This argument reminds me of theists asking, "without a god, what is there to keep you from being amoral and running around killing people?"
Humans are capable of and do, in fact, act on more than just one or two simplistic external levers. We have agency, understanding, and drive to have empathy and to create.
Right but the natural state of humanity without real social norms and meta norms is to just form small, violent, relatively unproductive tribes. Civilization doesn't scale without rules.
You say people don't collaborate yet cite no source, so I can only assume you mean you wouldn't be collablrative. I can assure you I would be collaborative.
The idea that people in the wild are uncivilised savages is old racist propaganda.
You wouldn't exist because part of what makes you who you are is the society you've lived in and its social norms. If you had been born into a tribal society, you'd be tribal - or dead if you refused to cooperate with its culture.
Right but what says that culture would be violent and unproductive, rather than kind and productive? That's what I don't get. Runs counter to what I think is my nature and tbose around me, so I'd expect a position that has considered more evidence from your end.
Because a non-violent tribe will be destroyed by any violent neighbors it has. Even if it had a protected group of non-violent members, it would be militarily disadvantaged compared to its enemies with more fighters per population. And what are those non-violent people even doing all day in a world without any technological progress? Don't imagine you'd invent technology because almost nobody did much of that. If it was truly isolated like the Chatham Island Maori then yea, but they were eventually genocided by the mainland New Zealand Maori when they finally got to them.
I think you would be conscripted to fight whether you liked it or not, and inculcated with the belief that it's the right thing to do. Maybe even feeling shame are your unwillingness but forcing yourself to fit in anyway.
I think there is a bit stronger version of your argument:
The wealth that I have is intrinsically tied to me personally: It's a business that I'm running, an idea I'm pursuing, etc. Taking it away from me destroys it.
The discrepancy comes from confusing money with wealth. You can take my $100 and then you will have $100. But if you take my business away from me, you will end up with very little. And so will everybody else that was benefitting from the business that I was running.
This is a compelling argument but there is an upper limit of how much wealth can be intrinsically tied to a person. When we start talking about 8, 9, 10, 11, even 12 figures it's really hard to argue that the value of the wealth would diminish if it was distributed among more people. If anything I would expect people with more modest amounts of wealth to be more motivated to manage it (rather than hiring someone else to do it, at which point there is no intrinsic personal connection).
>The incentive is that you could potentially enjoy something briefly and that's the best deal you can get.
Many people might say that is a lower incentive than to being able to leave your family better off than they were, or in your more greedy interpretation, so that their children and their children can enjoy something less briefly than you were able to.
Many more people are single and don't plan on having a family. And for those who have .. tax is always lower than 100%. You won't leave your family worse off by earning more money, regardless of the specific level of the tax.
A little bit of inequality is good as an incentive as you describe. A large amount of inequality devolves an economy into being pseudo-centrally-planned as nearly all the wealth is allocated by a small group of super wealthy individuals.
You want the incentive to get rich and then have that incentive fall off as you acquire more wealth.
We already have a pretty steeply progressive income tax. Part of the problem with schemes like this is that the wealthy have the resources to dodge them so it mostly just creates problems for the productive middle class.
You can't do great things without a large amount of money. Preventing people from accumulating large amounts of money means you cannot have things like SpaceX. By limiting wealthy people, you put a cap on your own standard of living.
Most great things that require a large amount of money are funded mostly by collectives (historically the state and church, more recently companies) rather than wealthy people. SpaceX has certainly done some cool stuff (even before it started being funded by taxpayer money through government contracts), but I think the value of all of these billionaire-funded endeavors are a rounding error in comparison to all the infrastructure, science, education and healthcare that has been collectively funded. By limiting excessively wealthy people you give money a better chance to be allocated well.
You might find it interesting to know that in the mid 1800s, in the UK, during a 10-year period, private investment in railways totaled 40% of GDP- an average of 4% per year. For comparison, the Apollo program was <0.5% of GDP.
The list of enormously valuable privately developed technologies goes on and on- in fact, almost all technologies. Many of these developed in the 1800s and early 1900s when there was very little government spending on research/etc. For example, oil, railways, cars, etc.
Even in cases where government research did help, often the practical realization takes a lot of money!
P.S. Companies are not necessarily collectives. It depends on the ownership structure.
If you were correct, the Soviet Union would have dominated the world. Instead, they copied technology from the west. They did have some innovations, but not many.
Did you know that their entire aviation industry was based on technology copied from a B-29 bomber that made forced landing in Russia?
I don't see how the failure of Soviet Union is supposed to disprove my argument – correlation does not imply causation. It was an incompetently managed and corrupt state. Collectively funding infrastructure projects and science is not something that only happened in the USSR, it was (and is) the norm everywhere. Consider all the innovations that spawned from (D)ARPA and NASA research projects for example. Taxpayer money through government contracts drives the entire military-industrial complex.
Yes, but people like examples. There are plenty more. N Korea, for example. China, when they had collective farms. It goes on and on, to the point were I can't find any examples of successful collective farms.
> It was an incompetently managed and corrupt state
Nobody has ever managed to create one otherwise. State run economies are always a mess.
Consider all the innovations that come from Bell Labs, Xerox, Kodak, Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, Nvidia, RCA, US Steel, Ford, General Electric, industrialized agriculture, Dow Chemical, and on and on and on.
But then you get to list every invention that was funded by taxpayer dollars and well.. you end up with two very long lists.
Every modern economy is a
mixed economy where you have some private funding and collective funding, some collective ownership and some private ownership. Countries that try to embrace either extreme of all private or all public end up collapsing. Arguing between either extreme like it's some moral dilemma is kinda pointless.
The thing that works is a little of both. It's actually kinda funny, when someone argues for extremely wealthy individuals pushing the country forward by making unilateral economic decisions you end up arguing for a form of central planning. But massive wealth consolidation isn't doing anything for you when the rest of us are fighting over the scraps.
> But massive wealth consolidation isn't doing anything for you when the rest of us are fighting over the scraps.
This is the "fixed pie" view of the economy, i.e. if someone has more, that means others have less. That may be true of socialism, but in free markets it is not true at all.
Wealthy people create wealth, they do not "consolidate" it.
If I go to Home Depot, buy some wood, make a table and sell it to you I created wealth, I didn't take it from you. If you planted an apple tree, harvested apples and traded them for the table, you didn't take wealth from me - you created the wealth.
I don't believe in the "fixed pie" view of the economy (does anyone..?) but wealth consolidation is still problematic because the ever-growing pie is rarely distributed among those who actually do the work, and concentrated power is a horrible way to run a free market economy. It leads to abuses that break the assumptions free markets are based on. Predatory pricing, regulatory capture, and buying out competition are examples from the vast toolbox only available to players who have accumulated significant wealth in the past. Slowly but surely the system gets skewed to reward past success and conniving over future success and hard work, which slows down progress and ultimately makes the world a little bit worse place for everyone to live in.
PS. I don't think it's a coincidence that both of your examples of creating wealth are typical "poor people" jobs. Obnoxiously wealthy people rarely create anything because they can simply pay someone else to do it, usually for a fraction of the value of their output.
> the ever-growing pie is rarely distributed among those who actually do the work
That's the Labor Theory of Value perspective. What actually happens in those cases is the particular jobs being done are not that productive. Consider if you could pay someone $10 to do $100 worth of work. Inevitably, your competitor sees you making this easy money, and entices your worker away for $11. Then you entice him back for $12. Then Fred entices him away for $13. See where this is going? The wages go up until it is barely profitable to employ the person.
> Obnoxiously wealthy people rarely create anything
What they do is conceive of it, finance it, and manage it. Those are critical wealth-producing activities. Start a company yourself, and this will quickly become apparent.
> is rarely distributed among those who actually do the work
Scores of millions of destitute people immigrated to America in the 19th century and moved up into the middle class and beyond.
Also, free markets do not "distribute" wealth. Again, that is the fixed pie viewpoint. The actors in free markets create wealth.
> Predatory pricing,
I.e. offering lower prices. Nothing wrong with that.
> regulatory capture
That's a problem with government, not free markets.
> and buying out competition
Nothing wrong with that, either. Lots of conglomerates become so complicated they collapse, and new competitors always spring up.
You can become rich enough that you can afford to give away a dollar to someone every second and still be rich. For some perspective, this full amount is about 33% of annual income of $100mm. The richest people make well more than this.
Consider, even without such a system, more people than you realize have enough to live on (and pass on for generations), but still work. A lot of rich people also didn't work for their wealth. People have worked their whole lives and not become rich. I'm not sure there's a connection.
Unfortunately, money is not stuff. Taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people doesn't create any additional stuff for those poor people to consume.
It would create more stuff by increasing market size. Those poor would be able to afford more stuff, so more stuff would be made. I'm currently in process of making something people don't need, but might like (recreating old glass who everyone remembers from their youth). I can't produce too much, because it's not competitive with cheapest glasses. If more people had more money, more people would be able to impulse buy that glass and I could make more of it. If more people had money, they would be able to do such things themselves, I'm only doing it because I'm earning a lot and banks essentially compete in who can give me the cheapest money to do interesting things. It's pretty funny actually and I have access to money much more cheaply than poor people (lower interest rate).
The wealthy have no incentive to invest their money in productive enterprises if it is sufficiently profitable to sit on it and earn interest. Similarly, people who would otherwise work hard at productive enterprises are discouraged by seeing how easy it is for the wealthy to simply do nothing and get richer.
And the result you have is: the modern American economy, where most efforts go into derivative financial products and investing, rather than actual productive enterprise. Day-to-day goods and services get worse and more expensive while the stock market keeps going up.
Earning mere interest is a poor rate of return, and the taxes paid on the interest make it worse than useless. Wealthy people want larger returns, and that's why they invest in companies.
> where most efforts go into derivative financial products
No evidence for "most".
> and investing
Yes, investing in productive enterprises.
Who do you think invested in Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Nvidia, Apple, etc?
You're looking at just the APY on savings accounts. Actually the rich make far more than that on interest-derived financial products through various forms of rent-seeking. Interest is the hidden tax baked into every transaction. Some studies found interest accounts for roughly half of end-user prices—12 percent on garbage collection, up to 77 percent on public housing.[1]
And as Musk warns: “If we don’t act, the entire government budget will be used just to pay interest — there won’t be money for anything. No, there won’t be money for Social Security, no Medicare, nothing. That’s where we’re headed.” [2]
In the late-stage capitalist West, most public and private money goes to servicing interest at some point in the food chain.
To give your life a purpose? To do something meaningful and fulfilling? To build something cool? To be able to afford additional, cooler things? To work on a common mission with likeminded people? To contribute something back to the system? To experience how things work in the background? To have a sense of ownership over your productive output?
And if you wanna express yourself creatively or just do nothing for a while, that's fine by me too! I'm sure you'd get bored after a while and want to make yourself useful again, so I don't think you should starve in the meantime.
That's our point. The limit of this is no serious social collaboration. You can't have cities, you can't have industry, everyone lives in small tribal villages until they get run over by other industrious people.
Oh yeah I forgot that's why I deal with insane corporate administrative bullshit to write bad software that solves problems only generated because of the scale of the internal social interactions: because it gives my life meaning.
You have hobbies and personal relationships to give your life meaning, you pay to be allowed to do that not the other way around.
