4 ms·
"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
by 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 agoIt’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 agoWe 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.