3 ms·
Does wealth continue to be a coherent concept once very few have all of it? I don't think it's been tried. Also, since markets are fundamentally neural network
by __MatrixMan__ 4mo ago
Does wealth continue to be a coherent concept once very few have all of it? I don't think it's been tried.
Also, since markets are fundamentally neural networks (with prices as action potentials) it seems like an improved understanding of how to manipulate neural networks would coincide with a change in how we practice markets.
I suspect it'll come down to whether they can use markets to dispense with us faster than we can dispense with the use of markets amongst ourselves. Neither is an outcome that has much precedent because both would've seemed impossible pre-AI.
- e40 4mo agoOf course it does. It’s still a measurement though against other super rich.
- pmontra 4mo agoWealth is not a goal, it shouldn't be. Wealth is a mean to be able to do whatever one desires to do. You can measure it with power, not necessarily with money. So yes, it will always matter especially to people that like to have power over other people.
- __MatrixMan__ 4mo ago> Wealth is a mean to be able to do whatever one desires to do. You can measure it with power. I think you have these swapped. It's the utility of wealth as a measurement of power that breaks down when one person has all the money and others have none.
- verisimi 4mo agoMonetary wealth is a proxy for power. > Does wealth continue to be a coherent concept once very few have all of it? I don't think it's been tried. I think this is already the case.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]