4 ms·

The immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future. Not in every

by tlb 4y ago

The immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future. Not in every case, of course, but in aggregate. This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed rather than things that fail.

1270018080 4y ago
Economic natural selection?
acchow 4y ago
> The immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future After the crypto bubble collapses, I think what we'll discover is that it was a great mechanism to transfer wealth out of people who badly want to predict the future to people who have so much money that they don't really care how it plays out - it's just some small percentage hedge of their gigantic portfolio. This is one reason bubbles are so harmful to regular people - if they join in, they could lose their shirts. But the truly wealthy are just picking between years of underperforming returns vs risk.
TheDong 4y ago
"This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed" This argument doesn't clearly stand on its own in my opinion. It starts with the implicit assumption that profit is in fact a determiner of societal good, that a soup kitchen which gives away food is not doing any good since they have no profit, while an HFT firm who notices some minor inefficiency in the stock market and makes billions is doing lots of societal good, that the government maintaining roads is less good than a contractor who is able to profit 5x as much by over-charging the taxpayer. I think the increasing wealth divide is clearly good for the rich, but I question if it's good for society as a whole.
- Siira 4y ago
  It’s of course very complicated, but the hypothesis is not implausible. A recent example is Twitter. Musk spent a ton of money to buy it, which will probably improve the service, while Musk himself doesn’t gain much physical resources in the exchange. (If he succeeds in fixing Twitter up, he would get a status boost, but that is counterbalanced by the deboost he’d get if he fails.)
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    We can stay basic. If wealth inequality and the benefits people like Musk get over others isn’t an enormous problem in and of itself. it breaks any data or evidence based notions of “people who are good at betting on the future” and so on. The powerful are the ones who influence the future the most. Protected more, etc. How many people would be able to buy their own version of Twitter that is analogous to their net worth in the way Musk did? Not that many people. Your average person isn’t getting the sort of loans or interest rates. Or other supposedly good at predicting the future but again they are also the most powerful. Like the $7B+ Musk has raised from other investors so far.
ShamelessC 4y ago
That's incredibly naive.
worik 4y ago
> The immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future. No The effect is transfer money from unlucky to lucky fools. Nothing in that is good for anything, not even the "lucky fools". You are lucky once, not next time. Being a fool is not shameful. But you need to know yourself and stay out of speculative markets
tonguez 4y ago
“This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed rather than things that fail.” interesting how in your model wealth inequality doesn’t affect society at all. if one guy has a trillion and everyone else has a penny, it’s good for our society, bc he will invest in things that succeed, because no one else has a chance to succeed.

by tlb 4y ago

1270018080 4y ago

Economic natural selection?

acchow 4y ago

> The immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future After the crypto bubble collapses, I think what we'll discover is that it was a great mechanism to transfer wealth out of people who badly want to predict the future to people who have so much money that they don't really care how it plays out - it's just some small percentage hedge of their gigantic portfolio. This is one reason bubbles are so harmful to regular people - if they join in, they could lose their shirts. But the truly wealthy are just picking between years of underperforming returns vs risk.

TheDong 4y ago

"This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed" This argument doesn't clearly stand on its own in my opinion. It starts with the implicit assumption that profit is in fact a determiner of societal good, that a soup kitchen which gives away food is not doing any good since they have no profit, while an HFT firm who notices some minor inefficiency in the stock market and makes billions is doing lots of societal good, that the government maintaining roads is less good than a contractor who is able to profit 5x as much by over-charging the taxpayer. I think the increasing wealth divide is clearly good for the rich, but I question if it's good for society as a whole.

Siira 4y ago
It’s of course very complicated, but the hypothesis is not implausible. A recent example is Twitter. Musk spent a ton of money to buy it, which will probably improve the service, while Musk himself doesn’t gain much physical resources in the exchange. (If he succeeds in fixing Twitter up, he would get a status boost, but that is counterbalanced by the deboost he’d get if he fails.)
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  We can stay basic. If wealth inequality and the benefits people like Musk get over others isn’t an enormous problem in and of itself. it breaks any data or evidence based notions of “people who are good at betting on the future” and so on. The powerful are the ones who influence the future the most. Protected more, etc. How many people would be able to buy their own version of Twitter that is analogous to their net worth in the way Musk did? Not that many people. Your average person isn’t getting the sort of loans or interest rates. Or other supposedly good at predicting the future but again they are also the most powerful. Like the $7B+ Musk has raised from other investors so far.

ShamelessC 4y ago

That's incredibly naive.

worik 4y ago

> The immediate effect is that money is transferred from people who are bad at predicting the future to people who are good at predicting the future. No The effect is transfer money from unlucky to lucky fools. Nothing in that is good for anything, not even the "lucky fools". You are lucky once, not next time. Being a fool is not shameful. But you need to know yourself and stay out of speculative markets

tonguez 4y ago

“This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed rather than things that fail.” interesting how in your model wealth inequality doesn’t affect society at all. if one guy has a trillion and everyone else has a penny, it’s good for our society, bc he will invest in things that succeed, because no one else has a chance to succeed.