3 ms·

>This is somewhat important, because much of what would have been the "old money" in the US was effectively disrupted by massive technology changes. This is th

>This is somewhat important, because much of what would have been the "old money" in the US was effectively disrupted by massive technology changes. This is the point I am trying to make...if this old money had been reinvesting in technology over the past 150 years, it might have been possible to maintain it. Fortunately in the US, the mechanisms were not in place for the government to help these rentiers maintain their wealth, and they weren't reinvesting in technology, so they are no longer wealthy.

taeric 12y ago
Right, but now we have investment vehicles where you can effectively invest in investments alone. No longer must you invest in a rail company and do all you can to make them do well. You can literally invest in the volatility of said rail company. Further, yes, you can invest in manipulating the government to make sure that company does well. But, without the government, you could likely also just invest directly in competitors to keep them down such that said company still does well. I know, this would still be preferable to keep disallowed, but the hypothesis was an abstaining government. What level of activity counts as abstaining?
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  >>Right, but now we have investment vehicles where you can effectively invest in investments alone. This is a big problem, and one that is exacerbated by a strong legal system (read - powerful government) that enables, supports, and protects the gains made from these investment vehicles while disproportionately minimizing their downside risks. >But, without the government, you could likely also just invest directly in competitors to keep them down such that said company still does well. This is entirely possible, but remember that as an investor, your dollars are competing against other investors' dollars. More often than not, you are also investing as a shareholder with many other shareholders who have interests in seeing that company succeed. While I think what you are saying is theoretically possible, I'm not sure it would be a common occurrence, unless you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
rjsw 12y ago
There are still people named Ford on the board of their company. I don't know US history well enough to know who else other than Carnegie was in a position to retain wealth generated by technology 150 years ago.

taeric 12y ago

Right, but now we have investment vehicles where you can effectively invest in investments alone. No longer must you invest in a rail company and do all you can to make them do well. You can literally invest in the volatility of said rail company. Further, yes, you can invest in manipulating the government to make sure that company does well. But, without the government, you could likely also just invest directly in competitors to keep them down such that said company still does well. I know, this would still be preferable to keep disallowed, but the hypothesis was an abstaining government. What level of activity counts as abstaining?

bsbechtel 12y ago
>>Right, but now we have investment vehicles where you can effectively invest in investments alone. This is a big problem, and one that is exacerbated by a strong legal system (read - powerful government) that enables, supports, and protects the gains made from these investment vehicles while disproportionately minimizing their downside risks. >But, without the government, you could likely also just invest directly in competitors to keep them down such that said company still does well. This is entirely possible, but remember that as an investor, your dollars are competing against other investors' dollars. More often than not, you are also investing as a shareholder with many other shareholders who have interests in seeing that company succeed. While I think what you are saying is theoretically possible, I'm not sure it would be a common occurrence, unless you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

rjsw 12y ago

There are still people named Ford on the board of their company. I don't know US history well enough to know who else other than Carnegie was in a position to retain wealth generated by technology 150 years ago.