This is how it should be if we had a scarce money supply (e.g. gold-backed). If it was truly people handing out their own hard-earned money, then it would be great and we would know they TRULY deserved it.
With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive.
Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets.
If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy.
There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately.
When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.
Under a gold backed economy, things are zero-sum. Under a fiat based economy, they aren't. If your concern is about the problems of a zero-sum system, you should support a lack of scarcity in the money supply.
I appreciate when a view opens up a different perspective and yours does. Nevertheless, if we lift the surface layer and have a look at the dark economy, do you think we’re find a less nepotistic economy, or one with less ruthless hierarchical structures in which luck is less of a factor?
If you don't think there was wealth inequity under the gold standard then I recommend opening a history book ...
This also isn't something that all billionaires and multi-millionaries can do. This was splitting 15% of the proceeds from a sale; like how often do the Walmart heir sell Walmart?
That said, yeah I don't like the idea of charity dictating how well people do. If you think there's some minimum standard for people then legislate it ...
> If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
This is a common trope around "poor people are poor because they aren't capable of being rich". If the rich can make the poor believe wealth inequality is natural and fair then lots of things go more smoothly.
Does it matter? It's their money, and they have needs and wants.
The difference with multi-millionaires and billionaires is that they can cover they wants and even mere whims, and the whole system gives them opportunities to keep and multiply their money.
Readit News
With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive.
Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets.
If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy.
There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately.
When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.
This also isn't something that all billionaires and multi-millionaries can do. This was splitting 15% of the proceeds from a sale; like how often do the Walmart heir sell Walmart?
That said, yeah I don't like the idea of charity dictating how well people do. If you think there's some minimum standard for people then legislate it ...
You were _this_ close
https://www.wsj.com/business/fibrebond-eaton-bonus-walker-30...
https://archive.ph/NpY8i
> Potential buyers and others warned against the idea.
> ... [the] Walkers froze salaries for several years amid the difficulties.
> [the CEO] wanted to do something good. He also worried about going to a local grocery store and feeling ashamed he hadn’t shared his windfall.
The number of people who live paycheck to paycheck and make $500k a year is insane.
The difference with multi-millionaires and billionaires is that they can cover they wants and even mere whims, and the whole system gives them opportunities to keep and multiply their money.