5 ms·

You are mocking people using a false dichotomy. Complaining that some individuals shouldn't be able to control trillion in wealth don't imply a push for central

You are mocking people using a false dichotomy. Complaining that some individuals shouldn't be able to control trillion in wealth don't imply a push for centrally planned economies.

FredPret 3y ago
… yes it does? It implies a central authority that has opinions on the wealth of private citizens (inappropriate) that also has the ability to act on it (dangerous) and that goes ahead and implements its utopian visions (has never not ended in utter catastrophe).
- vacuity 3y ago
  First of all, there's already much to be said on how encouraging private citizens to amass wealth at all costs is highly dangerous to society. Clearly, there are massive problems that our current model has. Second, we don't need to go for a utopia right now. Personally, I'm not a "communist" or whatever fan. I think that we can remove the negative impacts of capitalism without a crusade, through borrowing elements of those political theories. That doesn't sound half bad to me: likely feasible (if only the political will could be scrounged up), not hugely radical, and already a big boon.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    No there isn't. What practical difference is there in your life now that Musk is worth 200B versus when he had 100B or 0B? Probably your life is actually better because there is now Starlink and Tesla and you have more options. Let's say we can push a button and grow the economy 10% in real terms, but some rich guy like Bill Gates gets his wealth not increased 10%, but 10x. Do we press it? Next time we press it, some other billionaire gets 10x-ed. The rational thing to do is to smash that button an infinite number of times. That button exists and is called economic growth.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      If there was such a button that had no side effects, perhaps it would be best to press it infinitely, as you say. But clearly "economic growth" doesn't lift everyone up equally. Somehow, there are still many poor people even in the US. Or take the average person in the entire world. Are they better off because of Starlink. Can Starlink solve world hunger? Cancer? What world changing breakthrough does it accomplish that makes the likes of Elon Musk untouchable? On HN, the community is fairly insular to people who already have many means and opportunities.
      - FredPret 3y ago
        > But clearly "economic growth" doesn't lift everyone up equally That’s right there in my premise! So what? It lifts up everyone a little bit; most people a lot; and one or two get boosted to orbit for a generation or so. Your arguments against Starlink are so silly I struggle to believe someone typed them into this site. Don’t you think one more internet option for most of the globe is a good thing? And yes, it directly addresses both hunger and cancer through better internet, more research, a bigger economy, connected tractors. It’sneven helping Ukraine defend itself against another totalitarian state right now. None of which is relevant. It’s another internet option and therefore a good thing in and of itself. You don’t even have to like it or use it for it to make your life better.
        vacuity 3y ago
        > It lifts up everyone a little bit; most people a lot; No, it doesn't. It helps the people who are lucky enough to already have one foot in the race. But that's not remotely everyone. > directly addresses both hunger and cancer through better internet, more research, a bigger economy, connected tractors. Perhaps, although that's not really "directly". But then you're saying that we need to allow multi-billionaires in order to have things like Starlink. How about we stop ISPs from being stingy with their money and suddenly we don't need to rely on one rich person to save us from the other rich people? You seem to think that if the government takes some control/wealth out of the hands of these people, we're suddenly going to have stagnation. I don't see why it has to be all-or-nothing; we don't have to implement scary, spooky communism. You know what I think is even better than having Starlink? If we had Starlink and we didn't have exploitative, ruthless businesses that led to needing to have Starlink as it is now. It would just be the new technology that Comcast or Verizon made, without the weird "Elon Musk will save us all" fanfare.

You are mocking people using a false dichotomy. Complaining that some individuals shouldn't be able to control trillion in wealth don't imply a push for centrally planned economies.

FredPret 3y ago

… yes it does? It implies a central authority that has opinions on the wealth of private citizens (inappropriate) that also has the ability to act on it (dangerous) and that goes ahead and implements its utopian visions (has never not ended in utter catastrophe).

vacuity 3y ago
First of all, there's already much to be said on how encouraging private citizens to amass wealth at all costs is highly dangerous to society. Clearly, there are massive problems that our current model has. Second, we don't need to go for a utopia right now. Personally, I'm not a "communist" or whatever fan. I think that we can remove the negative impacts of capitalism without a crusade, through borrowing elements of those political theories. That doesn't sound half bad to me: likely feasible (if only the political will could be scrounged up), not hugely radical, and already a big boon.
- FredPret 3y ago
  No there isn't. What practical difference is there in your life now that Musk is worth 200B versus when he had 100B or 0B? Probably your life is actually better because there is now Starlink and Tesla and you have more options. Let's say we can push a button and grow the economy 10% in real terms, but some rich guy like Bill Gates gets his wealth not increased 10%, but 10x. Do we press it? Next time we press it, some other billionaire gets 10x-ed. The rational thing to do is to smash that button an infinite number of times. That button exists and is called economic growth.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    If there was such a button that had no side effects, perhaps it would be best to press it infinitely, as you say. But clearly "economic growth" doesn't lift everyone up equally. Somehow, there are still many poor people even in the US. Or take the average person in the entire world. Are they better off because of Starlink. Can Starlink solve world hunger? Cancer? What world changing breakthrough does it accomplish that makes the likes of Elon Musk untouchable? On HN, the community is fairly insular to people who already have many means and opportunities.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      > But clearly "economic growth" doesn't lift everyone up equally That’s right there in my premise! So what? It lifts up everyone a little bit; most people a lot; and one or two get boosted to orbit for a generation or so. Your arguments against Starlink are so silly I struggle to believe someone typed them into this site. Don’t you think one more internet option for most of the globe is a good thing? And yes, it directly addresses both hunger and cancer through better internet, more research, a bigger economy, connected tractors. It’sneven helping Ukraine defend itself against another totalitarian state right now. None of which is relevant. It’s another internet option and therefore a good thing in and of itself. You don’t even have to like it or use it for it to make your life better.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        > It lifts up everyone a little bit; most people a lot; No, it doesn't. It helps the people who are lucky enough to already have one foot in the race. But that's not remotely everyone. > directly addresses both hunger and cancer through better internet, more research, a bigger economy, connected tractors. Perhaps, although that's not really "directly". But then you're saying that we need to allow multi-billionaires in order to have things like Starlink. How about we stop ISPs from being stingy with their money and suddenly we don't need to rely on one rich person to save us from the other rich people? You seem to think that if the government takes some control/wealth out of the hands of these people, we're suddenly going to have stagnation. I don't see why it has to be all-or-nothing; we don't have to implement scary, spooky communism. You know what I think is even better than having Starlink? If we had Starlink and we didn't have exploitative, ruthless businesses that led to needing to have Starlink as it is now. It would just be the new technology that Comcast or Verizon made, without the weird "Elon Musk will save us all" fanfare.