This is how it should be if we had a scarce money supply (e.g. gold-backed). If it was truly people handing out their own hard-earned money, then it would be great and we would know they TRULY deserved it.
With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive.
Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets.
If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy.
There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately.
When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.
I appreciate when a view opens up a different perspective and yours does. Nevertheless, if we lift the surface layer and have a look at the dark economy, do you think we’re find a less nepotistic economy, or one with less ruthless hierarchical structures in which luck is less of a factor?
If you don't think there was wealth inequity under the gold standard then I recommend opening a history book ...
This also isn't something that all billionaires and multi-millionaries can do. This was splitting 15% of the proceeds from a sale; like how often do the Walmart heir sell Walmart?
That said, yeah I don't like the idea of charity dictating how well people do. If you think there's some minimum standard for people then legislate it ...
Personally, I've been feeling the pain of this kind of 'giving.'
I've seen people get handed out huge opportunities, big bonuses despite objective incompetence! Meanwhile I was highly competent and never once received a raise or Christmas bonus. I got the opposite of help. Anything I ever got, which isn't much, I had to force through sheer skill and hard work, as far as the law and ethics allowed me.
It seems like the entire system is working against me. What do I have to do to get EQUAL treatment?
I would vote for communism, any opportunity I get because I don't even care about equality of opportunities anymore. That was a luxurious idea. If I could get just equality of outcomes, I wouldn't even mind that I worked 10x as hard.
It's interesting because I used to think people who supported communism were confused and misled. Now I'm thinking that, probably, they were entirely rational. It's an entirely rational and predictable response to system dysfunction. It's probably an unavoidable cycle. The result of human nature at scale. Throughout history, China has had plenty of experiments with fiat monetary systems... Always ended badly and yet now they managed to export this horrible, satanic system to the rest of us.
> It seems like the entire system is working against me. What do I have to do to get EQUAL treatment?
1) Take advantage of the peter principle [1]. Figure out what work you've done and interview for positions where that's just below the work expected. The economy doesn't allocate resources with a magic wand; you'll (unfortunately) have to take an active role with job searching if your current position isn't a good fit.
2) Recognize that politics is part of work. Just doing a good job isn't actually enough and you have to play office politics if you want patronage.
Do understand that communism is just state control over resource allocation. Under a capitalistic system; if the capitalists control the government then you still really have communism (it's not like the soviets didn't have a currency ...).
Under a gold backed economy, things are zero-sum. Under a fiat based economy, they aren't. If your concern is about the problems of a zero-sum system, you should support a lack of scarcity in the money supply.
Not so. It's a lot worse now because before, people just monopolized fixed quantities of gold. If they made bad bets, their gold holdings would shrink.
Now the monopolies aren't over limited quantities of units... They are monopolies over entire money flows with unlimited (and adjustable) quantities of units... People who control these flows can make many bad bets and barely feel a thing. The people who decide the flows don't do so at any expense to themselves; it's the public's money which is printed out of nothing. People like Richard Werner literally proved this after everyone was gaslit about it for over a decade... And now AI is used to spam all reasonable discussions about the system out of view, in spite of all the evidence of dysfunction.
As an extreme example, look at what happened with Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and their divorces... Lost a lot of units of currency at one point but it barely affected them financially, it's like the money pipelines just adjusted themselves to bring them back to the level they were before.
I mean yes it is unsurprising that people with nearly infinite money are materially impacted by losing half of it.
But neither is at the level they were at before, at least in comparison to the market and economic growth overall.
> Not so. It's a lot worse now because before, people just monopolized fixed quantities of gold. If they made bad bets, their gold holdings would shrink.
Yes, this is precisely the "zero-sum" thing you said is problematic.
> If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive.
Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets.
If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy.
There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately.
When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.