Hacker News Reader

Comment by Emphere | Hacker News Reader

Very good, something I have been thinking about as well. Inequality is bad because of the massive power differentials. How do you propose we "solve" that while still being able to reap the benefits of scale?

Any pointers or books to read about this topic? Admittedly I haven't looked too hard.

View on HN

Idea for the solution is to get everyone together to opt-in to a value system that demonizes excess accumulation. That sounds crazy/impossible today, but on lets say, a 2000 year timespan could we get there? 2000 years ago, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was a seminal idea, eventually resulting in the world today where killing is demonized and this is existence proof of a solution. We can then abstract to the general class of game theory coordination dilemmas stuck at backstab/backstab, of which both covid and climate change are instances. The will/power of billions of people outweighs the power of a few (regardless of how concentrated the wealth is as wealth is an abstraction), and the internet offers a means for billions of people to coordinate. I conclude that the needed points of leverage are available today/ right now and simply awaiting a great leader to recognize the opportunity, figure out the play and execute it. And the way ideas spread online, I bet the world can reconfigure itself in not 2000 years, but 20 - a single business cycle.

Define "excess"

I'm glad people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates have billions of dollars - they're solving some of the world's hardest challenges right now with their wealth.

With pittances. What is an example of even a $20 billion project by a private party? Elon Musk's current wealth could fund SpaceX for over 350 years.

I have a favorite illustration of what just one billion dollars is: a million dollars per week for almost 20 years.

> With pittances.

Bill Gates is giving away the vast majority of his wealth

You don't know what Elon Musk will do with his wealth, but given his track record -- probably something good for humanity

Probably something good for technology. I haven't seen much to indicate a focus on "humanity"

> Bill Gates is giving away the vast majority of his wealth

That's a tax-avoidance scheme. Here's a recent (and certainly not the first) article laying it out:

https://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/bill-gates-promised-to-gi...

> You don't know what Elon Musk will do with his wealth

I think we both know that whatever it is, first and foremost it'll be good for Elon Musk.

>> Idea for the solution is to get everyone together to opt-in to a value system that demonizes excess accumulation.

> I'm glad people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates have billions of dollars - they're solving some of the world's hardest challenges right now with their wealth.

There's a difference between having billions of dollars and controlling billions of dollars. Having usually implies controlling, but it's not necessary for that.

A hypothetical value system that "demonizes excess accumulation" will can still allow talented people to use massive resources to solve challenging problems. For an actual real-world example: the US didn't have to wait for a SF fan to become a billionaire before it built rockets to travel to the moon. Similarly, billionaires often don't solve any problems with their wealth. Musk spends millions to build rockets and win government contracts, but other purported billionaires spend millions on money-losing golf courses and vanity airlines instead.

I'd just like to point out that the taboo against murder has been around for far longer then the Bible or likely any religion that exists today.

The Code of Hammurabi predates it by 1700 years(almost 4000 years ago). Not allowing murder seems good for the survival of any society of humans.

> 2000 years ago, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was a seminal idea, eventually resulting in the world today where killing is demonized and this is existence proof of a solution.

Uh, what? Do you think murder was first outlawed 2000 years ago? I mean "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the Ten Commandments which is part of the Old Testament which predates Christ by at least several hundred years if not over a thousand. Even the Code of Hammurabi references charges of murder and it is closer to 4000 years ago. The idea that murder is bad is probably as old as civilization itself if not older.

But things are only valuable because people think they are valuable. It's not clear to me why I should need to change my behavior because other people have changed how they view me or my property.

If I find a special rock in my back yard that someone would pay me $100,000 for - I get to keep all that money in your system I assume. But if I find a special rock in my back yard that someone would pay me $1,000,000,000 for - I don't get to keep the money, or if I want to hold onto the rock, I need to give part of the rock away?

More concretely - imagine if TSLA has crossed the threshold because of the recent rally, where now Elon "should" be forcibly divested of part of his ownership of the company. Let's say he goes from 20% to 5%.

Later, the stock crashes back down below the threshold. Does Elon get his 15% back?

here is an easy paper about "the elements of a general theory of social change" http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/stratofc.pdf

massive power differentials are a physical property of a complex system. not everyone knows how to run the internet, and anyone who does has power over ... most of it. any 'scale' will lead to a larger power differential than being monkeys in caves, which already was not 'nice'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com