Marxism

[bilby]

I've worked in management most of my working life

I am dubious. I would accept "I've been in management most of my working life", though.

 

[Bronzeage]

There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized.

OK.

Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing.

Wait, what?

I think you missed a few steps there.

Wait for the capitalists to build the factories, then seize them. There would be no need of that if the system wasn't based on theft.

Capitalists don't build factories. Factories are built by proletariats and then operated by proletariats.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Something we often completely ignore with Marx is that he was a philosopher. Not an economist. Both Marxist theory and economics were developed from the same movement, the physiocrats.

Adam Smith, the Physiocrats (Compte) and Marx were all philosophers. Ie, they sat around using their imagination trying to envisage new worlds in their heads, and mostly importantly, think new thoughts. They all certainly did that.

Marx himself thought he was doing science. But he most certainly wasn't. The reason he could think that was because he had nothing else to compare with.

The first economist to use real world data to construct a model of reality and using data to validate their model, was Jean-Baptist Say 1903. The first economist to use the concept of supply and demand was the economist couple Marshall 1890. Karl Marx died in 1883.

It's not fair to judge Marx on things he couldn't have known. Its like giving Usain Bolt a hard time for not taking a gold medal in pole vaulting in the same race.

People like to hate on Marx because so many of his fans are idiots (and genocidal fanatics) but I don't think that's Marx's fault.

Or to quote Zizek. "Philosophers don't come with solutions. Philosophers only find problems".

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized.

OK.

Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing.

Wait, what?

I think you missed a few steps there.

Wait for the capitalists to build the factories, then seize them. There would be no need of that if the system wasn't based on theft.

Capitalists don't build factories. Factories are built by proletariats and then operated by proletariats.

Capitalists finance the factory.

Or as a philosopher friend of mine put it, "poor people are poor because they invest in the wrong things" (..."if the goal is to be wealthy"). That's the skill capitalists bring to the table. Ie, being a joyless miserly cunt. Clearly they are needed in today's world.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it. What prevents us is our priorities.

I'm not making a libertarian speech here. I'm very much on the left. The reason, I think, rich capitalists are rare is because putting off short term pleasure is unnatural to our species. To become rich we need to be a bit dead inside.

We all manage to get off the hedonic treadmill more or less. But for normal, mentally well adjusted, people its going to be a daily struggle. Our brains are're built for opportunism and fun. Not miserly wealth.

That's also why I am on the left. Taking normal people's bad judgement as the norm creates a more humane society.

And the price we pay for a more humane society is less wealth across the board. A unhinged free market will lead to greater wealth for all. I just don't think the price is worth paying.

 

[bilby]

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it.

Could they? Who would clean the toilets?

Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?

 

[Bronzeage]

There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized.

OK.

Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing.

Wait, what?

I think you missed a few steps there.

Wait for the capitalists to build the factories, then seize them. There would be no need of that if the system wasn't based on theft.

Capitalists don't build factories. Factories are built by proletariats and then operated by proletariats.

Capitalists finance the factory.

Or as a philosopher friend of mine put it, "poor people are poor because they invest in the wrong things" (..."if the goal is to be wealthy"). That's the skill capitalists bring to the table. Ie, being a joyless miserly cunt. Clearly they are needed in today's world.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it. What prevents us is our priorities.

I'm not making a libertarian speech here. I'm very much on the left. The reason, I think, rich capitalists are rare is because putting off short term pleasure is unnatural to our species. To become rich we need to be a bit dead inside.

We all manage to get off the hedonic treadmill more or less. But for normal, mentally well adjusted, people its going to be a daily struggle. Our brains are're built for opportunism and fun. Not miserly wealth.

That's also why I am on the left. Taking normal people's bad judgement as the norm creates a more humane society.

And the price we pay for a more humane society is less wealth across the board. A unhinged free market will lead to greater wealth for all. I just don't think the price is worth paying.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it.

Could they? Who would clean the toilets?

Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?

So then don't. Get a job doing something more profitable, and scaleable, and leave the toilet cleaning to those who doesn't have that motivation.

What is interesting is how many people don't do this calculation and chose to get rich. Because it entails putting up with a lot of discomfort now, for greater wealth later.

I don't think it's a question of intelligence. I think the reason there's so few rich people is because only a few people think that the sacrifice they need to do to get wealthy is worth it. I think it's as simple as that.

I don't think it's a question of ability. I think almost anyone in the west could be rich if they wanted to. I certainly have had plenty of chances to get rich. I'm still not rich. I have a good job. But my main goal in life wasn't to get rich. So I'm not. I have a friend who is an investment banker. His job is to manage other people's money. He's an expert. He's still not rich. Because he blows too much cash on other stuff. Like me.

I work in IT. Every single major Internet based IT company that's crazy wealthy now is ideas I had in the early 90'ies. Like any of us who worked in IT. Any of us could have been Jeff Bezos. None of the ideas were particularly novel or unique. Creating a shop on the Internet is a retardedly simple concept. I am sure, everyone who clicked on the Internet for the first time in the 90'ies had the same idea. Why am I not Jeff Bezos? It wasn't because I didn't have the ability or skills. I most certainly had that. I just wasn't willing to make the sacrifice. That's it. That's why. Like most of us in the industry back then.

I have run my own IT company from time to time. Now I am an employee. Why? Because running your own company is too much bullshit. It's not worth the stress. Could I do it? Most certainly.

I'm friends with one of the two guys who founded Spotify. He now lives in a massive house in Singapore. He owns a castle in Sweden. He has seven full time servants. I'm not jealous, because I know how much shit and grind he had to put up with. For many many years. And he's super smart. It could have been me. I was invited to go along for the ride at any point in that company's history. I still didn't want to. I didn't think it was worth it. I still don't.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized.

OK.

Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing.

Wait, what?

I think you missed a few steps there.

Wait for the capitalists to build the factories, then seize them. There would be no need of that if the system wasn't based on theft.

Capitalists don't build factories. Factories are built by proletariats and then operated by proletariats.

Capitalists finance the factory.

Or as a philosopher friend of mine put it, "poor people are poor because they invest in the wrong things" (..."if the goal is to be wealthy"). That's the skill capitalists bring to the table. Ie, being a joyless miserly cunt. Clearly they are needed in today's world.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it. What prevents us is our priorities.

I'm not making a libertarian speech here. I'm very much on the left. The reason, I think, rich capitalists are rare is because putting off short term pleasure is unnatural to our species. To become rich we need to be a bit dead inside.

We all manage to get off the hedonic treadmill more or less. But for normal, mentally well adjusted, people its going to be a daily struggle. Our brains are're built for opportunism and fun. Not miserly wealth.

That's also why I am on the left. Taking normal people's bad judgement as the norm creates a more humane society.

And the price we pay for a more humane society is less wealth across the board. A unhinged free market will lead to greater wealth for all. I just don't think the price is worth paying.

Where do the capitalists get the money o finance the factory?
So poor people don't invest all that great wealth they have been endowed with (so why call them poor?) in the wrong things?
Do the rich never invest in the wrong things? What happens then?
You have an obsession with being rich. Are you rich? If not, is it due to stupidity or laziness?
You have a peculiar idea of the life cycle of a rich person. Most of them have not given up pleasures to gain wealth.

Do you know that if everyone is rich, then no one is rich? It is called hyperinflation. No one would work, and that society would die. Of course, that society wont actually die because economists all know that your idea is stupid, and it will never be implemented.
You are ambiguous with your final paragraph. Does it mean that you are willing to pay the price of having an unhinged society so there is greater wealth, or do you want less wealth and a more humane society?
Anyway, it is possible to have both; indeed if a society spreads the wealth the total wealth will increase, as people will become capable of greater productivity.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it.

Could they? Who would clean the toilets?

Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?

So then don't. Get a job doing something more profitable, and scaleable, and leave the toilet cleaning to those who doesn't have that motivation.

What is interesting is how many people don't do this calculation and chose to get rich. Because it entails putting up with a lot of discomfort now, for greater wealth later.

I don't think it's a question of intelligence. I think the reason there's so few rich people is because only a few people think that the sacrifice they need to do to get wealthy is worth it. I think it's as simple as that.

I don't think it's a question of ability. I think almost anyone in the west could be rich if they wanted to. I certainly have had plenty of chances to get rich. I'm still not rich. I have a good job. But my main goal in life wasn't to get rich. So I'm not. I have a friend who is an investment banker. His job is to manage other people's money. He's an expert. He's still not rich. Because he blows too much cash on other stuff. Like me.

I work in IT. Every single major Internet based IT company that's crazy wealthy now is ideas I had in the early 90'ies. Like any of us who worked in IT. Any of us could have been Jeff Bezos. None of the ideas were particularly novel or unique. Creating a shop on the Internet is a retardedly simple concept. I am sure, everyone who clicked on the Internet for the first time in the 90'ies had the same idea. Why am I not Jeff Bezos? It wasn't because I didn't have the ability or skills. I most certainly had that. I just wasn't willing to make the sacrifice. That's it. That's why. Like most of us in the industry back then.

I have run my own IT company from time to time. Now I am an employee. Why? Because running your own company is too much bullshit. It's not worth the stress. Could I do it? Most certainly.

I'm friends with one of the two guys who founded Spotify. He now lives in a massive house in Singapore. He owns a castle in Sweden. He has seven full time servants. I'm not jealous, because I know how much shit and grind he had to put up with. For many many years. And he's super smart. It could have been me. I was invited to go along for the ride at any point in that company's history. I still didn't want to. I didn't think it was worth it. I still don't.

Why should everyone be motivated to become rich when that is totally economically infeasible? It would be like having six people in a car and they are all in the driver's seat, totally unrealistic. So your goal in life isn't to get rich, but you think everyone else should have this goal?
The massive success of people like Bezos is not because of sacrifice, it is because of a concept that exists in biology called ecology. Only a limited number can be in any niche (so more predators than prey, and more small animals than big ones), and the other niches must be filled to create a stable ecology.
The reason companies like Spotify and Facebook make their creators super wealthy is mainly due to two things created by society - the internet, and the way financial rewards work.

For example let's take two authors - J.K. Rowling and someone who writes a science book (that probably required more time and effort). The Rowling book has huge sales and Rowling gets huge royalties, whilst the other author gets a small royalty. This is because of the way the royalty system works, not because Rowling made more sacrifice. If the royalties used a different, more rational formula (with royalties being high on first 50,000 sales, and reducing with further sales) then Rowling would still be fairly well off but the other author would get a decent return for all their hard work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized.

OK.

Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing.

Wait, what?

I think you missed a few steps there.

Wait for the capitalists to build the factories, then seize them. There would be no need of that if the system wasn't based on theft.

Capitalists don't build factories. Factories are built by proletariats and then operated by proletariats.

Capitalists finance the factory.

Or as a philosopher friend of mine put it, "poor people are poor because they invest in the wrong things" (..."if the goal is to be wealthy"). That's the skill capitalists bring to the table. Ie, being a joyless miserly cunt. Clearly they are needed in today's world.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it. What prevents us is our priorities.

I'm not making a libertarian speech here. I'm very much on the left. The reason, I think, rich capitalists are rare is because putting off short term pleasure is unnatural to our species. To become rich we need to be a bit dead inside.

We all manage to get off the hedonic treadmill more or less. But for normal, mentally well adjusted, people its going to be a daily struggle. Our brains are're built for opportunism and fun. Not miserly wealth.

That's also why I am on the left. Taking normal people's bad judgement as the norm creates a more humane society.

And the price we pay for a more humane society is less wealth across the board. A unhinged free market will lead to greater wealth for all. I just don't think the price is worth paying.

Where do the capitalists get the money o finance the factory?

One thing many leftists don't understand is that there's high churn on the top. That's a technical investment banker jargon. It means that the richer you are the easier it is to lose your money. It's extremely hard to stay rich. It's not particularly difficult to climb and become rich. Assuming you put in the work and hours.

While a lot of rich people were born wealthy or well off, what they inherited that is more valuable is a lifestyle and habits that lead to wealth. That's what typically sets rich people apart from poor people. That's why class differences tend to become entrenched. But all of that can be broken.

So poor people don't invest all that great wealth they have been endowed with (so why call them poor?) in the wrong things?

Any idiot in the west can work hard and save. Just stay home eat your noodles and put as much as you can into an index funds. That requires zero skill. Only discipline. Works every time.

But if you make "horrible" life choices like raising a family, then you have probably made your choice and will be doomed to a life of not being rich. It could be worse.

Do the rich never invest in the wrong things? What happens then?

Of course they do. The thing with being very rich is that you need to keep making high risk investements to stay rich. Over time that's likely to not work out.

You have an obsession with being rich. Are you rich? If not, is it due to stupidity or laziness?

If that was true I'd most certainly been rich. I am not. In my case it's probably a combination.

You have a peculiar idea of the life cycle of a rich person. Most of them have not given up pleasures to gain wealth.

How do you know? I know plenty of rich people. That's not my impression.

Do you know that if everyone is rich, then no one is rich? It is called hyperinflation. No one would work, and that society would die. Of course, that society wont actually die because economists all know that your idea is stupid, and it will never be implemented.

You have confused wealth with money. They are not the same thing. Wealth is added purchasing power. We often use money as a short hand. But money is not wealth.

You are ambiguous with your final paragraph. Does it mean that you are willing to pay the price of having an unhinged society so there is greater wealth, or do you want less wealth and a more humane society?

I am willing to accept a less wealthy society if it makes it more humane. Or to put it another way, when I moved from Sweden 10 years ago I had such a good CV I could move anywhere I wanted on the planet. I had offers from Brisbane to Jakarta to San Francisco. I chose Denmark. It's the closest to paradise I think humanity can get.

Anyway, it is possible to have both; indeed if a society spreads the wealth the total wealth will increase, as people will become capable of greater productivity.

Something conservatives tend to be good at and leftists bad at, is understanding trade-offs. I don't think you can have both. I think wealth distribution will necessarily kill some of the incentive to work hard. I think it's proportional.

If I had moved to USA I would have made 3 or 4 times the money I do now.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it.

Could they? Who would clean the toilets?

Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?

So then don't. Get a job doing something more profitable, and scaleable, and leave the toilet cleaning to those who doesn't have that motivation.

What is interesting is how many people don't do this calculation and chose to get rich. Because it entails putting up with a lot of discomfort now, for greater wealth later.

I don't think it's a question of intelligence. I think the reason there's so few rich people is because only a few people think that the sacrifice they need to do to get wealthy is worth it. I think it's as simple as that.

I don't think it's a question of ability. I think almost anyone in the west could be rich if they wanted to. I certainly have had plenty of chances to get rich. I'm still not rich. I have a good job. But my main goal in life wasn't to get rich. So I'm not. I have a friend who is an investment banker. His job is to manage other people's money. He's an expert. He's still not rich. Because he blows too much cash on other stuff. Like me.

I work in IT. Every single major Internet based IT company that's crazy wealthy now is ideas I had in the early 90'ies. Like any of us who worked in IT. Any of us could have been Jeff Bezos. None of the ideas were particularly novel or unique. Creating a shop on the Internet is a retardedly simple concept. I am sure, everyone who clicked on the Internet for the first time in the 90'ies had the same idea. Why am I not Jeff Bezos? It wasn't because I didn't have the ability or skills. I most certainly had that. I just wasn't willing to make the sacrifice. That's it. That's why. Like most of us in the industry back then.

I have run my own IT company from time to time. Now I am an employee. Why? Because running your own company is too much bullshit. It's not worth the stress. Could I do it? Most certainly.

I'm friends with one of the two guys who founded Spotify. He now lives in a massive house in Singapore. He owns a castle in Sweden. He has seven full time servants. I'm not jealous, because I know how much shit and grind he had to put up with. For many many years. And he's super smart. It could have been me. I was invited to go along for the ride at any point in that company's history. I still didn't want to. I didn't think it was worth it. I still don't.

Why should everyone be motivated to become rich when that is totally economically infeasible? It would be like having six people in a car and they are all in the driver's seat, totally unrealistic.

No, it's not. Nobody needs other people to clean their toilet for them. We can all shift to high value high profit jobs and swim in fabulous wealth. The price we'd pay for that is that we won't have anyone to do menial labour. So we'll all have to do it ourselves. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

So your goal in life isn't to get rich, but you think everyone else should have this goal?

I think people should follow their hearts and live the best life they can. And make the sacrifices and choices that makes sense for them. That's what I have done. I'm very happy about how my life has turned out. I'm not rich.

The massive success of people like Bezos is not because of sacrifice, it is because of a concept that exists in biology called ecology. Only a limited number can be in any niche (so more predators than prey, and more small animals than big ones), and the other niches must be filled to create a stable ecology.

Sure. But you'll never get rich unless you also put the work in. Yes, lots of people had the idea for Amazon at the same time, and Bezos beat them all. And that work is rarely wasted. I know many many many people who started crash and burn start ups. They all benefitted greately from the experiences and networks they built. And people are super nice to entrepenours who crashed and burned. They tend to end up doing great. But not rich. Those people aren't failures even though they have failed.

The reason companies like Spotify and Facebook make their creators super wealthy is mainly due to two things created by society - the internet, and the way financial rewards work.

Don't forget timing. When Spotify began there were about 20 identical companies just in Stockholm. Tens of thousands over the world. What Spotify did that was unique is that they let the major record labels own a part of it, so that Spotify got access to their catalogues, and that Spotify doing well didn't mean the major labels would lose money when streaming went up. Spotify came right in that break. That's the kind of deals that were made on the docks of Amsterdam in the 1600's.

Simlar with Facebook. There were plenty of sites just before and just after Facebook who tried and failed. When Facebook came along the market was ready.

For example let's take two authors - J.K. Rowling and someone who writes a science book (that probably required more time and effort). The Rowling book has huge sales and Rowling gets huge royalties, whilst the other author gets a small royalty. This is because of the way the royalty system works, not because Rowling made more sacrifice. If the royalties used a different, more rational formula (with royalties being high on first 50,000 sales, and reducing with further sales) then Rowling would still be fairly well off but the other author would get a decent return for all their hard work.

Well.. economic models tend to fall apart when we talk about art. I don't think it makes sense to attach monetary value to works of art. There tends to be an extremely weak correlation between artistic value and what the artist makes. The price of a painting tells you next to nothing how good it is. Whether a movie has recieved an Oscar only tells you how much they use violins in the soundtrack. It could be an utter trash movie.

I personally like the Soviet system for art. If your art was deemed good enough you were given an artists salary by the state. The state owned all your production. But you could do wtf you wanted. There was a limited number of such artist positions. So if they didn't produce they'd eventually be kicked out (not get their contract renewed). But all the artists had the same salary. This led to very interesting collaborations. Since the state owned the production it made it very easy to show it to the public. Everyone had already paid for it, so there was no need to charge anyone for seeing it. USSR produced an amazing array of art throughout it's existence.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized.

OK.

Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing.

Wait, what?

I think you missed a few steps there.

Wait for the capitalists to build the factories, then seize them. There would be no need of that if the system wasn't based on theft.

Capitalists don't build factories. Factories are built by proletariats and then operated by proletariats.

Capitalists finance the factory.

Or as a philosopher friend of mine put it, "poor people are poor because they invest in the wrong things" (..."if the goal is to be wealthy"). That's the skill capitalists bring to the table. Ie, being a joyless miserly cunt. Clearly they are needed in today's world.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it. What prevents us is our priorities.

I'm not making a libertarian speech here. I'm very much on the left. The reason, I think, rich capitalists are rare is because putting off short term pleasure is unnatural to our species. To become rich we need to be a bit dead inside.

We all manage to get off the hedonic treadmill more or less. But for normal, mentally well adjusted, people its going to be a daily struggle. Our brains are're built for opportunism and fun. Not miserly wealth.

That's also why I am on the left. Taking normal people's bad judgement as the norm creates a more humane society.

And the price we pay for a more humane society is less wealth across the board. A unhinged free market will lead to greater wealth for all. I just don't think the price is worth paying.

Where do the capitalists get the money o finance the factory?

One thing many leftists don't understand is that there's high churn on the top. That's a technical investment banker jargon. It means that the richer you are the easier it is to lose your money. It's extremely hard to stay rich. It's not particularly difficult to climb and become rich. Assuming you put in the work and hours.

While a lot of rich people were born wealthy or well off, what they inherited that is more valuable is a lifestyle and habits that lead to wealth. That's what typically sets rich people apart from poor people. That's why class differences tend to become entrenched. But all of that can be broken.

So poor people don't invest all that great wealth they have been endowed with (so why call them poor?) in the wrong things?

Any idiot in the west can work hard and save. Just stay home eat your noodles and put as much as you can into an index funds. That requires zero skill. Only discipline. Works every time.

But if you make "horrible" life choices like raising a family, then you have probably made your choice and will be doomed to a life of not being rich. It could be worse.

Do the rich never invest in the wrong things? What happens then?

Of course they do. The thing with being very rich is that you need to keep making high risk investements to stay rich. Over time that's likely to not work out.

You have an obsession with being rich. Are you rich? If not, is it due to stupidity or laziness?

If that was true I'd most certainly been rich. I am not. In my case it's probably a combination.

You have a peculiar idea of the life cycle of a rich person. Most of them have not given up pleasures to gain wealth.

How do you know? I know plenty of rich people. That's not my impression.

Do you know that if everyone is rich, then no one is rich? It is called hyperinflation. No one would work, and that society would die. Of course, that society wont actually die because economists all know that your idea is stupid, and it will never be implemented.

You have confused wealth with money. They are not the same thing. Wealth is added purchasing power. We often use money as a short hand. But money is not wealth.

You are ambiguous with your final paragraph. Does it mean that you are willing to pay the price of having an unhinged society so there is greater wealth, or do you want less wealth and a more humane society?

I am willing to accept a less wealthy society if it makes it more humane. Or to put it another way, when I moved from Sweden 10 years ago I had such a good CV I could move anywhere I wanted on the planet. I had offers from Brisbane to Jakarta to San Francisco. I chose Denmark. It's the closest to paradise I think humanity can get.

Anyway, it is possible to have both; indeed if a society spreads the wealth the total wealth will increase, as people will become capable of greater productivity.

Something conservatives tend to be good at and leftists bad at, is understanding trade-offs. I don't think you can have both. I think wealth distribution will necessarily kill some of the incentive to work hard. I think it's proportional.

If I had moved to USA I would have made 3 or 4 times the money I do now.

In today's western world of extreme abundance everyone, (everyone not retarded) could be rich if they put their minds to it.

Could they? Who would clean the toilets?

Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?

So then don't. Get a job doing something more profitable, and scaleable, and leave the toilet cleaning to those who doesn't have that motivation.

What is interesting is how many people don't do this calculation and chose to get rich. Because it entails putting up with a lot of discomfort now, for greater wealth later.

I don't think it's a question of intelligence. I think the reason there's so few rich people is because only a few people think that the sacrifice they need to do to get wealthy is worth it. I think it's as simple as that.

I don't think it's a question of ability. I think almost anyone in the west could be rich if they wanted to. I certainly have had plenty of chances to get rich. I'm still not rich. I have a good job. But my main goal in life wasn't to get rich. So I'm not. I have a friend who is an investment banker. His job is to manage other people's money. He's an expert. He's still not rich. Because he blows too much cash on other stuff. Like me.

I work in IT. Every single major Internet based IT company that's crazy wealthy now is ideas I had in the early 90'ies. Like any of us who worked in IT. Any of us could have been Jeff Bezos. None of the ideas were particularly novel or unique. Creating a shop on the Internet is a retardedly simple concept. I am sure, everyone who clicked on the Internet for the first time in the 90'ies had the same idea. Why am I not Jeff Bezos? It wasn't because I didn't have the ability or skills. I most certainly had that. I just wasn't willing to make the sacrifice. That's it. That's why. Like most of us in the industry back then.

I have run my own IT company from time to time. Now I am an employee. Why? Because running your own company is too much bullshit. It's not worth the stress. Could I do it? Most certainly.

I'm friends with one of the two guys who founded Spotify. He now lives in a massive house in Singapore. He owns a castle in Sweden. He has seven full time servants. I'm not jealous, because I know how much shit and grind he had to put up with. For many many years. And he's super smart. It could have been me. I was invited to go along for the ride at any point in that company's history. I still didn't want to. I didn't think it was worth it. I still don't.

Why should everyone be motivated to become rich when that is totally economically infeasible? It would be like having six people in a car and they are all in the driver's seat, totally unrealistic.

No, it's not. Nobody needs other people to clean their toilet for them. We can all shift to high value high profit jobs and swim in fabulous wealth. The price we'd pay for that is that we won't have anyone to do menial labour. So we'll all have to do it ourselves. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

So your goal in life isn't to get rich, but you think everyone else should have this goal?

I think people should follow their hearts and live the best life they can. And make the sacrifices and choices that makes sense for them. That's what I have done. I'm very happy about how my life has turned out. I'm not rich.

The massive success of people like Bezos is not because of sacrifice, it is because of a concept that exists in biology called ecology. Only a limited number can be in any niche (so more predators than prey, and more small animals than big ones), and the other niches must be filled to create a stable ecology.

Sure. But you'll never get rich unless you also put the work in. Yes, lots of people had the idea for Amazon at the same time, and Bezos beat them all. And that work is rarely wasted. I know many many many people who started crash and burn start ups. They all benefitted greately from the experiences and networks they built. And people are super nice to entrepenours who crashed and burned. They tend to end up doing great. But not rich. Those people aren't failures even though they have failed.

The reason companies like Spotify and Facebook make their creators super wealthy is mainly due to two things created by society - the internet, and the way financial rewards work.

Don't forget timing. When Spotify began there were about 20 identical companies just in Stockholm. Tens of thousands over the world. What Spotify did that was unique is that they let the major record labels own a part of it, so that Spotify got access to their catalogues, and that Spotify doing well didn't mean the major labels would lose money when streaming went up. Spotify came right in that break. That's the kind of deals that were made on the docks of Amsterdam in the 1600's.

Simlar with Facebook. There were plenty of sites just before and just after Facebook who tried and failed. When Facebook came along the market was ready.

For example let's take two authors - J.K. Rowling and someone who writes a science book (that probably required more time and effort). The Rowling book has huge sales and Rowling gets huge royalties, whilst the other author gets a small royalty. This is because of the way the royalty system works, not because Rowling made more sacrifice. If the royalties used a different, more rational formula (with royalties being high on first 50,000 sales, and reducing with further sales) then Rowling would still be fairly well off but the other author would get a decent return for all their hard work.

Well.. economic models tend to fall apart when we talk about art. I don't think it makes sense to attach monetary value to works of art. There tends to be an extremely weak correlation between artistic value and what the artist makes. The price of a painting tells you next to nothing how good it is. Whether a movie has recieved an Oscar only tells you how much they use violins in the soundtrack. It could be an utter trash movie.

I personally like the Soviet system for art. If your art was deemed good enough you were given an artists salary by the state. The state owned all your production. But you could do wtf you wanted. There was a limited number of such artist positions. So if they didn't produce they'd eventually be kicked out (not get their contract renewed). But all the artists had the same salary. This led to very interesting collaborations. Since the state owned the production it made it very easy to show it to the public. Everyone had already paid for it, so there was no need to charge anyone for seeing it. USSR produced an amazing array of art throughout it's existence.

You have an obsession about the "wrong thinking" of the left, and also a class warfare attitude. BTW I am not of the left so your thoughts about the left are irrelevant to me on a personal level. You say it is easy for a rich person to become non-rich. The reverse is the case in regard to the rich becoming not rich - that it is difficult. That it happens often is because lots of rich people who didn't earn their wealth squander it and use their wealth unwisely.

In regard to pleasure, for lots of them gaining more wealth is a form of pleasure, plus many other pleasures. You are confused if you think staying rich requires hard work. Where it does require hard work there are minions and employees (workers) to do that. Also you seem to think all rich people are super-wealthy, but some are comfortably rich and don't have an obsession with becoming wealthy beyond reason. They are not all the same as each other.

You say money and wealth are two different things. You'll have to explain that. Some of the people on this board are very economically literate; I am sure they will be interested to hear your ideas about this. I just looked at an article that says money is only a component of wealth, but the other components of wealth they listed are just money transformed into other aspects.

 

[Bronzeage]

Here's a question: How long must one hold stolen property before it can be considered one's own property, in a moral sense?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a question: How long must one hold stolen property before it can be considered one's own property, in a moral sense?

Natural rights and natural property rights are not natural. They're made up. Any rule regarding property rights is as good as any other.

Its the law that decides what is considered stealing. If the law says its not stealing, then it isn't.

The western tradition of respecting property rights comes from England and the French and Spanish kings jealously looking at England and how easy it was for the English crown to borrow money from eager Brits. Because the English crown made a thing of always paying back loans they had access to more money, and thus won wars.

That's all.

Or to put it another way, we should respect property rights when it makes sense and ignore them when they don't. I'm a pragmatic. Whatever works is what we should do. I don't care what ideological label we slap onto it