3 ms·
Why is that obscene? Presumably the person created something very valuable to the world. Sure there are zero-sum ways to generate wealth (e.g. suing people, the
by bko 2y ago
Why is that obscene? Presumably the person created something very valuable to the world. Sure there are zero-sum ways to generate wealth (e.g. suing people, theft, front running trades) but generally that kind of wealth comes from actually generating something that people value.
- vkou 2y ago> Presumably the person created something very valuable to the world Or they are a rent-seeker, or a straight-up thief that sucked a lot of value out of the world. (Or one of their ancestors did, etc, etc.) Or they robbed Peter to create value for Paul, and took a share of the difference. These are all tried and true mechanisms for wealth generation. Without any information, you shouldn't assume that their contributions were net-positive.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y agoBarring evidence to the contrary, some of us prefer to assume that people have good intentions.
- vkou 2y agoHere's some evidence to the contrary: Almost every family of old money has been built on one form of theft or other.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y agoThat's an assertion, not evidence.
- FabHK 2y agoThe word “Presumably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. That Econ101 justification is harder and harder to keep up as you learn more about both economics and the real world. For detailed counter arguments, see Branko Milanović Global inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, James Kwak Economism: Bad Economics and the Rise of Inequality, Walt Bogdanich & Michael Forsythe When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm, and many other books.
- pembrook 2y ago[flagged]
- kombookcha 2y agoDamn, that guy is citing sources, must mean he's wrong and there is no need for you to examine any of the vibes-based assumptions you are making about the real world then.
- pembrook 2y agoThe point is, there’s no way to evaluate if this commenter is wrong, since nobody is going to read 7 books to verify the validity of an internet comment. It’s a classic logical fallacy; appeal to authority. There is no reason to believe any of these writers have a better understanding of how the world works than any other “authority” of the past like Karl Marx. Just because someone says something in a book doesn’t make it true.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y agoHe's not "citing sources." He's outsourcing his argument to textbooks. The point stands: if you want to refute an argument, do so yourself, possibly with reference to corroborating sources. Don't just say "you're wrong. Go read this stuff to figure out why" -- that's no way to have a discussion.
- ChadNauseam 2y agoThe GP never said they were wrong because they gave sources, they said they didn't give any rebuttal at all and instead only cited sources that presumably contained a rebuttal. If they said "such and such author did a survey that found that only 5% of money held by rich people got to them via productive pursuits", that would be one thing, but they just said "such and such author says you're wrong"
- cipheredStones 2y agoThe article says that he made it by stock trading. It is, at best, difficult to articulate how that could be creating value rather than capturing it. Many of the world's billionaires made their money that way. Doing something positive-sum is a way to become a billionaire, but many people are very handsomely paid to ensure that their clients are on the good side of zero-sum transactions.
- CityOfThrowaway 2y agoHe did it through offering a _money management_ service to large institutions and wealthy individuals. That money management service includes, amongst other things, picking stocks. But that's the tactical "what". The value-added element is that he preserved and grew that wealth instead. It turns out that is hard to do, and is indeed a positive sum service to customers. They get to relax _and_ make money. Great outcome.
- cipheredStones 2y agoYes, he was capturing value for his clients, and getting paid some of that. That isn't the same thing as doing something that increases the amount of wealth in the economy, which was my point.
- ipaddr 2y agoThe entire point of the stock market is to get capital to companies to allow them to do things that may increase wealth (could be local, state, country or globally). Successfully doing this means the companies he supported did well.
- quesera 2y ago> The entire point of the stock market is to get capital to companies Only if the shares are newly-issued, though. Usually your counterparty is just someone with different cash flow needs, or who disagrees with you about the future. No benefit accrues to the company.
- 6stringronin 2y agoI'm sure the value they created trickles down?
- intended 2y agoHasn’t it largely been finance and inheritance related, until very recently when tech joined the scene ? Given the way everything is being made into its crappier form, it’s arguable that even tech isn’t “adding value” anymore.