3 ms·

It's doing the opposite of distributing. It's concentrating resources into a smaller and smaller selection of individuals.

by otikik 1y ago

ben_w 1y ago
"Distributing" doesn't require "evenly". Amazon has distribution centres, they don't send stuff to all customers equally regardless of what is ordered. The entire foundational assumption of (Smith's) capitalism is the idea that people who are better at making a profit are exactly who should be given more money to work with, and that this benefits all of society — and while I will agree that the phrase "trickle down economics" doesn't fit reality of the behaviour of billionaires (who act more like aristocrats), that's where that phrase comes from, and it seems to often work up to deca-millionaires at least. The flaw with this (even in the case of millionaires) is it presumes no parasites. As it happens, both Smith and Marx noticed this, but as history shows, the proponents extolling the virtues of each were not very effective at preventing economic parasites.
- otikik 1y ago
  I don't think I agree. If I read an article that titled "this NGO is distributing food and medical aid to the refugees of the conflict" and then on the body of the article I find out that a single guy got all the supplies and the rest got nothing, I would consider the title very misleading.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    A single guy? I'd count that as a sorites problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox But the distribution for wealth under capitalism isn't "one" person, and capitalism wouldn't work if it was, because nobody else could buy anything with the money, and therefore everyone else would invent a new currency or barter, and then all the money which that one person has would be worthless.
    - otikik 1y ago
      Depending on the size of the imaginary conflict, "a single guy" could very well be right. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly...

It's doing the opposite of distributing. It's concentrating resources into a smaller and smaller selection of individuals.

by otikik 1y ago

It's doing the opposite of distributing. It's concentrating resources into a smaller and smaller selection of individuals.

ben_w 1y ago

"Distributing" doesn't require "evenly". Amazon has distribution centres, they don't send stuff to all customers equally regardless of what is ordered. The entire foundational assumption of (Smith's) capitalism is the idea that people who are better at making a profit are exactly who should be given more money to work with, and that this benefits all of society — and while I will agree that the phrase "trickle down economics" doesn't fit reality of the behaviour of billionaires (who act more like aristocrats), that's where that phrase comes from, and it seems to often work up to deca-millionaires at least. The flaw with this (even in the case of millionaires) is it presumes no parasites. As it happens, both Smith and Marx noticed this, but as history shows, the proponents extolling the virtues of each were not very effective at preventing economic parasites.

otikik 1y ago
I don't think I agree. If I read an article that titled "this NGO is distributing food and medical aid to the refugees of the conflict" and then on the body of the article I find out that a single guy got all the supplies and the rest got nothing, I would consider the title very misleading.
- ben_w 1y ago
  A single guy? I'd count that as a sorites problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox But the distribution for wealth under capitalism isn't "one" person, and capitalism wouldn't work if it was, because nobody else could buy anything with the money, and therefore everyone else would invent a new currency or barter, and then all the money which that one person has would be worthless.
  - otikik 1y ago
    Depending on the size of the imaginary conflict, "a single guy" could very well be right. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly...