3 ms·

Much better to have a large number of wealthy actors deciding how to allocate capital than just one (the government). Certainly we can do with higher taxes for

Much better to have a large number of wealthy actors deciding how to allocate capital than just one (the government). Certainly we can do with higher taxes for the ultra wealthy though. It's hard to imagine what one can do with 100 billion dollars that you can't do with 10 billion.....

devbent 3y ago
Let's just have a really large number of reasonably well to do actors deciding how to allocate capital. After all, wisdom of the crowds and all that!
- rockemsockem 3y ago
  I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. It seems impossible to perfectly allocate capital, of course there will be stupid and actively harmful allocations. But the government does both of those things too. So yes it is legitimately good to have a really large number of actors allocating capital, to in ADDITION to the government.
  - devbent 3y ago
    > I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Kind of. If the premise that government + a few rich people is a better way to spend $ (e.g. our current system !) then how about we also try government + spreading $ around so a lot of people are well off and can "allocate capital". The fact is a rising tide lifts all boats.
    - rockemsockem 3y ago
      I certainly think our current system is better than 0 rich people. I think a better system would include more money spread around the middle class, fewer people in poverty, and a larger number of rich people with fewer individuals having > 10 billion dollars. That makes it harder for a small group of rich folks to band together to screw up democracy since there should, presumably, be greater diversity of opinions in the group of rich folks. The main post is literally saying "no rich people" so that's the part I'm focusing on, but yes the middle class in America needs far more help than it's getting.
DrNosferatu 3y ago
But the government is (in principle) elected democratically.
- rockemsockem 3y ago
  That doesn't mean it always makes the best decisions. It seems valuable to have those who are so inclined with enough resources to try things that the government can't or won't try. We've gotten so many good things through this process. I'm not saying the government shouldn't do stuff, it very much should.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    "it doesn't always make the best decisions" isn't the standard here. No human organization always makes the best decision. The question is: how best to make decisions about resource allocation? Do we favor this being the domain of (primarily) already rich and powerful people? Can we even imagine an alternative?
    - rockemsockem 3y ago
      I agree that no human organization will always make the best decisions. That's why I'm advocating for a larger number of human organizations making decisions independently (as much as is possible in the world today). I was also being somewhat soft in my language, so let me amend it to, sometimes the government makes bad choices and fails to invest in crucial areas. Are you advocating for more organizations created as cooperatives and the like? I think that would be great too. However a lot of ambitious projects like curing diseases, inventing new materials, building spacecraft, and more require a lot of money. It's much easier to start on these things if you can skip fundraising from thousands of individuals.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        As a thought-experiment, suppose you have a society in year X in which a substantial majority of people are opposed to putting resources into some project. Time passes, it is now year Y and an individual has managed to amass control over sufficient resources to at least begin this project. More time passes, it is now year Z and the project requires further investment. The individual who initiated it seeks public funding to continue the work? 1. is it appropriate in a democratic society that an individual can direct resources on a large scale into projects rejected by most people in that society? 2. should the society consider funding the continuation of the project? If the answer to (1) seems immediately clear to you, consider your answer in the case that the project is "Invade our largest neighboring country" or "Develop new bioweapons that will only affect people of a certain genetic makeup" or even, somewhat realistically, "Develop ways to burn fossil fuels on sufficient scale to alter the composition of the atmosphere". What is the qualification possessed by the very rich, other than "well, they're rich", that should entitle them to make such decisions?

devbent 3y ago

Let's just have a really large number of reasonably well to do actors deciding how to allocate capital. After all, wisdom of the crowds and all that!

rockemsockem 3y ago
I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. It seems impossible to perfectly allocate capital, of course there will be stupid and actively harmful allocations. But the government does both of those things too. So yes it is legitimately good to have a really large number of actors allocating capital, to in ADDITION to the government.
- devbent 3y ago
  > I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Kind of. If the premise that government + a few rich people is a better way to spend $ (e.g. our current system !) then how about we also try government + spreading $ around so a lot of people are well off and can "allocate capital". The fact is a rising tide lifts all boats.
  - rockemsockem 3y ago
    I certainly think our current system is better than 0 rich people. I think a better system would include more money spread around the middle class, fewer people in poverty, and a larger number of rich people with fewer individuals having > 10 billion dollars. That makes it harder for a small group of rich folks to band together to screw up democracy since there should, presumably, be greater diversity of opinions in the group of rich folks. The main post is literally saying "no rich people" so that's the part I'm focusing on, but yes the middle class in America needs far more help than it's getting.

DrNosferatu 3y ago

But the government is (in principle) elected democratically.

rockemsockem 3y ago
That doesn't mean it always makes the best decisions. It seems valuable to have those who are so inclined with enough resources to try things that the government can't or won't try. We've gotten so many good things through this process. I'm not saying the government shouldn't do stuff, it very much should.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  "it doesn't always make the best decisions" isn't the standard here. No human organization always makes the best decision. The question is: how best to make decisions about resource allocation? Do we favor this being the domain of (primarily) already rich and powerful people? Can we even imagine an alternative?
  - rockemsockem 3y ago
    I agree that no human organization will always make the best decisions. That's why I'm advocating for a larger number of human organizations making decisions independently (as much as is possible in the world today). I was also being somewhat soft in my language, so let me amend it to, sometimes the government makes bad choices and fails to invest in crucial areas. Are you advocating for more organizations created as cooperatives and the like? I think that would be great too. However a lot of ambitious projects like curing diseases, inventing new materials, building spacecraft, and more require a lot of money. It's much easier to start on these things if you can skip fundraising from thousands of individuals.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      As a thought-experiment, suppose you have a society in year X in which a substantial majority of people are opposed to putting resources into some project. Time passes, it is now year Y and an individual has managed to amass control over sufficient resources to at least begin this project. More time passes, it is now year Z and the project requires further investment. The individual who initiated it seeks public funding to continue the work? 1. is it appropriate in a democratic society that an individual can direct resources on a large scale into projects rejected by most people in that society? 2. should the society consider funding the continuation of the project? If the answer to (1) seems immediately clear to you, consider your answer in the case that the project is "Invade our largest neighboring country" or "Develop new bioweapons that will only affect people of a certain genetic makeup" or even, somewhat realistically, "Develop ways to burn fossil fuels on sufficient scale to alter the composition of the atmosphere". What is the qualification possessed by the very rich, other than "well, they're rich", that should entitle them to make such decisions?