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

[Lee Corbin]

Stuart writes

> Ok. So you are saying that if Newton went back in time, he could sell
> his pocket watch, his slide rule, and his horse and buggy to Amenhotep
> for all of Egypt? I just don't see that happening. Instead I see Newton
> being enslaved and forced to build pyramids, while Amenhotep admires
> his new aquisitions.

:-)  Yes, I guess that would happen all right.  But seriously,
I was implying that the typical well-to-do Egyptian would
perhaps give up all his possessions for 10% or 5% of
Newton's (excluding food, clothing, and water).  Now in
this thought experiment, it is not fair, of course,  for the
ancient one to get to trade his new, unbelievably rare
pocket watch, etc. He must value those 17th century
items for themselves for my comparison idea to work.

>> So it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility
>> on *this* list to suppose that this sequence could
>> continue into the indefinite future.
> 
> Of course it could but that does not mean it should.

But surely you would prefer everyone being on an exponentially
growing path of wealth accumulation?   I did once catch a
leveller who was literally opposed to everyone being twice
as wealthy as they are now, on the grounds that the gap
between rich and poor would be even greater.

>> wealth creation up till now comes
>> from (1) increased trade (sadly limited by the limited extent
>> of the Earth which we are now encountering for the first time)
>> (2) technological advances, and (3) specialization (division
>> of labor). But soon there will be (4) if we're not already
>> there: algorithmic advance.
> 
> You forgot about compound interest, which essentially trumps 1-4 above.

But the compound interest is *only* a function of the basic
wealth creation abilities of a civilization!  Back, again, to (1) - (4).

>> What is the number of possible algorithms
>> in an N-state machine? One gets a small idea from
>> "The Busy Beaver" problem, as you probably
>> know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
> 
> I don't see how this relevant to the discussion. Software is a
> commodity that ought to be as fungible as water and any scarcity is
> artificially induced by "extortion networks" as per Rafal.

In the Busy Beaver problem, every time we (metaphorically)
add a single neuron, the possibility of vastly more programs,
vastly longer running programs, vastly more complicated
running programs, etc., increases to an unbelieveable extent.

Now if we become so enchanted with algorithms (which, as
a class, includes *us*), then we bypass your seeming 
limitation of dollars/atom.  That is, indeed measured in
today's dollars, the amount of wealth in the solar system
in terms of dollars could (and I hope, will) dwarf the
number of atoms.

>> Yeah, your logic probably does force me into 
>> uploading scenarios.
> 
> Well that was my point. The condensation of wealth if allowed to
> continue unchecked may lead to the forced uploading of the
> poor via the "economic singularity" which is equivalent to
> genocide since the poor will no longer be in the gene pool.

Boy, do we look at it differently!  So many of the people
I know can hardly wait to be uploaded.  And I think that
even the most reactionary of the poor would jump at the
chance of getting uploaded when they hear how it's going
for their friends and relatives who did.

Surely we can avoid forced uploading.  I do hope we
preserve enough of our present laws and traditions to
ensure that people at least own their atoms.

>> Well, come now.  The whole point of laying out
>> an extreme scenario is to make the argument clear.
>> So what if Bill Gates owns 1% of American wealth
>> (or something like that, Rockefeller had even more
>> at one point)?  I couldn't care less, provided that
>> I myself (and others) are themselves all on 
>> exponentially increasing paths of wealth garnering.
> 
> I am just saying that it clarifies my argument as much as yours. I
> happen to like Bill Gates especially since he became more
> philanthropic.

Strange.  Just the opposite occurred with me. Since he's 
started to destroy wealth this way, he is trying to undo
the wealth he contributed to the world.

Would humanity ever have accumulated capital, evaded
the Malthusian traps, and brought about our modern
world and its riches if all the rich people in 1820 had
just given their money away? No!

> He actually earned his fortune through cleverness
> instead of murder or the inheritance of blood money.
> My indictment is against the rules of the game and not
> against those who are winning

What system would you propose to replace it?

>> There do seem to be two points of view here.
>> One is that relative differences are way less
>> important than absolute levels, and the other
>> is that they actually *more* important than
>> absolute levels.
> 
> Think about all the Thomas Edisons that languish in poverty all over
> the world because they lack funding for R&D for their inventions. All
> the new businesses and new industries that cannot be built because
> young entrepeneurs lack the seed capital for their ideas.

Well, the only people I've ever known with great world-changing
ideas have been unrealistic enough to make me conclude they
were flakes.  But that's just the people I know, I guess.

> Think about all the people willing to put everything they
> own into their wacky invention but don't have enough to
> even get started because the handful of rich are too risk
> averse to fund them even if they happened to have
> any kind of social access to the rich. 

I think that you underestimate the greed and rapacity of
the rich.  If there is *any* way to make money off of 
someone's idea, count on the VPs to smell them out.
The sad truth is that the VPs lose money hand over fist
in 9 out of 10 ventures. So it's simply not true that 
the rich aren't trying to get richer this way.

> Do you realize how many times Henry Ford was turned
> down by venture capitalists before he finally got the green
> light for his "wacky idea"?

But no one can KNOW what is wacky and what isn't.
Do you realize just how *many*  "Einsteins" and
"Edisons" there are out there who are absolute loons?

>> (I doubt if *anyone* here supposes that it's
>> a zero-sum game, although, unconsiously....? ?
> 
> Monkey status *is* a zero-sum game. Human society
> and economics need not be.

Status may be a zero-sum game, but economics *certainly*
is not---except in those cases where some genius like Lenin
supposes that he has a better way to organize everything.

Lee