4 ms·

There is a fixed amount of awardable points in basketball though. The fixed amount is large and is determined by physics. Effectively though one could use as

by syki 5y ago

There is a fixed amount of awardable points in basketball though. The fixed amount is large and is determined by physics. Effectively though one could use as an upper bound 10% more points than the greatest number of points ever scored in a game. With regard to economics how much the rich have in relation to everyone else becomes a concern due to the nature of human psychology and social dynamics with regard to greed, jealousy, sense of fairness, etc. The social dynamics indicate that too much imbalance in wealth leads to societal instability. In the realm of economic theory it might not matter that there is great inequality but in the realm of politics and societal mechanics it is definitely something to pay attention to.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
> The social dynamics indicate that too much imbalance in wealth leads to societal instability. In the realm of economic theory it might not matter that there is great inequality but in the realm of politics and societal mechanics it is definitely something to pay attention to. You seem to have missed that what ties your first and second sentences together is that, above a certain level, wealth, by itself, brings political power. So, effectively, we end up with a system that's closer to $1 = 1 vote rather than 1 human = 1 vote. Understandably, the humans who only get 1 vote, while others get 1 billion votes, tend to get upset about this.
- syki 5y ago
  I didn’t miss this; I didn’t state the connection with power. The real imbalance of concern is actually not “wealth” or “money” but power. However, money is a useful proxy for power in the U.S. (and most other countries too)
dredmorbius 5y ago
Scoring opportunities may be bounded. Points are not. So long as there's an ability to make an additional score, there is no limit to the capacity to award points. No valid score will lack a point award for lack of points. The same capacity exists in an economy with a fiat currency or infinitely extensible government credit (equivalent statements FWIW). There is no limit on the government being able to award additional monetary units (points). What's upwardly bounded is the ability to produce real wealth in any given period. The analogy breaks down in the sense that points aren't transactable; there is no basketball economy in which teams exchange points for economic goods and services and engage in entrepreneurial activities to develop new point-scoring abilities within a game. And in basketball, if a score is made, the point is awarded automatically, rather than being exchanged in a market. But so far as the concept of points and monetary units not being constrained by any physical quantity, the similarity holds. I agree largely with your second paragraph, and add to that: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
- syki 5y ago
  A basketball game can’t last longer than the lifetime of the people involved. Therefore the number of points is finite. Therefore there is a max value beyond which no game can score beyond. If you wish to enlarge this max value take a fixed multiple of the number of particles in the observable universe as a max value. In a similar way the amount of money that can be created in the next X years without completely devaluing the currency is finite. Once people lose all trust in the currency it is meaningless how much one has. Therefore the amount of money (buying power) one can have is limited.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    And that's the other key point. Although there is an infinite amount of basketball points available, you can only award them when games are played. And then only at a value that people have agreed is reasonable according to the agreed rules of the games decided by the game's authorities. In monetary terms, the spending stops automatically when there is no longer anything to buy at a price worth paying. The argument is never "we can't afford it", the argument is always "it's too expensive".
    - syki 5y ago
      I think you don’t understand. There isn’t an infinite amount of points available in basketball in a similar there isn’t an infinite amount of money available. Each particle in the observable universe can contain only a finite amount of information and therefore there can’t be an infinite amount of money or basketball points because each requires “information”. It’s all constrained by the finite number of particles in the observable universe.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        Again: scoring events != awardable points. There is no bound on points. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29663864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29663864
specialist 5y ago
Just like with the economy, basketball rules are arbitrary, under constant revision. There might be a physical constraint to the current ruleset. When that becomes a problem, someone(s) will just update the rules.

by syki 5y ago

actually_a_dog 5y ago

> The social dynamics indicate that too much imbalance in wealth leads to societal instability. In the realm of economic theory it might not matter that there is great inequality but in the realm of politics and societal mechanics it is definitely something to pay attention to. You seem to have missed that what ties your first and second sentences together is that, above a certain level, wealth, by itself, brings political power. So, effectively, we end up with a system that's closer to $1 = 1 vote rather than 1 human = 1 vote. Understandably, the humans who only get 1 vote, while others get 1 billion votes, tend to get upset about this.

syki 5y ago
I didn’t miss this; I didn’t state the connection with power. The real imbalance of concern is actually not “wealth” or “money” but power. However, money is a useful proxy for power in the U.S. (and most other countries too)

dredmorbius 5y ago

Scoring opportunities may be bounded. Points are not. So long as there's an ability to make an additional score, there is no limit to the capacity to award points. No valid score will lack a point award for lack of points. The same capacity exists in an economy with a fiat currency or infinitely extensible government credit (equivalent statements FWIW). There is no limit on the government being able to award additional monetary units (points). What's upwardly bounded is the ability to produce real wealth in any given period. The analogy breaks down in the sense that points aren't transactable; there is no basketball economy in which teams exchange points for economic goods and services and engage in entrepreneurial activities to develop new point-scoring abilities within a game. And in basketball, if a score is made, the point is awarded automatically, rather than being exchanged in a market. But so far as the concept of points and monetary units not being constrained by any physical quantity, the similarity holds. I agree largely with your second paragraph, and add to that: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

syki 5y ago
A basketball game can’t last longer than the lifetime of the people involved. Therefore the number of points is finite. Therefore there is a max value beyond which no game can score beyond. If you wish to enlarge this max value take a fixed multiple of the number of particles in the observable universe as a max value. In a similar way the amount of money that can be created in the next X years without completely devaluing the currency is finite. Once people lose all trust in the currency it is meaningless how much one has. Therefore the amount of money (buying power) one can have is limited.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  And that's the other key point. Although there is an infinite amount of basketball points available, you can only award them when games are played. And then only at a value that people have agreed is reasonable according to the agreed rules of the games decided by the game's authorities. In monetary terms, the spending stops automatically when there is no longer anything to buy at a price worth paying. The argument is never "we can't afford it", the argument is always "it's too expensive".
  - syki 5y ago
    I think you don’t understand. There isn’t an infinite amount of points available in basketball in a similar there isn’t an infinite amount of money available. Each particle in the observable universe can contain only a finite amount of information and therefore there can’t be an infinite amount of money or basketball points because each requires “information”. It’s all constrained by the finite number of particles in the observable universe.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Again: scoring events != awardable points. There is no bound on points. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29663864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29663864

specialist 5y ago

Just like with the economy, basketball rules are arbitrary, under constant revision. There might be a physical constraint to the current ruleset. When that becomes a problem, someone(s) will just update the rules.