We should have more billionaires
twitter.com
twitter.com
So assume a hypothetical case where there is a runaway inflation. Everyday things start costing thousands of dollars and buying stuff need cash to be shoved around on wheel barrows (this has actually happened in many places). Wages also inflate similarly.
What if the government decides to create a larger value currency denomination - say a 'Mega dollar' - and declare it (ie, a 'mega') as the new base denomination? Why wouldn't this work? (I presume it doesn't work, because I haven't seen it applied in practice.)
The ongoing harm from hyper-inflation is mostly: unpredictability ie you have to negotiate with your boss every week what your paycheck is based on subjective perception of inflation, the time-value of payments suddenly becomes critical, and you can no longer store money effectively in the actual currency. Everybody else realizes this and pulls out, as they have no confidence in your economy since you can't get this under control. These makes commerce really really painful and wrecks the economy.
The actual bills is not really a huge problem. Zeroes are very easy to cram on, and the 'megadollar' technique is not infrequently deployed, sometimes simultaneously with some kind of gesture to hopefully convince people it is a turning point.
If you redistributed Bill Gates' Microsoft stock across the population, wouldn't that cause a commensurate rise in inflation as everyone uses their portion on things that they need? (Bill Gates has 500,000 times the median US net worth, but doesn't eat 500,000 times more bread or wear 500,000 times more kilograms of cotton than the average person).
In terms of actual physical things the ultra-rich don't really have that much comparatively than the regular person. Maybe they have a few mansions, yachts, helicopters - but given that there are many, many more poor and middle-income people than the rich, only a small percentage of the population could benefit (how many people can actually fit on Bezos' yacht, how many apartments could those mansions be easily converted into?).
There's probably an economic benefit from redirecting labour from things that the rich like but again, we're not quite at Ancient Egypt levels of large portions of the population building useless things for the super-rich, if you're a billionaire your workforce is probably working on something that makes money from people poorer than you. If you make the firms that build mansions pivot to building normal houses for ordinary people, I don't think that would result in all that many more houses being built.
That's not to say that there wouldn't be other benefits like removing their ability to influence public opinion through their money (although even without rich people there would still be individuals with disproportionate media influence), but wealth redistribution isn't the panacea that people claim it to be.
1. Give 99% of his billions to everyone.
2. Let anyone invest with VCs in private deals (remove the accreditation requirement)
He won't do any of that.
I guess that's where it ends for me.
Can't read any following twitter thread (if there is one).
Is there any indication what he thinks more billionaires should be doing that they are not already doing?
Onecounter-framing is that entepreneurs keep 2.2% of the value that their workers create.
I would have to say that his resulting 45:1 ratio would be the maximum upside, and only achievable if every billionaire dollar was earned through innovative creation of value.
As we know, very few things are 100% efficient, plus unfortunately sometimes financial efforts can balance more toward innovative destruction of value, so that does need to be taken into consideration.
I like his optimism though.
They capture far more value from their employees than any of their employees do. If you have 5 ticks on your leg, which one skeeves you the most? The one that's sucked the most blood.
OK, I'll give it a try :)
I do think Garry has done good in YC with a worthwhile focus on the financial upside of the startups.
Now that I do the math a little differently, I still think it's quite easy to recognize an innovation multiplier in the 45:1 range. As a preteen. It's good to be motivated and have more ambition than average at a young age.
Maybe that got me started on the road to innovation myself :)
As a greedy youngster playing with margins, you really want multiples instead. That's one of the most mathematically prominent ways to get rich quick. But with maturity comes the appreciation that those who have skyrocketed have usually done so by beating the odds at overwhelming long-shots more so than as a result of their groundbreaking innovation.
If you're not already close to being a billionaire, you're not going to get there any time soon without skyrocketing. There's nothing inherently wrong with these things being motivational. And when you see the way it has been elegantly done quite a few times without greed being the primary motivation, you wouldn't want it any other way.
I would think it's quite likely that every billionaire has more or less about 45 very rich people whom they are associated with, who are all much better off for that very reason.
This type of circle would reinforce consistency with a landscape where a 45:1 figure has been realistically achieved in practice, with real-world examples everywhere you look.
If you do the math though, 45:1 is still the maximum dollar upside, but that can never be completely achieved, much less sustained in a widespread way without somebody eventually running out of money as a result. A lesser functional ratio than 45:1 would be expected to delay the eventuality.
No telling who would run out of money first, there are so many different kinds of wealth for one thing, and simple credit is important otherwise you would just plain run out of currency before the bulk of potential new billionaires would be able to make it very far. I guess they would still be rich even if they never quite made it a full billion. But what would happen to the vast minority?/majority? that are so far from billionaires they can mainly only prosper in terms of the the actual currency of the realm? Credit or not. Whose only hope for survival dollars among large lower rungs, already hinges on having widespread overall across-the-realm prosperity not receding any measurable amount further.
Remember in musical chairs the shortage is not realized until the music stops, regardless of whether it's a DJ or an "invisible hand" of some kind or another that's calling a halt to the fun. And if there's billionaires being minted, why are basic shortages not already better addressed?
For another thing, once a person reaches billion-dollar status, they could only maintain 45:1 if all further money was accumulated from people approximately 45 times richer than themselves.
And it all has to come from innovation alone, it takes a pretty dedicated innovator to consistently carry the weight of 45 others, so that seems like a factor too.
Wouldn't they eventually run out of people like that, and then who else is left?
Just idle conjecture, I know, but it could happen ;)
What's the worst that could occur? You run out of money and run out of the people you need?
Hasn't that always been a possibility, taken place from time to time anyway?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires
(“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”)