"Value."
Having loads of money isn't just about generating value. It's about extracting value.
It might lag a bit, but almost exactly. That's the whole idea. Real household incomes in the US from 1950 to 2000 very nearly doubled, and purchasing power increased even more. The 'rich get richer' is irrelevant if everyone else is, too.
> By your metric Bell Labs should be worth more than any other company in existence.
The fact that they aren't means that no, they shouldn't be. It's the capitalism equivalent of "the guy with a great idea for an app". If you aren't actually delivering that value to people that need it, you aren't getting paid for it.
> Having loads of money isn't just about generating value. It's about extracting value.
Generating and extracting value are the same thing, ignoring the connotation.
If you create a device where, with one press of a big red button, you can cure cancer/world hunger/war/disease, but you never actually press that button? You haven't actually created any value. You haven't done anything.
> If you create a device where, with one press of a big red button, you can cure cancer/world hunger/war/disease, but you never actually press that button?
What if you create such a device and decide to publicly share the design, with no plans to monopolize it? You'd probably be the lose financially, but did you not create the most value?
Have Linux or Git created no real value except for the companies that can build service models around them?
As for bubbles, I would hazard that your accusation is a confession.
To think the 3rd most significant source of value in your life is cheap microcontrollers is.. wild.
Indoor plumbing? Refrigeration? A health department that ensures you aren't eating food fried in gutter oil?
You are taking these entirely for granted, because everyone has those, right? This is a great example of what privilege actually is.
Let's make this simpler for you.
Your original proposal is that, of course, the wealthy (read: anyone that makes more than you) have too much, the homeless have too little. So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor.
SF spends $100,000 per year, per homeless resident, on 'fixing homelessness'. Exactly how much more should they be spending, and why would that change anything?
Had someone like this tell me Venezuelans should be supporting Democratic candidates...like what. A country whose people are so poor a lot of them wonder what they're going to eat next should be focusing on another country's politicians?
As for the gadgets which you alluded to as contemporary society's savior just a few replies ago, I tend to attribute their existence to the basic research and, yes, cheap microcontrollers that made them possible, rather than the glorified middlemen who repackaged them as high-margin luxuries and sold them with spyware.
> So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor.
Also, like a concerned and informed adult, but yes.
>Exactly how much more should they be spending,
However much it would cost to house them permanently (and reduce housing insecurity in general), bounded by tax revenues, of course.
>and why would that change anything?
Well, generally-speaking, when a homeless person has housing, they cease to be homeless.
>Let's make this simpler for you.
I'd like you to stop projecting your own insecurities on me.
Next will be the inevitable fallout of destroying ~45 trillion in wealth. The consequences of which, bluntly, I can't even really fathom at the moment.
I'm assuming you'll be planning to tax more to give the effected some sort of UBI? Please confirm and I'll explain how that will also blow up in your face.
> conceptually the solution is pretty simple
It is if you don't actually think about it. At all.
Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?
No, because despite the mixed-bag that a single payer system would bring, it is not actually destroying healthcare. Unless you intend to force them to provide their services for no pay.
> Perhaps the costs of allowing a deleterious institution to continue existing dwarf the costs of reforming them, on occasion.
Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.
> Family formation is down, bankruptcy is up, and somehow I imagine that you have not figured in the trillions in lost value from these and the like realities that are extant because the 3rd most basic human need is unaffordable in this country.
It is substantially less than destroying the entire real market, unquestionably. That doesn't mean that it's not a problem that should be addressed. But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.
> Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?
I'm not. I've got no problem at all paying my taxes. I have no interest in those taxes being wasted.
Welfare spending is the least of your concerns, then.
>it is not actually destroying healthcare.
I didn't say it would. "Healthcare" is not the same as "the healthcare industry as it currently exists".
>Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.
Ironically: despite the mixed bag that crashing the value of real estate by implementing a housing guarantee (or even simply increasing construction velocity) would bring, it would not actually destroy the concept of "private property", legally or otherwise.
>But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.
Again, that's not what I said. You seem to have a problem with this. It would be interesting to see you actually argue against something other than a strawman. Are you capable of that?
EDIT: Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.
Yep. In fact, I specifically asked you for your proposal, and you chose to rant about identity politics instead of policy. Which is on brand, I guess.
> Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.
Nope. The current system for performing real estate transactions is wildly inefficient, rent-seeking, insecure, and I'd love to see it destroyed.
your arrogance is surpassed only by your foolishness.
See, this is what I mean. This sort of 'solution' is advocated by people that have never bothered to contemplate the second order effects.
Try to imagine what would happen if we implemented this. Anyone that is homeless gets permanent, free housing. You pat yourself on the back.
Except, now I sell my house. And I come to you and tell you that I'm homeless. Are you going to give me permanent, free housing too?
Because if you do, you have now created the economic catastrophe that I described.
And if you don't, because I don't deserve it on the basis of XYZ, you've just recreated section 8.
yes. it probably won't be as nice as something you, a wealthy person, could afford to buy, and it probably won't be exactly where you want to live, but everyone could be guaranteed safe and stable housing without complicated means testing.
> you've just recreated Section 8.
Section 8 disqualifies people for all kinds of "character" issues associated with drug use, mental illness, etc. That's a big reason there are so many homeless on the street. I am against means testing, but even that system could be a lot better than it is now.
Yes, they definitely have made your life better.
If there were no ads, people would judge based on the quality of products, instead of being manipulated to buy things.
I obviously block ads. I understand that lots of things would cost money that currently are free, but many things would still be free. The old internet consisted mainly of free things and was not infested with ads.
Please, tell me one positive effect that ads have on society as a whole. (So not for you personally, because I know they make money)