[ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae...
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Tue Feb 12 05:19:57 UTC 2008
Our Avantguardian wrote, on Feb 10, 2008 8:34 PM,
> Given the continuation of current trends, it seems likely that market
> forces will in time result in a "winner take all" economic singularity
> where no matter what you buy or where you buy it from, your money ends
> up in the same "hands". This is far worse than a simple monopoly since
> a classical monopoly only applies to a single commodity whereas an
> economic singularity is not so restricted.
A "winner take all" economic singularity would *not* a bad thing at
all, given all the current economic trends!
Would you really disapprove of the following distribution?
In 2044 so rich has society become that in 2007 dollars, one
person owns the equivalent of 10^46 dollars, and the world's
second richest person commands "only" 10^40 dollars. After
that, a there are a few hundred people whose wealth puts
them in the $10^30 - $10^40, range, and the average person
owns a mere 10^20 dollars. Those at the very bottom of
society subsist, somehow, upon a mere 10^15 (one quadrillion)
dollars, in today's money.
"How can this possibly be equitable?", ask the socialists on this
list. For although admittedly everyone is doing very, very well
by early century standards, the top dog, after all, owns everything!
Everything, that is, but a mere insignificant one-millionth or so
of all the wealth.
Anyone who does not think this distribution of wealth to be an
extremely desirable outcome is suffering, purely and simply,
from envy. Or at very least, and conscious appreciation of
and catering to all the proles out there who suffer from the
envy's evil eye.
More information about the extropy-chat