4 ms·

I see this repeated elsewhere, and I don't understand it. I don't want to suggest that you're bigoted as this is getting alarmingly close to a culture war topic

I see this repeated elsewhere, and I don't understand it. I don't want to suggest that you're bigoted as this is getting alarmingly close to a culture war topic, and I recognize the difficulty in conveying that in person, much less over the internet, where "I don't mean to offend but..." is usually followed by something offensive. But I do want to understand your analysis of the game-theoretic conditions that you believe lead to smaller groups outcompeting larger groups. Why would the most beneficial group of people that we want to band with be optimal when limited to a subset of the population, whether that's simply a random selection, or a potentially bigoted selection/identification mechanism like skin color, wealth, religious sect, family name, etc.? I don't understand why a broader grouping (possibly global) of people wouldn't outcompete a smaller group, the larger group by definition has a larger capability...intra-group communication may be slightly more difficult with language barriers and cultural differences, and the relative contributions of sub-groups of members may differ based on their resources, but the sum total would still be greater.

theflyinghorse 6y ago
> I don't understand why a broader grouping (possibly global) of people wouldn't outcompete a smaller group... Ability to pool resources, ability and will to bend rules for the sake of promoting group's interests (ie. nepotism).
ziml77 6y ago
It's not about bigotry, its that foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in. The closer someone is, the more emotionally attached they'll be and the more that other successes (from reducing exploitation of people) will benefit them.
- esoterica 6y ago
  > foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in As opposed to the domestic billionaires who have deep compassion for the interests of the working class?
  - ziml77 6y ago
    There's certainly a lack of caring there too. But they do have some financial incentives to put thought about the people in. It can hurt a personal brand when dealing with backlash against investment properties (and that can go on to affect associated corporate brands). It can also affect the investors if they mess up the economy of an area that had been contributing to their revenue. I'm not trying to boil this down to "foreigners bad. locals good." But there are various factors that play in to how much one cares about their impact on others, with physical and political distance being two of them.
    - mixmastamyk 6y ago
      In the end the "foreigners" angle doesn't matter. If it were NYC billionaires buying up Seattle property and leaving it vacant the result would be the same: locals suffering at the hands of remote money.

theflyinghorse 6y ago

> I don't understand why a broader grouping (possibly global) of people wouldn't outcompete a smaller group... Ability to pool resources, ability and will to bend rules for the sake of promoting group's interests (ie. nepotism).

ziml77 6y ago

It's not about bigotry, its that foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in. The closer someone is, the more emotionally attached they'll be and the more that other successes (from reducing exploitation of people) will benefit them.

esoterica 6y ago
> foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in As opposed to the domestic billionaires who have deep compassion for the interests of the working class?
- ziml77 6y ago
  There's certainly a lack of caring there too. But they do have some financial incentives to put thought about the people in. It can hurt a personal brand when dealing with backlash against investment properties (and that can go on to affect associated corporate brands). It can also affect the investors if they mess up the economy of an area that had been contributing to their revenue. I'm not trying to boil this down to "foreigners bad. locals good." But there are various factors that play in to how much one cares about their impact on others, with physical and political distance being two of them.
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    In the end the "foreigners" angle doesn't matter. If it were NYC billionaires buying up Seattle property and leaving it vacant the result would be the same: locals suffering at the hands of remote money.