[ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae...

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 12 08:27:00 UTC 2008

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> 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?

Well I don't generally disapprove of fairy tales. 

> 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.

You seem to somehow have gotten the impression that money creates
wealth. It doesn't quite work that way. Wealth creates wealth. Money is
just a medium of exchange for said wealth. That is what inflation is
all about and why governments can't just pay their bills by printing
money without screwing up the economy.

> "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.

"How can this possibly be possible?", ask the physicists on this list.
For although admittedly 10^15 dollars sounds like a generous amount of
money to dole out to the wretched poor by early century standards,
there are roughly 10^40 dollars in this proposed economy and only
6*10^27 grams of matter comprising the entire planet earth including
the bodies those poor! Therefore at a mere 1.6*10^18 dollars per gram,
should it be a sellers market on atoms of matter, the poor would be
able to afford to own a portion of matter, perhaps a portion of their
respective bodies, approximately the mass of a mosquito weighing-in at
about 1.6 milligrams. Of course some of the more ecentric proles in Lee
world may instead elect to forego their bodies completely and come to
own an actual mosquito. And by clipping coupons and being frugal the
diligent poor may be able to afford some MP3s as well although how they
would store or listen to the MP3s is a matter for debate.       

> 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.

Anyone who thinks that this distribution of wealth is a feasible, let
alone a desirable, outcome is suffering, purely and simply, from a
chemical imbalance. Or at very least high on some very powerful drugs.

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Life is the sum of all your choices."  
Albert Camus

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list