3 ms·

The problem is not the billionaire-as-an-individual, but the billionaire-as-a-signifier-of-concentration-of-wealth: > If we suppose that the goal of society is

The problem is not the billionaire-as-an-individual, but the billionaire-as-a-signifier-of-concentration-of-wealth: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. * aninhumer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 Now, perfect equality is probably equality as bad, as there's no (extrinsic) incentive to make things better and be (externally) rewarded for it, but the US is back at the point of being back in the Gilded Age: * https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/forget-the-1 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/f... * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/wealth-becoming-more-concentrated-richest-families https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/weal... Billionaires are "bad" because they signify concentration of wealth/power that can skew the working of the democratic process where each citizen has an equal say in the direction a country should go.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
I think this take hits on a good point worth exploring. I've also noticed that people generally fall into these two groups and end up talking past each other when ever this topic comes up - myself included. I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. On the other side, I suspect there are those who are frustrated by the argument that "billionaires are not bad" because they observe the huge levels of inequality that currently exist and conclude that this can't possibly be an efficient use of resources. I think there is a middle ground. Clearly, some level of differential reward structure in society is necessary to maximise innovation and productivity. But perhaps the current levels of inequality are also sub-optimal. However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. Perhaps part of the solution might involve reducing barriers to entry so that more people can participate in the market. It's also worth highlighting that most wealth is created, not transferred. Most billionaires (in a free market) become so by creating valuable businesses and producing value. If Jeff Bezos never created Amazon and never became a billionaire, we'd all be poorer, not richer.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. When individuals hold massive amounts of wealth, they are de-facto no longer bound by the laws that bind the ordinary people, since they can influence the very politicians that are supposed to incentivize and reward productivity over idleness. When a human has some kind of power, they will do anything not to lose it - that's a fundamental property of humans. "Person has money, therefore person brought value" makes sense in theory, but in practice it seems that the most effective ways to obtain massive amounts of wealth contain fair amounts of corruption, fraud and swindle. There isn't a single billionaire in history that hasn't been eventually revealed to have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth, most of which could be argued to bring more harm to the society than the value that was brought in the first place. John D. Rockefeller and the destruction of the public transportation system comes to mind as an example. > However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. The point of the video is not that we should re-distribute the wealth of the billionaires more - it's that we should stop them from not paying taxes that are already in place, by closing off the various loopholes that allow them to have their cake and eat it too.
  - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
    > in practice it seems that the most effective ways to obtain massive amounts of wealth contain fair amounts of corruption, fraud and swindle. I don't think this is true. It may make for a comfortable story to tell ourselves, but I think if we examine the data, it would show that the most effective way to obtain - and maintain - massive amounts of wealth involves a lot of hard work, producing value, and yes, even a fair helping of luck. > There isn't a single billionaire in history that hasn't been eventually revealed to have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth, most of which could be argued to bring more harm to the society than the value that was brought in the first place. This seems more like observation bias to me. Could you not also say that a mugger or drug dealer has done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth? I can understand there is a common desire to hold wealthy people to higher moral standards than "normal" people - but that seems both unrealistic and ethically misguided. I'm not saying they should have no accountability, only that we should recognise that if given the opportunity, most people would behave the same or worse. Further, I wouldn't necessarily concede that the assertion that all or most billionaires have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth is true. Certainly some have, but most have not. I think it's also worth recognising that wealthy people have an entire set of problems that is not often discussed - they are constant targets of fraudsters and con artists. Think how that might affect one's outlook and interactions.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago

I think this take hits on a good point worth exploring. I've also noticed that people generally fall into these two groups and end up talking past each other when ever this topic comes up - myself included. I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. On the other side, I suspect there are those who are frustrated by the argument that "billionaires are not bad" because they observe the huge levels of inequality that currently exist and conclude that this can't possibly be an efficient use of resources. I think there is a middle ground. Clearly, some level of differential reward structure in society is necessary to maximise innovation and productivity. But perhaps the current levels of inequality are also sub-optimal. However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. Perhaps part of the solution might involve reducing barriers to entry so that more people can participate in the market. It's also worth highlighting that most wealth is created, not transferred. Most billionaires (in a free market) become so by creating valuable businesses and producing value. If Jeff Bezos never created Amazon and never became a billionaire, we'd all be poorer, not richer.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. When individuals hold massive amounts of wealth, they are de-facto no longer bound by the laws that bind the ordinary people, since they can influence the very politicians that are supposed to incentivize and reward productivity over idleness. When a human has some kind of power, they will do anything not to lose it - that's a fundamental property of humans. "Person has money, therefore person brought value" makes sense in theory, but in practice it seems that the most effective ways to obtain massive amounts of wealth contain fair amounts of corruption, fraud and swindle. There isn't a single billionaire in history that hasn't been eventually revealed to have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth, most of which could be argued to bring more harm to the society than the value that was brought in the first place. John D. Rockefeller and the destruction of the public transportation system comes to mind as an example. > However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. The point of the video is not that we should re-distribute the wealth of the billionaires more - it's that we should stop them from not paying taxes that are already in place, by closing off the various loopholes that allow them to have their cake and eat it too.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  > in practice it seems that the most effective ways to obtain massive amounts of wealth contain fair amounts of corruption, fraud and swindle. I don't think this is true. It may make for a comfortable story to tell ourselves, but I think if we examine the data, it would show that the most effective way to obtain - and maintain - massive amounts of wealth involves a lot of hard work, producing value, and yes, even a fair helping of luck. > There isn't a single billionaire in history that hasn't been eventually revealed to have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth, most of which could be argued to bring more harm to the society than the value that was brought in the first place. This seems more like observation bias to me. Could you not also say that a mugger or drug dealer has done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth? I can understand there is a common desire to hold wealthy people to higher moral standards than "normal" people - but that seems both unrealistic and ethically misguided. I'm not saying they should have no accountability, only that we should recognise that if given the opportunity, most people would behave the same or worse. Further, I wouldn't necessarily concede that the assertion that all or most billionaires have done terrible things to gain, keep or increase their wealth is true. Certainly some have, but most have not. I think it's also worth recognising that wealthy people have an entire set of problems that is not often discussed - they are constant targets of fraudsters and con artists. Think how that might affect one's outlook and interactions.