3 ms·

One reason is because it's almost impossible to prevent extremely wealthy people from having undue influence on politics. Another reason would be that most ric

One reason is because it's almost impossible to prevent extremely wealthy people from having undue influence on politics. Another reason would be that most rich people don't allocate capital in a way that's good for society. Some do, most don't. We tend to hear about the ones that do.

bawolff 5y ago
> it's almost impossible to prevent extremely wealthy people from having undue influence on politics. Money is basically an abstract representation of power, so that's almost a tautology. > Another reason would be that most rich people don't allocate capital in a way that's good for society This is an interesting claim? What is good for society, and relative to whom? I suppose the obvious comparison would be relative to "poor" people, but poor people don't really intentionally allocate capital at all by virtue of barely having enough for their immediate needs. Even the selfish rich people tend to invest their capital, usually into lucrative projects that make money by fulfilling some need of society. I guess i wonder if that's so bad, or at least if its worse than the other social classes would do.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  >Even the selfish rich people tend to invest their capital, usually into lucrative projects that make money by fulfilling some need of society That's not how money is made. You need some kind of parasitic mechanism to enable massive accumulations.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
- diordiderot 5y ago
  > What is good for society Decarbonization, novel drug research, preventative medicine, high speed rural broadband, public transport, nutrient rich foods, exercise, education.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Sure those are all good things (although not the only definition of "good"). The question remains: would a different capital allocation achieve them any better

bawolff 5y ago

> it's almost impossible to prevent extremely wealthy people from having undue influence on politics. Money is basically an abstract representation of power, so that's almost a tautology. > Another reason would be that most rich people don't allocate capital in a way that's good for society This is an interesting claim? What is good for society, and relative to whom? I suppose the obvious comparison would be relative to "poor" people, but poor people don't really intentionally allocate capital at all by virtue of barely having enough for their immediate needs. Even the selfish rich people tend to invest their capital, usually into lucrative projects that make money by fulfilling some need of society. I guess i wonder if that's so bad, or at least if its worse than the other social classes would do.

DarylZero 5y ago
>Even the selfish rich people tend to invest their capital, usually into lucrative projects that make money by fulfilling some need of society That's not how money is made. You need some kind of parasitic mechanism to enable massive accumulations.
dredmorbius 5y ago
"Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
diordiderot 5y ago
> What is good for society Decarbonization, novel drug research, preventative medicine, high speed rural broadband, public transport, nutrient rich foods, exercise, education.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Sure those are all good things (although not the only definition of "good"). The question remains: would a different capital allocation achieve them any better