6 ms·
Let's just have a really large number of reasonably well to do actors deciding how to allocate capital. After all, wisdom of the crowds and all that!
by devbent 3y ago
Let's just have a really large number of reasonably well to do actors deciding how to allocate capital.
After all, wisdom of the crowds and all that!
- rockemsockem 3y agoI honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. It seems impossible to perfectly allocate capital, of course there will be stupid and actively harmful allocations. But the government does both of those things too. So yes it is legitimately good to have a really large number of actors allocating capital, to in ADDITION to the government.
- devbent 3y ago> I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Kind of. If the premise that government + a few rich people is a better way to spend $ (e.g. our current system !) then how about we also try government + spreading $ around so a lot of people are well off and can "allocate capital". The fact is a rising tide lifts all boats.
- rockemsockem 3y agoI certainly think our current system is better than 0 rich people. I think a better system would include more money spread around the middle class, fewer people in poverty, and a larger number of rich people with fewer individuals having > 10 billion dollars. That makes it harder for a small group of rich folks to band together to screw up democracy since there should, presumably, be greater diversity of opinions in the group of rich folks. The main post is literally saying "no rich people" so that's the part I'm focusing on, but yes the middle class in America needs far more help than it's getting.