6 ms·
Capitalism optimization: make the rich richer making the poor poorer
by erdeibit 3mo ago
Capitalism optimization: make the rich richer making the poor poorer
- d4ng 3mo agoInfluence will be distributed similarly, regardless of political system: (Pareto Principle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
- password54321 3mo agoYou live in the most privileged period in human history. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/poverty-explorer?tab=line&country=~OWID_WRL&Indicator=Share+in+poverty&Poverty+line=%243+per+day%3A+International+Poverty+Line&Household+survey+data+type=Show+data+from+both+income+and+consumption+surveys&Show+breaks+between+less+comparable+surveys=false https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/poverty-explorer?tab=li...
- dwroberts 3mo agoYou’re posting this like it’s a counterpoint, but it further highlights how disgusting the situation is. We have people becoming trillionaires while 10% of the world’s population is considered to be in extreme poverty. It’s ‘less bad’ than in the past but it’s still absolutely horrifying.
- password54321 3mo agoHow much of that trillion is liquid? If people stopped buying a Tesla, would that somehow help the poor? Making electric vehicles more mainstream seems like a net-positive to the world.
- microgpt 3mo ago[flagged]
- password54321 3mo ago[flagged]
- wqaatwt 3mo agoPossibly. If they invested their money into something more societally productive and/or the government took their money to do that or they weren’t allowed to accumulate enough surplus wealth in the first place. Of course the last two options have been a bit problematic historically.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- jedimastert 3mo agoAnd yet we are also living in some of the strongest wealth inequality in the last 100 years at least. https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality
- password54321 3mo agoThis seems to apply much more to certain nations like the US while it drops worldwide in recent decades. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/inequality?tab=line&country=OWID_WRL~USA~WID_EUR&Data=World+Inequality+Database+%28Incomes+before+tax%29&Indicator=Gini+coefficient https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/inequality?tab=line&cou...
- jedimastert 3mo agoI would call that holding steady worldwide in the last decade, which honestly is still unacceptable with how much more wealthy the world has gotten
- loeg 3mo agoSo what? Inequality is not inherently bad.
- microgpt 3mo agoInequality is inherently bad but a certain level is needed as it comes with non-inherent good, like promoting useful economic activity. Some people will say "what about the people with one leg? Should we cut off everyone's left leg so we're equal?" - it is bad that they have one leg while everyone else has two, but nobody except a certain satirical film actually suggested doing that.
- jedimastert 3mo agoThat's a pretty strong assertion just throw out like it's obvious
- wqaatwt 3mo agoSo what? That seems entirely tangential. Unless your point that economic inequality inherently accelerates technological progress (which seems valid at least to some extent)?
- password54321 3mo agoYou don't think capitalism played a role in eliminating poverty?
- wqaatwt 3mo agoNo, I implied it did. I actually think that free market competition has been the main driving force behind human progress for quite a while now. The issue is that the “winning condition” of capitalism results in the complete subversion of that process. So it’s always a balance.
- microgpt 3mo agoFree market competition is the opposite of capitalism though. Free market competition means that markets are free, but capitalism means that markets are controlled by the richest.
- wqaatwt 3mo agoThey inseparable, though? i.e. every market participant is incentivized to accumulate as much “capital” in any way they can. Competitors keep them in check which leaves a bigger share to consumers. Historically that has not been a stable system and at some point one or a couple of companies end up winning and there is no one to prevent them from doing anything they want.
- microgpt 3mo agoIt's only been a stable system as long as the richest were only rich enough to keep doing what they're doing in the marketplace, and not rich enough to buy or become the marketplace. That is one reason excessive inequality is destructive to society. It is no problem if the best snack vendor can afford to buy the biggest snack truck. In fact that should be encouraged so we can have more of the best snacks. It's also no problem if he can afford a mansion. He deserves it for working so hard on snacks. It's bad if he can do anything that negatively affects his competitors, like buying the adjacent stands to leave empty, buying up all the snack ingredients so nobody else can get them, bribing the market manager, or making a law that all snacks must be french fries.
- microgpt 3mo agoHow privileged is a period?