Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

meltingasphalt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 149 posts

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#111

Post by pesmhey »

SilasX wrote: post #104
pesmhey wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author falls into the 'it's better to have cake than to eat it' camp. Of course wealth in this case is toxic - you miss the point of it.

So, you're saying that the worst possible thing someone can do is produce but never consume?

To follow the food analogy, I'm saying that you've gotta eat to have energy to be productive to make food to eat.

In other words, you have to produce in order to consume in order to produce in order to consume, and so on. The worst possible thing would be consumption sans production - that's cancer.

Can you think of examples where you would produce without consumption? I can't think of any. Even intellectual discoveries consume information. My answer to your question would be that it would be the most impossible thing someone could do to produce but never consume.

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#112

Post by zestyping »

The fundamental error in this article is the following inference:

Satisfying someone else's need is good, therefore having your need satisfied by someone else must be bad.

But the real world is not this way at all. Transactions are not zero-sum. It is entirely possible to satisfy someone else's need and have it not cost you as much as it benefits them. Once you realize this, the entire chain of logic falls down.

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#113

Post by TomMckenny »

pesmhey wrote: post #63
nostrademons wrote: post #9

It's interesting to speculate on what would happen if some of these foundational assumptions of economics didn't hold. What if money actually became more valued than what you can buy with money ? What if supply didn't create its own demand? What if people didn't try to make money to satisfy their own wants, but to one-up their neighbors in the pissing match of life? You'd see a lot of strange behavior. Instead of con…

Money is a measure of social value. Your status in the tribe is highly dependent on your utility to the tribe, and that utility is highly-dependent on how well you work with other members of the tribe to achieve common goals. If you are more effective than your neighbor at advancing community goals, then you will have a higher social value than your neighbor. When we were just tribes of 150-200 humans, our minds were…

Except money is inheritable and genuine social value is not.

Indeed, since some 50% of wealth is now owned by about 1% of the population, it is clear that a vast percentage of wealth is now obtained through inheritance.

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#114

Post by airstrike »

metabagel wrote: post #93
airstrike wrote: post #71

> The yacht is made of wood, metal, and plastic. Building it requires many thousands of hours of effort. Workers have to find the trees, cut them down, haul the lumber across vast distances, cut it, sand it, polish it, paint it, etc., etc., etc. If you weren't commissioning the yacht, all of those materials and man-hours could be put to other, better uses. For all the good it does the Congolese people, you may as wel…

"What "other, better uses" does the author propose? What "other, better uses" does the author propose?" Probably anything which constitutes a true necessity, such as food, clean water, shelter, sanitary conditions, etc.

We better get off HN, then, because this ain't a true necessity.

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#116

Post by airstrike »

cwkoss wrote: post #110
airstrike wrote: post #71

> The yacht is made of wood, metal, and plastic. Building it requires many thousands of hours of effort. Workers have to find the trees, cut them down, haul the lumber across vast distances, cut it, sand it, polish it, paint it, etc., etc., etc. If you weren't commissioning the yacht, all of those materials and man-hours could be put to other, better uses. For all the good it does the Congolese people, you may as wel…

I think people listen to laymen economists because the majority of celebrity economists espouse logically contradictory theories that support their financial patrons.

I think only misinformed, powerless people listen to laymen economists.

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#117

Post by SilasX »

pesmhey wrote: post #111
SilasX wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're saying that the worst possible thing someone can do is produce but never consume?

To follow the food analogy, I'm saying that you've gotta eat to have energy to be productive to make food to eat. In other words, you have to produce in order to consume in order to produce in order to consume, and so on. The worst possible thing would be consumption sans production - that's cancer. Can you think of examples where you would produce without consumption? I can't think of any. Even intellectual discover…

Needing to consume is a complication from the core insight. If necessary, replace with someone who consumes at subsistence level.

- Person A works X amount, and consumes typically.

- Person B works X amount, and consumes at subsistence.

Judging solely from the perspective of other people, which person is better to have?

Or, for another example, the sun produces without (economically-relevant, purchased) consumption.

What if someone were like the sun, and charged for sunlight, but never spent the money? They just left the money in the bank forever.

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#119

Post by Taniwha »

Even worse if money spent on armaments, wars, soldiers and these are used to destroy things it's even more toxic economically - you're not just burning wealth, you're using it to destroy other wealth as well - foreign development aid carefully given benefits everyone far more

Re: Wealth: The Toxic Byproduct (2013)

#120

Post by rdiddly »

Wealth accumulated by shrewd grain arbitrage represents the the noble reallocation of value to where it's most needed, but wealth accumulated by someone else by building and selling yachts to me represents selfish evil waste?

The wood etc. that goes into a yacht could be put to better uses, but the water, fertilizer and land that goes into a sack of grain could find no possible better use?

There is no axiom that reconciles these contradictions better than the obvious one: Transactions, and wealth, have no inherent morality. Make any claim beyond that, and you are going to have to resort to the hand-wavy fallaciousness of a disclaimer-ridden argument.

Post reply on HN