[ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae...
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Wed Feb 13 05:40:15 UTC 2008
>> Would in fact you be in favor of an "improvement" in technology
>> or in society that caused each person earning D dollars to rise
>> to wealth e^D dollars? True, everyone would be vastly richer,
>> by my God, the gap between the rich and the poor would become
>> truly astronomical! Could you stand it?
> ### You mean, I would have more money (inflation-adjusted, I assume?)
> than was made in the whole history of the Earth, maybe even in the
> whole galaxy?! That's a no-brainer!
> I would be genuinely baffled by anybody who would refuse his e^D
> dollars only so that Mr Gates doesn't get e^(D+10e10) dollars. This
> would be painfully stupid, not to mention criminally destructive.
But I guess it depends on your values. If inequality is more important
than actual wealth (beyond food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment,
I presume), then it will make a number of people ill to even think
about the disparity.
> Lee, just tell me who to call to get in this get-everybody-rich-quick
> scheme and I'll handle the negotiations.
Unfortunately, the wealth-creation bit is going to take a while, it
seems. But we could resort to just printing it, I suppose. All
the politicians favoring the quick-check stimulus ought to be
highly in favor.
P.S. A friend from the Middle-East set me straight on priorities.
"Food, shelter, clothing", isn't as realistic as "Food, Clothing, and Water"
he pointed out :-)
And I owe to a very wise friend that there really are *four* basic
necessities: food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment. If we are
so lucky as to supplement the nanny-state with the nano-state,
then everyone *ought* to be happy.
More information about the extropy-chat