: because you (as a billionaire) benefit extraordinarily from the country's systems put into place -- contract enforcement, courts, roads, education of your workers, everything -- you are morally obligated to pay your "fair share" of that back. The only people who claim people are entitled to 100% of the money they make are a subset of libertarians/anarchists. It's not a very popular opinion, since it makes society pretty much unworkable.

pmontra 6y ago
> But as long as everyone is making voluntary, non-coerced trades (labor for $, $ for products), then by definition they are better off. Add "correctly informed" and "able to understand the consequences" to that list. Examples: 1. Financial consultants propose to invest in high interest securities, "trust me they are safe", people invest and lose the money. 2. People lost years of life and tons of money commuting, then suddenly discovered that they can work from home. Many businesses benefitted from that, they are in trouble now. This at least was a common belief, shared by almost everybody. Most of us were wrong though.
- taneq 6y ago
  Did businesses really benefit from people not working remotely? It seems more to me like the problem was inertia rather than any zero-sum mechanic. Switching to predominantly remote is benefiting everybody.

roenxi 6y ago

I agree that it isn't a moral issue, but here is a perspective that goes hand in hand with the issues: Billionaires have by and large demonstrated the ability to take resources with millions of dollars and transform them into resources worth billions of dollars. That is evidence that they should have disproportionate power. They're obviously competent at creating wealth if given power. They compare favourably to their closest competitors in the social arena, politicians. When dealing with big name politicians they are doing well if they don't cause excess deaths in their tenures, don't accidental destroy the economy and they generally siphon wealth and opportunity to unimpressive insiders. There might be an equilibrium that is better, but there are a lot of equilibriums that are worse. If an Amazon-like entity is going to exist at all it makes sense for someone like Bezos to be running it. There are literally billions of people out there who would do a worse job than him. He does deserve some acknowledgement and support.