3 ms·

> Wealth represents owed labor That's the flawed assumption you're making. Wealth does not just come from labor. It largely comes from technology. Technology p

> Wealth represents owed labor That's the flawed assumption you're making. Wealth does not just come from labor. It largely comes from technology. Technology provides leverage. It's not uncommon that a single person today can do something that generates 10,000x the entertainment/utility/productivity/wealth any single person could have in the past. The average person today is far wealthier than the average person hundreds of years ago, and we have fewer indentured servants, not more. That's because we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology. As a result, we should (and do) have far more wealthy people. Also, just mathematically speaking, more wealthy people can't mean more servants. To use an extreme example, a society with 99% wealthy people could only have 1% servants, max.

DarylZero 5y ago
OK. That's not an assumption though. I explained the reasoning behind that claim. You didn't address it. > we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology This is a different kind of "wealth." I certainly didn't mean to say anything against higher productivity etc. I was saying that if someone has more wealth measured in dollars than everyone else in society, that person then has an effective power to prey upon or parasitize those others and their children. So that kind of wealth isn't a positive thing. But technology is different.
- csallen 5y ago
  You're right, let me address your reasoning. > ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them. Yes this is true. We're all part of a vast, interconnected, capitalistic network ("the market") of who people who own/make useful things and then sell/rent/loan them to others in the network. But here's what's important: (1) Even if you're rich, you have to spend money on things created by others in the market. (2) Anyone has the ability to become a seller of things in the market. In other words, it's not about owners vs workers. Rather, it's about consumers and creators. The "and" is important, because everyone is a consumer, plus everyone has the ability to simultaneously be a creator. Being a consumer isn't a bad thing, and doesn't make you subject to rich parasites in any way that I can see. Additionally, the internet and technology are only making it easier to become a creator.

DarylZero 5y ago

OK. That's not an assumption though. I explained the reasoning behind that claim. You didn't address it. > we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology This is a different kind of "wealth." I certainly didn't mean to say anything against higher productivity etc. I was saying that if someone has more wealth measured in dollars than everyone else in society, that person then has an effective power to prey upon or parasitize those others and their children. So that kind of wealth isn't a positive thing. But technology is different.

csallen 5y ago
You're right, let me address your reasoning. > ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them. Yes this is true. We're all part of a vast, interconnected, capitalistic network ("the market") of who people who own/make useful things and then sell/rent/loan them to others in the network. But here's what's important: (1) Even if you're rich, you have to spend money on things created by others in the market. (2) Anyone has the ability to become a seller of things in the market. In other words, it's not about owners vs workers. Rather, it's about consumers and creators. The "and" is important, because everyone is a consumer, plus everyone has the ability to simultaneously be a creator. Being a consumer isn't a bad thing, and doesn't make you subject to rich parasites in any way that I can see. Additionally, the internet and technology are only making it easier to become a creator.