3 ms·

But think of the efficiency! It was dry, but the funny bit, I think, is that Terran civilization can somehow get along without its billionaires.

_jal 5y ago
Billionaires are not required for civilization. Put aside the hereditary wealthy, whom I don't think you're thinking of, either. The existence of billionaires is an artifact of inefficient legal and economic systems, and the set of people who would work hard at whatever example you're thinking of for $billions but not for lesser, but still extreme, wealth is null. Discuss.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Money serves two purposes, rewarding people and putting control of resources in the hands of people and institutions most able to invest them wisely. Billionaires are not necessary for the first but they are for the second. If you think that a billion-dollar company can exist, then combining what we know about the inefficiency of committees with that fact we arrive at the conclusion that perhaps some people can reasonably be given control of billions as well. Billionaires spend a small fraction of their money on superyachts and keep most of it invested which is the system working if you believe in it.
  - joshuahaglund 5y ago
    We haven't always had this extreme degree of income and wealth inequality. Investments still happened.
  - catlifeonmars 5y ago
    While I think you’re correct that money can serve those two purposes, I don’t think that it in fact does so universally or exclusively, or even necessarily intentionally.
  - LeonB 5y ago
    I don’t know if you’ve spotted this - but money serves a couple of other purposes too. Some people use money to destroy or buy out their competitors. Some people use money to bribe or corrupt politicians and by extension to corrupt the entire democratic process. Some people use money to influence the media. And in these and many other ways, money can be used to make even more money in a runaway cycle without there being an efficient allocation of resources.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      On an abstract level, money can buy politicians, but politicians can redistribute money to buy votes (and maybe save a cut for themselves). I have always wondered why one of those happens but the other does not.
      - LeonB 5y ago
        Wait, what? Is there a typo or a missing word there? Both of those happen quite a lot. Bribery, political donations, Lobbying (in its worst forms), campaigning (in its worst forms), and pork barrelling all happen over and over. There are also a lot of harder-to-prove forms of political corruption, such as when a politician uses their power to benefit a company or industry, and then after retiring from politics they are given lucrative work with those same companies or in that industry. (And many many variations on this theme.)
        whatshisface 5y ago
        They both happen, but what we hear is not dire warnings of how the public is ransacking corporations, but the other way around.
        LeonB 5y ago
        What percent of the general public would be interested in ransacking corporations? and by this we mean taking money specifically, not just damaging their reputations, nor necessarily locking them up for their crimes. Generally the law makers have made laws against Free agents (ie competitors) from colluding.
  - Terry_Roll 5y ago
    > Billionaires spend a small fraction of their money on superyachts and keep most of it invested which is the system working if you believe in it. But in the event of a major war, and if it goes nuclear, biological or chemical, the billionaires can hole up on their yachts and ride it out in the relative safety of the middle of the ocean, just like the film Waterworld but less apocalyptic, so was the system working or is this why sanctions have been imposed? Its not like any of these billionaires can just take off now is it?

_jal 5y ago

Billionaires are not required for civilization. Put aside the hereditary wealthy, whom I don't think you're thinking of, either. The existence of billionaires is an artifact of inefficient legal and economic systems, and the set of people who would work hard at whatever example you're thinking of for $billions but not for lesser, but still extreme, wealth is null. Discuss.

whatshisface 5y ago
Money serves two purposes, rewarding people and putting control of resources in the hands of people and institutions most able to invest them wisely. Billionaires are not necessary for the first but they are for the second. If you think that a billion-dollar company can exist, then combining what we know about the inefficiency of committees with that fact we arrive at the conclusion that perhaps some people can reasonably be given control of billions as well. Billionaires spend a small fraction of their money on superyachts and keep most of it invested which is the system working if you believe in it.
- joshuahaglund 5y ago
  We haven't always had this extreme degree of income and wealth inequality. Investments still happened.
- catlifeonmars 5y ago
  While I think you’re correct that money can serve those two purposes, I don’t think that it in fact does so universally or exclusively, or even necessarily intentionally.
- LeonB 5y ago
  I don’t know if you’ve spotted this - but money serves a couple of other purposes too. Some people use money to destroy or buy out their competitors. Some people use money to bribe or corrupt politicians and by extension to corrupt the entire democratic process. Some people use money to influence the media. And in these and many other ways, money can be used to make even more money in a runaway cycle without there being an efficient allocation of resources.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    On an abstract level, money can buy politicians, but politicians can redistribute money to buy votes (and maybe save a cut for themselves). I have always wondered why one of those happens but the other does not.
    - LeonB 5y ago
      Wait, what? Is there a typo or a missing word there? Both of those happen quite a lot. Bribery, political donations, Lobbying (in its worst forms), campaigning (in its worst forms), and pork barrelling all happen over and over. There are also a lot of harder-to-prove forms of political corruption, such as when a politician uses their power to benefit a company or industry, and then after retiring from politics they are given lucrative work with those same companies or in that industry. (And many many variations on this theme.)
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        They both happen, but what we hear is not dire warnings of how the public is ransacking corporations, but the other way around.
        LeonB 5y ago
        What percent of the general public would be interested in ransacking corporations? and by this we mean taking money specifically, not just damaging their reputations, nor necessarily locking them up for their crimes. Generally the law makers have made laws against Free agents (ie competitors) from colluding.
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  > Billionaires spend a small fraction of their money on superyachts and keep most of it invested which is the system working if you believe in it. But in the event of a major war, and if it goes nuclear, biological or chemical, the billionaires can hole up on their yachts and ride it out in the relative safety of the middle of the ocean, just like the film Waterworld but less apocalyptic, so was the system working or is this why sanctions have been imposed? Its not like any of these billionaires can just take off now is it?