4 ms·

The few with money are still a fairly large class. They are also paltry in wealth as compared to the masses aka govt spending. It is ok that many of these fail

The few with money are still a fairly large class. They are also paltry in wealth as compared to the masses aka govt spending. It is ok that many of these fails. Some will work (wikipedia, khan academy etc). We should only require that things are being tried.

mola 3y ago
No, these wealthy few are not paltry compared to governments, they used to be. But not anymore. Plus, they took control the government through corruption. Wikipedia is mostly a success of the many, both with the many contributing content and editing and by the many contributing the funds to operate. If it wouldve been funded by someone like gates, it'd be a corrupt for profit ad ridden platform. Not because gates is evil, mind you, it's because gates bias leads him to believe for profit enterprises are the solution for everything. Anyway, i agree experimentation is needed, that's why I was talking about averaging out biases. I just don't agree that the darwinistic model that caused wealth to concentrate to be the best model to achieve this.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  If you're going to make assertions, you can put numbers and sources behind them. E.g. "The richest 10% of the global population own 76% of all wealth." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59565690 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59565690 Or Table 4-5: "Wealth shares and minimum wealth of deciles and top percentiles for regions and selected countries, 2021", p.140 https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-databook-2022.pdf https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/ab...
  - defendBanana 3y ago
    Is that the right statistics here though? Billionaire classes ability to spend should be compared with governments ability to spend. This is not same as wealth.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    That wealth is mostly an unhelpful value based on number of shares in businesses multiplied by that business's share value today. Those businesses are valuable because they do useful things. We can't release that wealth to pay for things. This is the problem with the word "wealth".
    - jabradoodle 3y ago
      Well yes you can sell shares, maybe not all of them at once if you have enough. Still not sure what your point is, that doesn't mean wealth is not extremely unevenly distributed.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Wealth isn't value, it's power. If you own 3% of Alphabet, you can do things others can't.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        "can do things others can't" isn't the thing we want to stop, though. Wealth isn't bad for those who focus on creating value, just as strength isn't bad for those who are in the gym 6 days a week.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        It's not healthy to a democracy to have power concentrated, because invariably it leads to a less diverse set of opinions on consequential decisions. Even if (and big if!) we say that wealth/power-alone doesn't make people think differently, you're sampling from a much smaller population. And I'd need some convincing on "I don't know how much a gallon of milk costs" not changing a person's perspective.
johnchristopher 3y ago
> The few with money are still a fairly large class. They are also paltry in wealth as compared to the masses aka govt spending. Governments must spend much more of their treasure chest (when they have one) than billionaires and are scrutinized more heavily. Risks are not the same. Ultra rich are way more capable of corrupting governments than the masses which gives them even more power.

mola 3y ago

No, these wealthy few are not paltry compared to governments, they used to be. But not anymore. Plus, they took control the government through corruption. Wikipedia is mostly a success of the many, both with the many contributing content and editing and by the many contributing the funds to operate. If it wouldve been funded by someone like gates, it'd be a corrupt for profit ad ridden platform. Not because gates is evil, mind you, it's because gates bias leads him to believe for profit enterprises are the solution for everything. Anyway, i agree experimentation is needed, that's why I was talking about averaging out biases. I just don't agree that the darwinistic model that caused wealth to concentrate to be the best model to achieve this.

ethbr1 3y ago
If you're going to make assertions, you can put numbers and sources behind them. E.g. "The richest 10% of the global population own 76% of all wealth." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59565690 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59565690 Or Table 4-5: "Wealth shares and minimum wealth of deciles and top percentiles for regions and selected countries, 2021", p.140 https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-databook-2022.pdf https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/ab...
- defendBanana 3y ago
  Is that the right statistics here though? Billionaire classes ability to spend should be compared with governments ability to spend. This is not same as wealth.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  That wealth is mostly an unhelpful value based on number of shares in businesses multiplied by that business's share value today. Those businesses are valuable because they do useful things. We can't release that wealth to pay for things. This is the problem with the word "wealth".
  - jabradoodle 3y ago
    Well yes you can sell shares, maybe not all of them at once if you have enough. Still not sure what your point is, that doesn't mean wealth is not extremely unevenly distributed.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Wealth isn't value, it's power. If you own 3% of Alphabet, you can do things others can't.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      "can do things others can't" isn't the thing we want to stop, though. Wealth isn't bad for those who focus on creating value, just as strength isn't bad for those who are in the gym 6 days a week.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        It's not healthy to a democracy to have power concentrated, because invariably it leads to a less diverse set of opinions on consequential decisions. Even if (and big if!) we say that wealth/power-alone doesn't make people think differently, you're sampling from a much smaller population. And I'd need some convincing on "I don't know how much a gallon of milk costs" not changing a person's perspective.

johnchristopher 3y ago

> The few with money are still a fairly large class. They are also paltry in wealth as compared to the masses aka govt spending. Governments must spend much more of their treasure chest (when they have one) than billionaires and are scrutinized more heavily. Risks are not the same. Ultra rich are way more capable of corrupting governments than the masses which gives them even more power.