29 ms·

The example is bad because nobody thinks of $100k as "concentrated wealth" and your argument has some purchase at those numbers. At $100 million, $1 billion, $

by runako 2y ago

The example is bad because nobody thinks of $100k as "concentrated wealth" and your argument has some purchase at those numbers. At $100 million, $1 billion, $10 billion, or $100 billion, the argument you put forth does not make sense. There is no motivational quantum for attaining the second, or third, or fourth billion, much less the 200th. Incidentally, most of the people who might be considered to be concentrating wealth do not and have not done so primarily on the basis of their labor and creativity like in the example. There is no credible argument that Jim Walton ($119 billion net worth) ever built or created anything of value anywhere near commensurate with his wealth. His path from $30 billion to nearly $120 billion had nothing to do with rewarding him for value creation.

WalterBright 2y ago
> There is no motivational quantum for attaining the second, or third, or fourth billion, much less the 200th. That's probably correct. However, if you tax $100b at 40%, then the person has only $60b to invest in creating more wealth.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  But in the meantime, the state has $40b of wealth under its control to invest. And while the $100B winner may have had some insight that contributed to the $100B, there also had to be a $100B winner in an economy structured the way ours is. Consequently, we don't really know whether there's a reason to prefer their investment choices over the ones the state will make. It currently remains unclear, for example, whether what Musk or Bezos have done with their vast wealth thus far will, in the medium or long term turn out to be a net benefit to society (it certainly has not been so in the short tem). The belief in the business genius really is overblown. Yes, some folks are better at it than others, but when we run the economy like a casino, there will always be big winners no matter what personal qualities the players bring to the game.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > the state has $40b of wealth under its control to invest. Defense spending is not an investment in the economy, neither are entitlements. The returns on government investments that are legitimate investments, however, are quite a bit less than the returns on the investments of rich people. The reason is simple - people who get rich off of investments are very, very good at it. Government bureaucrats are not. Government investments are socialism, which have an inglorious history of poor returns. > The belief in the business genius really is overblown 4 out of 5 business ventures fail. The survivors tend to be pretty good at it. You'd be very hard pressed to find a dummy who grew a business to a billion dollars. The ones who have done it more than once are very, very rare. (Like Steve Jobs, who did it 3 times.) If you want to argue that Jobs, Gates, Musk, Bezos, etc., just fell into it, go right ahead!
    - thunderfork 2y ago
      [dead]

by runako 2y ago

WalterBright 2y ago

> There is no motivational quantum for attaining the second, or third, or fourth billion, much less the 200th. That's probably correct. However, if you tax $100b at 40%, then the person has only $60b to invest in creating more wealth.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
But in the meantime, the state has $40b of wealth under its control to invest. And while the $100B winner may have had some insight that contributed to the $100B, there also had to be a $100B winner in an economy structured the way ours is. Consequently, we don't really know whether there's a reason to prefer their investment choices over the ones the state will make. It currently remains unclear, for example, whether what Musk or Bezos have done with their vast wealth thus far will, in the medium or long term turn out to be a net benefit to society (it certainly has not been so in the short tem). The belief in the business genius really is overblown. Yes, some folks are better at it than others, but when we run the economy like a casino, there will always be big winners no matter what personal qualities the players bring to the game.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > the state has $40b of wealth under its control to invest. Defense spending is not an investment in the economy, neither are entitlements. The returns on government investments that are legitimate investments, however, are quite a bit less than the returns on the investments of rich people. The reason is simple - people who get rich off of investments are very, very good at it. Government bureaucrats are not. Government investments are socialism, which have an inglorious history of poor returns. > The belief in the business genius really is overblown 4 out of 5 business ventures fail. The survivors tend to be pretty good at it. You'd be very hard pressed to find a dummy who grew a business to a billion dollars. The ones who have done it more than once are very, very rare. (Like Steve Jobs, who did it 3 times.) If you want to argue that Jobs, Gates, Musk, Bezos, etc., just fell into it, go right ahead!
  - thunderfork 2y ago
    [dead]