5 ms·

I hate headlines like this. Wealth is not finite.

sophacles 13y ago
No, but it is bounded by how much exists at given time. Further, had you bothered to read the article, they explicitly talk about the growth of wealth in the word. I hate commenters like this - don't read the article, think they know something about what it says.
- hacker789 13y ago
  He commented specifically on the headline, not on the article itself.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  It's true that the tone of the article wasn't stabbing at the rich and wealthy, but I think the commenter's point is still valid. The headline utilizes a highly politically charged statement model - "The top 1% control $LIMITED_COMMODITY"
  - sophacles 13y ago
    I didn't get that. Besides, the thing you are disingenuously failing to understand is that while wealth grows and is not a finite thing on long time scales, the growth is slow enough that controlling 40% of the currently existing wealth, and a sudden surge to say 10% total wealth increase in the next year (a big jump) going only to people not in the top 1%, would still leave those people with a huge disproportion of wealth ownership. It takes a huge amount of mental gymnastics to pretend this is is something that could change any moment because wealth is not fixed amount resource.
dylangs1030 13y ago
The sensationalism surrounding this is really kind of sad. It also drives a knife through the intellectual aptitudes of my circle of friends. People don't really understand game theory or sociological models well enough to understand that this sort of wealth distribution makes sense, when you look at data. The biggest impediment to this, in my experience, is that people expect reality to intuitively make sense, and operate according to their intuitive ideals of what's correct. Nature has no reason to do this, and is often...very unintuitive.
- czr80 13y ago
  Ok. I understand game theory. What do you mean that this "makes sense"?
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    It makes sense as in it's expected. Economists come to expect this as a "rising tide" - it eventually happens. It waxes and wanes, but it does happen and it's not a grand conspiracy. It's the market fluctuating.
- jbooth 13y ago
  This sort of wealth distribution is almost without precedent in the modern economy. It happened before in the 1920s and didn't end well. If you understand "game theory or sociological models well enough to understand that this sort of wealth distribution makes sense, when you look at data", can you explain it to me? I was under the impression that it's a disturbing trend and would love to be comforted.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    A good jumping point would be the "Matthew Effect" - the sociological theory of accumulated advantage. This is usually paraphrased as "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" in lay parlance but it is a legitimate academic theory in sociology. It illustrates a model of wealth distribution - particularly wealth disparity, and how it's somewhat inevitable despite repeated system "tweaks".
- Sven7 13y ago
  please, no game theory or social modeling necessary... Talking about nature, on the Serengeti you see a handful of lion and thousands of zebra. In the ocean you see a couple of whales and millions of fish. Now who doesn't want to see thousands of lions or whales? But it hasn't happened. ever. in nature. So its safe to assume we aren't going to do any better. All we can try to do is ensure everyone has an equal shot at becoming a lion if they so choose. Most people are perfectly happy being Zebra imho.

No, but it is bounded by how much exists at given time. Further, had you bothered to read the article, they explicitly talk about the growth of wealth in the word. I hate commenters like this - don't read the article, think they know something about what it says.

hacker789 13y ago
He commented specifically on the headline, not on the article itself.
dylangs1030 13y ago
It's true that the tone of the article wasn't stabbing at the rich and wealthy, but I think the commenter's point is still valid. The headline utilizes a highly politically charged statement model - "The top 1% control $LIMITED_COMMODITY"
- sophacles 13y ago
  I didn't get that. Besides, the thing you are disingenuously failing to understand is that while wealth grows and is not a finite thing on long time scales, the growth is slow enough that controlling 40% of the currently existing wealth, and a sudden surge to say 10% total wealth increase in the next year (a big jump) going only to people not in the top 1%, would still leave those people with a huge disproportion of wealth ownership. It takes a huge amount of mental gymnastics to pretend this is is something that could change any moment because wealth is not fixed amount resource.

dylangs1030 13y ago

The sensationalism surrounding this is really kind of sad. It also drives a knife through the intellectual aptitudes of my circle of friends. People don't really understand game theory or sociological models well enough to understand that this sort of wealth distribution makes sense, when you look at data. The biggest impediment to this, in my experience, is that people expect reality to intuitively make sense, and operate according to their intuitive ideals of what's correct. Nature has no reason to do this, and is often...very unintuitive.

czr80 13y ago
Ok. I understand game theory. What do you mean that this "makes sense"?
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  It makes sense as in it's expected. Economists come to expect this as a "rising tide" - it eventually happens. It waxes and wanes, but it does happen and it's not a grand conspiracy. It's the market fluctuating.
jbooth 13y ago
This sort of wealth distribution is almost without precedent in the modern economy. It happened before in the 1920s and didn't end well. If you understand "game theory or sociological models well enough to understand that this sort of wealth distribution makes sense, when you look at data", can you explain it to me? I was under the impression that it's a disturbing trend and would love to be comforted.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  A good jumping point would be the "Matthew Effect" - the sociological theory of accumulated advantage. This is usually paraphrased as "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" in lay parlance but it is a legitimate academic theory in sociology. It illustrates a model of wealth distribution - particularly wealth disparity, and how it's somewhat inevitable despite repeated system "tweaks".
Sven7 13y ago
please, no game theory or social modeling necessary... Talking about nature, on the Serengeti you see a handful of lion and thousands of zebra. In the ocean you see a couple of whales and millions of fish. Now who doesn't want to see thousands of lions or whales? But it hasn't happened. ever. in nature. So its safe to assume we aren't going to do any better. All we can try to do is ensure everyone has an equal shot at becoming a lion if they so choose. Most people are perfectly happy being Zebra imho.