4 ms·
I'm glad you approve of "most of the investment", unfortunately "productive companies" don't do as well as various financial instruments which operate largely o
by boh 10mo ago
I'm glad you approve of "most of the investment", unfortunately "productive companies" don't do as well as various financial instruments which operate largely on symbolic capital. Private equity, which is only accessible by "rich people", doesn't exactly worry too much about productivity vs leveraged buyouts. It's interesting that you feel so strongly about other people succeeding though. It might seem strange but other people want to succeed too (weirdly it seems all this "productivity" doesn't actually benefit those outside the privileged circles).
- simianwords 10mo ago1. if we are talking about billionaire's wealth like Bezos, Musk etc - all their wealth is in their own company. you can decide for yourself as to whether these companies are productive or not 2. private equity is a necessary evil that tries to make something out of companies that never had a good future anyway. not a lot of billionaire wealth is in PE. in fact pension firms are one of the largest stakeholders in PE which means the common people have stake in them too. what is your take on that? 3. i want other people to succeed too - our society is built such that any rando can convince YC and get funding.
- lovich 10mo ago> ... our society is built such that any rando can convince YC and get funding. I disagree. What proof do you have that the random homeless guy and a kid graduating Stanford that was paid for by their parents, can convince YC to get funding?
- simianwords 10mo agoi don't have proof. but if your suggestion is to make that easier then i'm with you. i don't think redistribution is the best way to achieve it (for the same reasons i mentioned above).
- lovich 10mo ago> i don't have proof. Then don't make claims about facts. You sound like someone trying to say the law treats everyone equally because both Elon Musk and Crazy Joe the homeless guy, are both barred from stealing bread.
- seventytwo 10mo agoThe problem isn’t necessarily the wealth itself, it’s the power feedback loop that comes with it. It’s the ability to influence the government to pass laws which maintain or amplify your existing wealth, which then increases your influence, etc. There is nothing “free market” about this. There is no equitable or efficient destitution of resources when this kind of thing happens - and it will always happen, because it is an inevitability.
- simianwords 10mo agoyou are right that wealth increases power. that may be a problem. but i don't think redistribution can materially make people's lives better.
- throwawayqqq11 10mo agoGovernment funding for public services does very much improve peoples lives and you cant ignore the current wealth distribution, when you want to tap into "new" sources of income/taxation. How could you miss these 2 elephants?
- samdoesnothing 10mo agoNew sources of income will inevitably be the money printer.
- throwawayqqq11 10mo agoAnd where do you think the indefinitly raising wealth of the top 10% comes from? I think you should look into modern monetary theory, MMT.
- simianwords 10mo agoYes I’m aware but can you describe how redistribution can work in this case? Where does the new money come from? If poor people are spending more now then someone has to spend less. Who is it?