4 ms·

I'm generally not in favor of violence but it's probably worthwhile for the very rich to remember that it's an option when they get more "win more" mechanics an

I'm generally not in favor of violence but it's probably worthwhile for the very rich to remember that it's an option when they get more "win more" mechanics and successfully block the "catch up" mechanics in society. These apparent 'victories' for the rich prevent the gradual release of "pressure" and sets up the system to explosively pop. The "I deserve this" ideology is a great danger to the super-wealthy because it blinds them to the more profound truth: unbalanced games are not fun and ultimately fail. Arguing against game balance because you've used (maybe even discovered) degenerate strats to acquire a huge resource lead is immature and short-sighted because if the game itself fails none of those resources will have any value.

mjburgess 4y ago
You'd have to square this against the significant wealth of those who are best able to revolt, ie., all of us. The historical standard of "wealth" for revolution was basically "none". Once you hit mass starvation, you're there. Violent revolutions are conducted either by the court (of the king) who use the desperation of the very poor; or by envious almost-wealthies likewise able to rabble-rouse the very poor. The problem you have with your theory is: we are all very rich against the "revolt wealth" standard. Greece, post-crisis, lost 25% of its GDP. If that had occurred in almost any decade in human history there would be a violent revolt. Today a loss of 25% GDP goes from very rich, to quite rich. Almost everyone who could revolt is far too wealthy to risk it. The european poor arent going to risk their benefits to revolt against taxpayers. These benefits constitute an insurmountable wealth-floor on revolution. The rich can do whatever they like, envy isn't enough here.
- javajosh 4y ago
  I'm not a historian, let alone of revolutions. I've heard it said too that starvation is the only thing that really causes a revolt - and yet I know of at least one counter-example, the American Revolution. That revolution happened because the King would neither address the needs of the colonists nor allow them to address their own needs, and felt his position was so dominant that the colonists had no choice but to accept his rebuke. Perhaps if the King had been more considerate of the colonists' needs there would have been no revolution, and England could have traded away a small fraction of control to retain an enormous chunk of empire. I think the parallels to the modern situation are clear.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >That revolution happened because the King would neither address the needs of the colonists nor allow them to address their own needs, and felt his position was so dominant that the colonists had no choice but to accept his rebuke. The elite landowning gentry unhappy with British taxation, not the colonists per se, most of whom were quite happy to remain British or were undecided on the matter. Popular support came later by means of effective propaganda, such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," not grassroots sentiment.
- euroderf 4y ago
  This reminds me of a friend's observation: that here in Finland (a "welfare state") you do not see a lot of police out. My friend's theory was that social services forestall social desperation, keeping the crime rate lower. An insurmountable income-floor on criminality.

mjburgess 4y ago

You'd have to square this against the significant wealth of those who are best able to revolt, ie., all of us. The historical standard of "wealth" for revolution was basically "none". Once you hit mass starvation, you're there. Violent revolutions are conducted either by the court (of the king) who use the desperation of the very poor; or by envious almost-wealthies likewise able to rabble-rouse the very poor. The problem you have with your theory is: we are all very rich against the "revolt wealth" standard. Greece, post-crisis, lost 25% of its GDP. If that had occurred in almost any decade in human history there would be a violent revolt. Today a loss of 25% GDP goes from very rich, to quite rich. Almost everyone who could revolt is far too wealthy to risk it. The european poor arent going to risk their benefits to revolt against taxpayers. These benefits constitute an insurmountable wealth-floor on revolution. The rich can do whatever they like, envy isn't enough here.

javajosh 4y ago
I'm not a historian, let alone of revolutions. I've heard it said too that starvation is the only thing that really causes a revolt - and yet I know of at least one counter-example, the American Revolution. That revolution happened because the King would neither address the needs of the colonists nor allow them to address their own needs, and felt his position was so dominant that the colonists had no choice but to accept his rebuke. Perhaps if the King had been more considerate of the colonists' needs there would have been no revolution, and England could have traded away a small fraction of control to retain an enormous chunk of empire. I think the parallels to the modern situation are clear.
- krapp 4y ago
  >That revolution happened because the King would neither address the needs of the colonists nor allow them to address their own needs, and felt his position was so dominant that the colonists had no choice but to accept his rebuke. The elite landowning gentry unhappy with British taxation, not the colonists per se, most of whom were quite happy to remain British or were undecided on the matter. Popular support came later by means of effective propaganda, such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," not grassroots sentiment.
euroderf 4y ago
This reminds me of a friend's observation: that here in Finland (a "welfare state") you do not see a lot of police out. My friend's theory was that social services forestall social desperation, keeping the crime rate lower. An insurmountable income-floor on criminality.