3 ms·

What do you mean by "deserve"? It looks like you are making some kind of hidden morality market, where market gains are or should be distributed according to so

by smsm42 3y ago

What do you mean by "deserve"? It looks like you are making some kind of hidden morality market, where market gains are or should be distributed according to some kind of moral merit, based on unspecified criteria. But no market in the history of humanity has ever worked that way. I think it's safe to assume none ever will. So what's the point? Yes, it's not "fair" that some people are born in better circumstances and some in worse, some are lucky and some are not, so what? Yes, the son of Bill Gates has a huge "unfair advantage" over me whose parents are not billionaires. So what?

medvezhenok 3y ago
The point is, the more that gains are distributed randomly in society (and not due to productive effort or doing something useful), the more unstable a society becomes. Sort of how the Weimar hyperinflation in the 1920s (which exacerbated the feeling that things are unfair) set the stage for the rise of Hitler in the 30s. If taken to the extreme, it leads to the collapse of law&order. It’s also why feudal systems were inherently unstable and suffered many uprisings.
- smsm42 3y ago
  Weimar wasn't random in any way or form. A lot of purposeful action went into making Weimar what it was, and the subsequent events what they were. It wasn't the result of random distribution of gains, it was a result of many purposeful actions of many people. Inflation included of course.
  - medvezhenok 3y ago
    The randomness depends on the perspective - I'm sure that for the people in power or in the know it was not random, but to a random peasant/worker in Germany, it probably seemed pretty random. Same as stock market investing - you can say that the profits are due to smart investing, but you can't ignore all of the centralized decision makers that put their thumb on the scale (i.e. 2008 bailouts?), which preference specific outcomes. In fact, this intervention makes the resulting disparate outcomes worse than random in the eyes of many people (i.e. people are more willing to accept the winner of a random lottery than a lottery that they believe was rigged).

by smsm42 3y ago

medvezhenok 3y ago

The point is, the more that gains are distributed randomly in society (and not due to productive effort or doing something useful), the more unstable a society becomes. Sort of how the Weimar hyperinflation in the 1920s (which exacerbated the feeling that things are unfair) set the stage for the rise of Hitler in the 30s. If taken to the extreme, it leads to the collapse of law&order. It’s also why feudal systems were inherently unstable and suffered many uprisings.

smsm42 3y ago
Weimar wasn't random in any way or form. A lot of purposeful action went into making Weimar what it was, and the subsequent events what they were. It wasn't the result of random distribution of gains, it was a result of many purposeful actions of many people. Inflation included of course.
- medvezhenok 3y ago
  The randomness depends on the perspective - I'm sure that for the people in power or in the know it was not random, but to a random peasant/worker in Germany, it probably seemed pretty random. Same as stock market investing - you can say that the profits are due to smart investing, but you can't ignore all of the centralized decision makers that put their thumb on the scale (i.e. 2008 bailouts?), which preference specific outcomes. In fact, this intervention makes the resulting disparate outcomes worse than random in the eyes of many people (i.e. people are more willing to accept the winner of a random lottery than a lottery that they believe was rigged).