5 ms·

I know very little about economics particularly the academic / theoretical side of it. You and Wenger here both seem to agree there is an abundance of capital (

I know very little about economics particularly the academic / theoretical side of it. You and Wenger here both seem to agree there is an abundance of capital (money?) and that's not the "limiting factor" at least in the US. He writes > When we were foragers, food was scarce. During the agrarian age, it was land. Following the industrial revolution, capital became scarce. I don't really see how they are equivalent. Or actually I do they how they are equivalent but not in the way he writes. For tribal chiefs, food probably wasn't scarce. For kings and lords, land was not scarce. For industrialists, capital was not scarce. Wealthy people haven't just started doing strange things with capital as though they hadn't in the past with capital or land or food. Food wastage was a point of pride in elite society of the past, locking away vast amounts of productive land for private game parks, and investing wealth in all sorts of foolish ventures has been pretty common throughout history. Yet all of those things were (and many still are) scarce for many people including in the US. So why do you say it's not, and what do you mean by "limits" of society exactly? If a person can't buy a car or an education or a computer or tools or time to practice a new skill, then they can't work (or have less opportunity to) or they can't increase their productivity as much. Or they can't afford to have or put as much time and money into their children, which further limits society in the longer term. I'm no collectivist, anti-capitalist, or social justice activist, I think inequality will always be here and it's our curse and our blessing. But surely we can't say capital is not scarce or doesn't matter so long as a significant number of people are limited by their own lack of it. Limited not just in entertainment and frivolous things but constructive wealth creating activities. Have I completely misunderstood the whole thing?

xcambar 5y ago
> I think inequality will always be here and it's our curse and our blessing. ...say people who are on the blessing side of inequality. Note: I am on the blessing side as well. I have no experience whatsoever about what it means to suffer from inequality.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > ...say people who are on the blessing side of inequality. This isn't an argument I'm afraid. > Note: I am on the blessing side as well. I have no experience whatsoever about what it means to suffer from inequality. Yes you do. Not everybody who is less well off than you live a life of misery and unhappiness and desperation. There would even be many very poor people who have happier and more fulfilling lives than you do I would wager.
lmm 5y ago
> For tribal chiefs, food probably wasn't scarce. For kings and lords, land was not scarce. For industrialists, capital was not scarce. On the contrary, kings and lords were acutely aware of how much land they had and devoted much of their energy to amassing more. Likewise for tribal chiefs and food, and presumably likewise for industrial. They had more of it than others, sure, but it was scarce for them: it was the limiting factor on what they were doing. > If a person can't buy a car or an education or a computer or tools or time to practice a new skill, then they can't work (or have less opportunity to) or they can't increase their productivity as much. Or they can't afford to have or put as much time and money into their children, which further limits society in the longer term. Right, but at that individual level too, capital isn't really the issue these days. You can get a loan for anything, anyone can get a credit card. If someone wants to improve themselves, it's rarely capital that's the limiting factor - it's more likely to either be time, or something a bit more complicated.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > On the contrary, kings and lords were acutely aware of how much land they had and devoted much of their energy to amassing more. Likewise for tribal chiefs and food, and presumably likewise for industrial. They had more of it than others, sure, but it was scarce for them: it was the limiting factor on what they were doing. So it's exactly the same as today's capitalists who have more than enough capital but keep amassing it. > Right, but at that individual level too, capital isn't really the issue these days. You can get a loan for anything, anyone can get a credit card. If someone wants to improve themselves, it's rarely capital that's the limiting factor - it's more likely to either be time, or something a bit more complicated. I find this could be a bit more credible than the "bay area venture capitalists blowing money on idiotic things therefore capital is post-scarcity" line of argument. Is it really true though? The median net worth of a person under 35 in USA the internet says is $14,000. How much of a loan is that kind of collateral going to get me if I'm clearly already living pretty much hand to mouth? Can I reduce my working hours, take the loan, and go to school? Or to start my own small business? What is the risk I'm taking on?
  - lmm 5y ago

xcambar 5y ago

> I think inequality will always be here and it's our curse and our blessing. ...say people who are on the blessing side of inequality. Note: I am on the blessing side as well. I have no experience whatsoever about what it means to suffer from inequality.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> ...say people who are on the blessing side of inequality. This isn't an argument I'm afraid. > Note: I am on the blessing side as well. I have no experience whatsoever about what it means to suffer from inequality. Yes you do. Not everybody who is less well off than you live a life of misery and unhappiness and desperation. There would even be many very poor people who have happier and more fulfilling lives than you do I would wager.

lmm 5y ago

> For tribal chiefs, food probably wasn't scarce. For kings and lords, land was not scarce. For industrialists, capital was not scarce. On the contrary, kings and lords were acutely aware of how much land they had and devoted much of their energy to amassing more. Likewise for tribal chiefs and food, and presumably likewise for industrial. They had more of it than others, sure, but it was scarce for them: it was the limiting factor on what they were doing. > If a person can't buy a car or an education or a computer or tools or time to practice a new skill, then they can't work (or have less opportunity to) or they can't increase their productivity as much. Or they can't afford to have or put as much time and money into their children, which further limits society in the longer term. Right, but at that individual level too, capital isn't really the issue these days. You can get a loan for anything, anyone can get a credit card. If someone wants to improve themselves, it's rarely capital that's the limiting factor - it's more likely to either be time, or something a bit more complicated.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> On the contrary, kings and lords were acutely aware of how much land they had and devoted much of their energy to amassing more. Likewise for tribal chiefs and food, and presumably likewise for industrial. They had more of it than others, sure, but it was scarce for them: it was the limiting factor on what they were doing. So it's exactly the same as today's capitalists who have more than enough capital but keep amassing it. > Right, but at that individual level too, capital isn't really the issue these days. You can get a loan for anything, anyone can get a credit card. If someone wants to improve themselves, it's rarely capital that's the limiting factor - it's more likely to either be time, or something a bit more complicated. I find this could be a bit more credible than the "bay area venture capitalists blowing money on idiotic things therefore capital is post-scarcity" line of argument. Is it really true though? The median net worth of a person under 35 in USA the internet says is $14,000. How much of a loan is that kind of collateral going to get me if I'm clearly already living pretty much hand to mouth? Can I reduce my working hours, take the loan, and go to school? Or to start my own small business? What is the risk I'm taking on?
- lmm 5y ago