3 ms·

Wrong question. A more practical and more important question is: What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system

Wrong question. A more practical and more important question is: What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system putting their thumb on the scale to benefit The Few? Furthermore, it's not how high to top is per se, it's that so few arw that high (i.e., the concentration); it's how far away the top is from the bottom. The top is embrassassing, but the bottom is shameful.

hermitcrab 3y ago
We don't have the resources for everyone to live like current billionaires live (private jets, yachts, multiple homes etc). It would destroy the ecosystem. So we can't raise everyone to that level (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. I realize that is unlikely to be a popular position on HN, where many people consider themselves future billionaires!
- delichon 3y ago
  > (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. Why would we restrict ourselves to current tech in the future? AI has the potential to be a human force multiplier on the scale of the industrial revolution, and more. We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
  - mbfg 3y ago
    No doubt AI will be a force multiplier. But that in no way says it will help the masses. It will help the owners of the tech. You might be able to find some tangential ways where it may help the bottom somewhat, but in the end the disparity between rich and poor will just be larger.
  - Voultapher 3y ago
    > We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity No we can't. There are so many signs that all point to that not happening https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  The point is, those lifestyles are a symptom. For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Yes, resources are limited. So then why are key entities (e.g., The Fed) so insantant on squandering those resources for The Few? The buck literally starts and stops here. Solving the after the fact symptom(s) is a fool's errand. If we - The Many - continue to be fools, nothing is going to change. In fact, the concentration and distribution of financial wealth is getting worse. But sure, let's keep obcessing over symptoms.
  - squigz 3y ago
    > For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Because we're led to believe the symptons are the actual problems. Solving the core issues would be bad for the rich and powerful, and so they work to keep us distracted and misinformed > If we - The Many - continue to be fools, I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few"
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      > I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few" If the lies of The Few keep working, why should they stop? If The Many are well aware they have been lied to *repeatedly*, and yet continue to suck up the lies as gospel, whose fault is that? "First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me." But The Many can't count past one.
credit_guy 3y ago
> What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system putting their thumb on the scale to benefit The Few? Are you proposing we should outlaw the putting of the thumb on the scale? That's a wonderful idea. Do you happen to have any details? Maybe some references. The only thing I could think of is called "checks and balances". The reference to that is fairly standard, it's called the US Constitution. Are you saying that's not enough? Ok, then the fix you are proposing is what? An amendment or a replacement? If it's an amendment, what would it be? If it's a replacement, I'm honestly not that interested.

hermitcrab 3y ago

We don't have the resources for everyone to live like current billionaires live (private jets, yachts, multiple homes etc). It would destroy the ecosystem. So we can't raise everyone to that level (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. I realize that is unlikely to be a popular position on HN, where many people consider themselves future billionaires!

delichon 3y ago
> (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. Why would we restrict ourselves to current tech in the future? AI has the potential to be a human force multiplier on the scale of the industrial revolution, and more. We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
- mbfg 3y ago
  No doubt AI will be a force multiplier. But that in no way says it will help the masses. It will help the owners of the tech. You might be able to find some tangential ways where it may help the bottom somewhat, but in the end the disparity between rich and poor will just be larger.
- Voultapher 3y ago
  > We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity No we can't. There are so many signs that all point to that not happening https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
chiefalchemist 3y ago
The point is, those lifestyles are a symptom. For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Yes, resources are limited. So then why are key entities (e.g., The Fed) so insantant on squandering those resources for The Few? The buck literally starts and stops here. Solving the after the fact symptom(s) is a fool's errand. If we - The Many - continue to be fools, nothing is going to change. In fact, the concentration and distribution of financial wealth is getting worse. But sure, let's keep obcessing over symptoms.
- squigz 3y ago
  > For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Because we're led to believe the symptons are the actual problems. Solving the core issues would be bad for the rich and powerful, and so they work to keep us distracted and misinformed > If we - The Many - continue to be fools, I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    > I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few" If the lies of The Few keep working, why should they stop? If The Many are well aware they have been lied to *repeatedly*, and yet continue to suck up the lies as gospel, whose fault is that? "First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me." But The Many can't count past one.

credit_guy 3y ago

> What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system putting their thumb on the scale to benefit The Few? Are you proposing we should outlaw the putting of the thumb on the scale? That's a wonderful idea. Do you happen to have any details? Maybe some references. The only thing I could think of is called "checks and balances". The reference to that is fairly standard, it's called the US Constitution. Are you saying that's not enough? Ok, then the fix you are proposing is what? An amendment or a replacement? If it's an amendment, what would it be? If it's a replacement, I'm honestly not that interested.