5 ms·

This piece seems like little more than a reminder that having billions of dollars allows you to engage in your interests. If your interests or priorities are to

This piece seems like little more than a reminder that having billions of dollars allows you to engage in your interests. If your interests or priorities are to invest in hard tech, thats awesome. Lots of other billionares do nothing. Some of them build yachts. Otherwise there are lots of more interesting people with ideas about why large systems arent working. Suggesting free market ideaology is the part thats “missing” from anything ignores the part about the free market not being one in the first place.

WalterBright 4y ago
> Lots of other billionares do nothing. They still invest their money. It isn't placed in a Scrooge McDuck cash vault.
- some_furry 4y ago
  They invest in companies with a safe ROI, borrow against their assets, and live off their loans until they die to avoid taxation. That's not quite comparable.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Um, the assets they borrow against are invested. They run out of money if those investments are unsuccessful, or if they borrow too much. > That's not quite comparable Yeah, it is the same thing. Saying labor is what adds value is just another facet of the "Labor Theory of Value" which has been thoroughly discredited.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- vouaobrasil 4y ago
  If all billionaires actually did place all their money in a Scrooge McDuck cash vault and locked it there for good like Scrooge did, it would actually be good for the rest of us in one way: the value of our money would go up. To illustrate this, imagine an expensive sports car. It's only expensive because there are people that can pay for it. If everyone who could afford it locked their money up and stopped spending, the person who wanted to sell that car would have to sell it at a much lower price if they wanted to sell it at all.
  - cowpig 4y ago
    No it wouldn't, the movement of money is what drives an economy. Think of it this way: Alice has a dollar, gives it to person Bob for the food they grow, who gives it to person Clarice for the clothes they make, who gives it to person A again for their art. Each of Alice, Bob, and Clarice made a dollar and got something they wanted for that dollar. If Alice instead decides to hoard the dollar, nobody makes any income and there is no economy.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      What happens under those circumstances is they barter. Barter is inefficient, but it's better than nothing.
    - vouaobrasil 4y ago
      I didn't say if everyone locked their money away it would be good, just if billionaires did it. Alice and Bob would still buy clothes and food. 99% (or some high percentage) of the world would still be buying and selling stuff, just not billionaires under my thought experiment. There would still be a large movement of money.
      - tmikaeld 4y ago
        Then you'd take away the demand for such luxury items, they wouldn't be made, so who benefits?
        yunwal 4y ago
        You do because instead of resources being diverted to building mega-yachts and private jets, they will be used on resources for the non-ultra-rich
    - simne 4y ago
      > If Alice instead decides to hoard the dollar, nobody makes any income and there is no economy. It is not truth. Money is not just papers, or numbers, they are equivalents of products and services. And for real economy is totally normal, to hoard resources. Sure, ideal abstract hoarding is harmful, but in real life, exists hoarding with purpose, or some strategy involving hoarding. For example, one could hoard money in cash, enough to pay all his credits bodies. Other examples, in retail, typical shop have warehouse, with products for few days of trade - this is hoarding 100%; near all enterprises have warehouses, for at least few weeks of work; when products shipped via sea on cargo ship, these ships become moving warehouses. Now, imagine, hoarding disappear. From first look it have some pros - warehouses costs money and they added to costs of products and services. But if You'll look deep, You'll see, that products and services are not done instantly, exists some lag, from decision to make, to delivery. - Hoarding working as buffer, so we don't have to wait, we could buy products and services immediately, from warehouse. For enterprises things are even more significant, because they have huge costs cut, because buying large amount of some resources, for few months in advance (or even for few years), could be magnitudes cheaper, than jit buy small daily batches. Other important consideration, transportation is not 100% reliable. Exists possibility, that truck with resources (parts) will delay somewhere or just broken, and if You have not hoarded equivalent resources, Your enterprise will stop working, until these unlucky truck finish it's trip.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
divergentnote 4y ago
Even if a billionaire did nothing but build yachts, they would still be doing something for the economy, and likely a more positive thing than what an average person does with their daily activities.

WalterBright 4y ago

> Lots of other billionares do nothing. They still invest their money. It isn't placed in a Scrooge McDuck cash vault.

some_furry 4y ago
They invest in companies with a safe ROI, borrow against their assets, and live off their loans until they die to avoid taxation. That's not quite comparable.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Um, the assets they borrow against are invested. They run out of money if those investments are unsuccessful, or if they borrow too much. > That's not quite comparable Yeah, it is the same thing. Saying labor is what adds value is just another facet of the "Labor Theory of Value" which has been thoroughly discredited.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
vouaobrasil 4y ago
If all billionaires actually did place all their money in a Scrooge McDuck cash vault and locked it there for good like Scrooge did, it would actually be good for the rest of us in one way: the value of our money would go up. To illustrate this, imagine an expensive sports car. It's only expensive because there are people that can pay for it. If everyone who could afford it locked their money up and stopped spending, the person who wanted to sell that car would have to sell it at a much lower price if they wanted to sell it at all.
- cowpig 4y ago
  No it wouldn't, the movement of money is what drives an economy. Think of it this way: Alice has a dollar, gives it to person Bob for the food they grow, who gives it to person Clarice for the clothes they make, who gives it to person A again for their art. Each of Alice, Bob, and Clarice made a dollar and got something they wanted for that dollar. If Alice instead decides to hoard the dollar, nobody makes any income and there is no economy.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    What happens under those circumstances is they barter. Barter is inefficient, but it's better than nothing.
  - vouaobrasil 4y ago
    I didn't say if everyone locked their money away it would be good, just if billionaires did it. Alice and Bob would still buy clothes and food. 99% (or some high percentage) of the world would still be buying and selling stuff, just not billionaires under my thought experiment. There would still be a large movement of money.
    - tmikaeld 4y ago
      Then you'd take away the demand for such luxury items, they wouldn't be made, so who benefits?
      - yunwal 4y ago
        You do because instead of resources being diverted to building mega-yachts and private jets, they will be used on resources for the non-ultra-rich
  - simne 4y ago
    > If Alice instead decides to hoard the dollar, nobody makes any income and there is no economy. It is not truth. Money is not just papers, or numbers, they are equivalents of products and services. And for real economy is totally normal, to hoard resources. Sure, ideal abstract hoarding is harmful, but in real life, exists hoarding with purpose, or some strategy involving hoarding. For example, one could hoard money in cash, enough to pay all his credits bodies. Other examples, in retail, typical shop have warehouse, with products for few days of trade - this is hoarding 100%; near all enterprises have warehouses, for at least few weeks of work; when products shipped via sea on cargo ship, these ships become moving warehouses. Now, imagine, hoarding disappear. From first look it have some pros - warehouses costs money and they added to costs of products and services. But if You'll look deep, You'll see, that products and services are not done instantly, exists some lag, from decision to make, to delivery. - Hoarding working as buffer, so we don't have to wait, we could buy products and services immediately, from warehouse. For enterprises things are even more significant, because they have huge costs cut, because buying large amount of some resources, for few months in advance (or even for few years), could be magnitudes cheaper, than jit buy small daily batches. Other important consideration, transportation is not 100% reliable. Exists possibility, that truck with resources (parts) will delay somewhere or just broken, and if You have not hoarded equivalent resources, Your enterprise will stop working, until these unlucky truck finish it's trip.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

divergentnote 4y ago

Even if a billionaire did nothing but build yachts, they would still be doing something for the economy, and likely a more positive thing than what an average person does with their daily activities.