Comment by spiorf
3 days ago
No, the process has impeded even higher standard of living, because it misallocates resources from value generation to value appropriation. It's the extreme short term profit maximization that makes the economy a zero sum game. Otherwise it is not.
Do you really think the economy is zero sum?
For example, who was Elon Musk's wealth transferred from?
What do you think about all that money being invested into AI? Is that "extreme short term profit maximization"?
I don’t know who his wealth was transferred from, exactly. But I do know what he’s using it for now: as a gravitational force to unilaterally screw with public institutions and systems the rest of us depend on.
Even if you agree with some of DOGE projects’s goals, the way it operated was wildly thoughtless about consequences beyond Musk’s personal wishes, and almost completely unaccountable.
I’m honestly sick that my personal Model Y purchase helped add to that power.
And I say that as someone who was a huge Musk fan for years, despite the warning signs — the Thai “pedo” comments, and his very public turn during COVID.
Musk's money came from creating a business that was worth a lot of money. I.e. he created his wealth.
It was not transferred to him.
The same goes for Bezos, Jobs, Gates, etc.
29 replies →
I don't know but I will speak:
Cantillon Effect
How much does your bread cost and how much did it cost in the 90s? Where do you think all that value gone? Has bread some what become much better quality or something? Are they lacing it with gold?
They are stealing from your pocket, in many ways than one.
Another point to consider is that musk wealth is on paper only, real value if he wanted to cash out would turn much smaller, it's all hypothetical.
American bread was worse in previous decades. Now I have many more options, and I buy organic bread.
> They are stealing from your pocket, in many ways than one.
You need a more compelling argument than that. Agriculture is not a particularly lucrative industry.
> Another point to consider is that musk wealth is on paper only, real value if he wanted to cash out would turn much smaller, it's all hypothetical.
Back to "what is value?" There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is what people are willing to pay for something. That's it. If people are willing to pay more, then the value is higher. If the are only willing to pay less, then the value is lower. And certainly the value of x is different for different people, and varies moment by moment.
The value of a TSLA share of stock is no different from the value of that piece of paper you have that says "One Dollar" on it.
What is the point on Musk you are making? The monetary success does not neccesserily correlate to the common good they have created. In case of Musk there is a lot of governement subsidies, lots of market manipulation and false claim s. So not all activieties that bring profit to the richest are good to the rest. And stats on inequality just highlights that trend
> subsidies.
The government gave Musk a trillion dollars?
> So not all activieties that bring profit to the richest are good to the rest
I didn't say they were all good. I said he created his wealth, it was not transferred to him.
> And stats on inequality just highlights that trend
All those stats highlight is some people create more wealth than others.
On the short term every economy is effectively zero sum. Even if you invented something magical that is worth trillions, the economy can't pull trillions of dollars out of nowhere in any short period of time without devaluing everything else.
Sigh. A brief explanation of how money is created. If I create something of value, you can go to a bank and borrow money based on that value. Where did that borrowed money come from? The bank created it out of thin air! Yes, that's right. Created value can be transformed into money. The books balance. And this is unlimited.
What happens when you pay back the money? Yes, it is symmetric, the money is destroyed! (wild, isn't it!)
So why does the bank do this? They make money on the interest from the loan.
This is how "free banking" works, and it applies to your scenario. Creating value does not devalue the rest of the economy. The supply of money is not fixed, it rises and falls relative to the value in the economy.
I know this is a difficult thing to describe briefly, there are college degrees on this topic.
These two positions are not mutually exclusive:
- Over-optimizing for short term profit can hurt innovation and value creation.
- The economy is not a zero sum game and new value is created out of thin air.
Partly this is because total global debt is 3x global GDP.
It transferred from the S&P-493, obviously :) .
When it comes to what actually matters, people's standards of living, what matters most is percentages, which are zero sum. In a simplified economy where 10 people have $100 each, everyone is worth 10% of the economy, have about equal buying power, equal standards of living, equal political power, and so on.
If one of those people suddenly "creates wealth" and now has $100,000, then the average value of the dollar goes down and the cost of everything goes up. Person X can trivially afford the increase, but the other nine now have lower buying power, lower standards of living, and the $100,000 now can exert coercive control over those with less.
We are all slightly worse off every time there is a new billionaire.
> We are all slightly worse off every time there is a new billionaire.
I responded to the zero sum theory in another reply.
I'll just say that every country that decided to get rid of its wealthy people wound up poorer, a lot poorer.
For a specific example, Massachusetts has a luxury yacht industry. The government decided that they wanted to tax the wealthy, and slapped a hefty tax on yachts. The billionaires simply took their yacht buying elsewhere, and the yacht industry collapsed, costing thousands of highly paid jobs. The government rescinded the tax.
2 replies →
Musk got a huge leg up through the government, whether it be tax credits, incentives, side-stepping regulations, etc.
Bezos ran at a loss for so long it drove out actual and potential competitors.
Most (or all?) of the recent titans seem like each has his own company town. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town )
While their activities certainly fall in the realm of capitalism, and are just blips at longer time scales, it certainly feels like capitalism has been a bit under the weather for the past couple decades.
Regarding the money invested in AI, it all gives me "irrational exuberance" vibes.
> Musk got a huge leg up through the government, whether it be tax credits, incentives, side-stepping regulations, etc.
Nope. (Any government incentives were available to all the other car companies.)
> Bezos ran at a loss for so long it drove out actual and potential competitors.
Where do you think he got the money to sustain those losses? Investors! Including me. That is not a "transfer" of wealth, as in exchange the investors received an ownership share of the company.
> Regarding the money invested in AI, it all gives me "irrational exuberance" vibes.
It still is the opposite of short term thinking.
2 replies →