4 ms·

It seems unlikely to me that a vast majority of people with enough wealth to create a scenario like this truly created that amount of value in the first place t

It seems unlikely to me that a vast majority of people with enough wealth to create a scenario like this truly created that amount of value in the first place though. In other words, the existence of billionaires in the first place is indicative of inequality.

Jensson 4y ago
Replace an inefficient organization with a slightly less inefficient organization and you generate billions in value if it was large enough. Doesn't sound like an impossible outlier to me, there are plenty of huge inefficient organizations out there. And you can't do that with politics. The huge entrenched organization will always have way more political power than your new efficient startup, so without capitalism they will never get replaced. With capitalism it is still hard to replace then, but it is possible since you have the power of capital investors to rely on and not just politics, and that can give you enough leverage to grow your organization until it can compete with the huge old one. So the lesson is that basing all decisions in society using politics is bad. But also basing all decisions in society based on capital is also bad. You need a mix since they are good for different things.
robertlagrant 4y ago
Why are you talking about billionaires? And inequality isn't a bad thing by itself. For example, someone who chooses 120 hour weeks and stress and a heart attack at 50 will probably have an order of magnitude more money than someone who chooses a lifestyle job. That's not bad; that's a choice. Inequality is far too vague a term to be used in a debate.
- moolcool 4y ago
  > For example, someone who chooses 120 hour weeks and stress and a heart attack at 50 will probably have an order of magnitude more money than someone who chooses a lifestyle job. I really don't think that's true.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I don't know what to make of this.

Jensson 4y ago

Replace an inefficient organization with a slightly less inefficient organization and you generate billions in value if it was large enough. Doesn't sound like an impossible outlier to me, there are plenty of huge inefficient organizations out there. And you can't do that with politics. The huge entrenched organization will always have way more political power than your new efficient startup, so without capitalism they will never get replaced. With capitalism it is still hard to replace then, but it is possible since you have the power of capital investors to rely on and not just politics, and that can give you enough leverage to grow your organization until it can compete with the huge old one. So the lesson is that basing all decisions in society using politics is bad. But also basing all decisions in society based on capital is also bad. You need a mix since they are good for different things.

robertlagrant 4y ago

Why are you talking about billionaires? And inequality isn't a bad thing by itself. For example, someone who chooses 120 hour weeks and stress and a heart attack at 50 will probably have an order of magnitude more money than someone who chooses a lifestyle job. That's not bad; that's a choice. Inequality is far too vague a term to be used in a debate.

moolcool 4y ago
> For example, someone who chooses 120 hour weeks and stress and a heart attack at 50 will probably have an order of magnitude more money than someone who chooses a lifestyle job. I really don't think that's true.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I don't know what to make of this.