3 ms·

> 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 an

> 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
> So it's exactly the same as today's capitalists who have more than enough capital but keep amassing it. Today's capitalists aren't focused so much on capital though. Stock buybacks are bigger than ever. Founders are happy to sell off huge portions of their ownership as long as they can keep control with super-voting shares, where the previous generation of industrialists would be happy to accept outside board members but wanted to make sure they kept all the profits. A decade ago the goal was to be a "serial entrepreneur" who would use their huge exit from one company (as it matured) to fund another, even more profitable one; now keeping control of a big company is a much bigger deal. > Is it really true though? The median net worth of a person under 35 in USA the internet says is $14,000. How big 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? My sense (and I don't have evidence) is that getting a loan for study or business is easier than ever before (though reducing your working hours might not be). > What is the risk I'm taking on? Being trapped in debt you can't repay is always possible, but it feels to me like the biggest risk would be derailing your career and not being able to get back into it. A side effect of the disappearance of middle class jobs is that there's no way to work your way up from the mailroom any more, so if you do have a stable career-track job then there's a strong argument for clinging onto it as hard as you can. For those who are already on the wrong side of the line that's a much weaker argument though.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > Today's capitalists aren't focused so much on capital though. Stock buybacks are bigger than ever. Founders are happy to sell off huge portions of their ownership as long as they can keep control with super-voting shares, where the previous generation of industrialists would be happy to accept outside board members but wanted to make sure they kept all the profits. A decade ago the goal was to be a "serial entrepreneur" who would use their huge exit from one company (as it matured) to fund another, even more profitable one; now keeping control of a big company is a much bigger deal. Seems like a lot of handwaving and arbitrarily picking parameters to fine tune your proposition. Let's step back and look at the big scheme of things. Food has always been scarce for some and plentiful for others. Same as land. Same as capital. And there have always been some people who have enough or more than they need who have a drive to amass even more, but that does not mean they have a shortage of it. And inversely if they don't try to horde more of a particular resource or asset that doesn't mean that asset is post-scarce for society as a whole. I'll put it a different way, are you just trying to create such a specific definition that you can manage to fit it into? Then what's the point? it doesn't usefully say anything as far as I can see. If you can support an argument which says practically everyone has plentiful cheap and easy access to capital via loans then that would be saying something. And if you can do that then you don't need these flimsy examples of food in prehistoric times or the behavior of wealthy elites to prop up your argument at all, do you? > My sense (and I don't have evidence) is that getting a loan for study or business is easier than ever before (though reducing your working hours might not be). Quite a journey remaining to get from there to "capital is not scarce or limiting for society", though. Less than 20 years ago we had the credit markets almost cease functioning, major banks collapsed almost taking the banking sector with them, hundreds of thousands of home owners being unable to service their loans and were foreclosed. In my layman's understanding a major cause of this was undervaluing the cost of loans. Things have changed since then of course, but these industries and environments are very cyclical. Similarly, just because you kill a woolly mammoth or have a bumper harvest does not mean your society has been liberated from food scarcity problems. But even ignoring recent massive failures of capital markets and just looking at the situation now, I'm still pretty skeptical of the assertion that anybody can get easy plentiful access to bank loans. People without much collateral or high incomes or steady work history get hit with extreme costs and harsh terms on loans if they can get them.

lmm 5y ago

> So it's exactly the same as today's capitalists who have more than enough capital but keep amassing it. Today's capitalists aren't focused so much on capital though. Stock buybacks are bigger than ever. Founders are happy to sell off huge portions of their ownership as long as they can keep control with super-voting shares, where the previous generation of industrialists would be happy to accept outside board members but wanted to make sure they kept all the profits. A decade ago the goal was to be a "serial entrepreneur" who would use their huge exit from one company (as it matured) to fund another, even more profitable one; now keeping control of a big company is a much bigger deal. > Is it really true though? The median net worth of a person under 35 in USA the internet says is $14,000. How big 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? My sense (and I don't have evidence) is that getting a loan for study or business is easier than ever before (though reducing your working hours might not be). > What is the risk I'm taking on? Being trapped in debt you can't repay is always possible, but it feels to me like the biggest risk would be derailing your career and not being able to get back into it. A side effect of the disappearance of middle class jobs is that there's no way to work your way up from the mailroom any more, so if you do have a stable career-track job then there's a strong argument for clinging onto it as hard as you can. For those who are already on the wrong side of the line that's a much weaker argument though.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Today's capitalists aren't focused so much on capital though. Stock buybacks are bigger than ever. Founders are happy to sell off huge portions of their ownership as long as they can keep control with super-voting shares, where the previous generation of industrialists would be happy to accept outside board members but wanted to make sure they kept all the profits. A decade ago the goal was to be a "serial entrepreneur" who would use their huge exit from one company (as it matured) to fund another, even more profitable one; now keeping control of a big company is a much bigger deal. Seems like a lot of handwaving and arbitrarily picking parameters to fine tune your proposition. Let's step back and look at the big scheme of things. Food has always been scarce for some and plentiful for others. Same as land. Same as capital. And there have always been some people who have enough or more than they need who have a drive to amass even more, but that does not mean they have a shortage of it. And inversely if they don't try to horde more of a particular resource or asset that doesn't mean that asset is post-scarce for society as a whole. I'll put it a different way, are you just trying to create such a specific definition that you can manage to fit it into? Then what's the point? it doesn't usefully say anything as far as I can see. If you can support an argument which says practically everyone has plentiful cheap and easy access to capital via loans then that would be saying something. And if you can do that then you don't need these flimsy examples of food in prehistoric times or the behavior of wealthy elites to prop up your argument at all, do you? > My sense (and I don't have evidence) is that getting a loan for study or business is easier than ever before (though reducing your working hours might not be). Quite a journey remaining to get from there to "capital is not scarce or limiting for society", though. Less than 20 years ago we had the credit markets almost cease functioning, major banks collapsed almost taking the banking sector with them, hundreds of thousands of home owners being unable to service their loans and were foreclosed. In my layman's understanding a major cause of this was undervaluing the cost of loans. Things have changed since then of course, but these industries and environments are very cyclical. Similarly, just because you kill a woolly mammoth or have a bumper harvest does not mean your society has been liberated from food scarcity problems. But even ignoring recent massive failures of capital markets and just looking at the situation now, I'm still pretty skeptical of the assertion that anybody can get easy plentiful access to bank loans. People without much collateral or high incomes or steady work history get hit with extreme costs and harsh terms on loans if they can get them.