[ExI] Donald Trump

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Samantha,
The problem is not the wealth inequality is created by people like Elon
Musk. He is the exception. In fact, it would be fine if wealth was gained
in this way by creating real value in the world.
Most wealth though is in the hands of people that have inherited without
any personal merit and the wealth is not used to create further value but
for speculation and rent seeking.
Look up the research on this. These agents are really parasites on the
system.
Giovanni


On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Income inequality is a complete non-problem.  There is no reason in
> reality that the relative income of intelligent agents (people for now)
> should be confined to some arbitrary narrow range relative to one another.
> Wealth is created, it is not static.  So if Elon Musk creates $billions in
> value we should cheer like mad because that much more value now exist in
> the world we share.  And the $billions that are counted as his personal net
> worth are a small fraction of the actual value he created.   Do we want to
> limit an Elon Musk to no more value creation than some arbitrary factor
> times the average value created by persons of his generation and society?
> What for?
>
> Or do we want to limit the amount of the wealth he produced that he can
> personally control?  Who would we rather control some resources, someone
> who has shown they have the Midas touch turning a given quantity of
> resources into the gold of more resources or someone that has shown no such
> thing and seems to somehow always consume approximately as much as they
> produce?   I would want rationally to see that person expert in increasing
> value/wealth to have as much of it to multiply as possible.    And of
> course the private space program and the real viable electric car would not
> exist without some real wealth in the hands of a few with sufficient vision
> and skill.
>
> Under accelerating change I would expect and increase in income/wealth
> inequality.   Technology is a force multiplier.  Those who avail themselves
> of it earlier and/or better will have their efforts multiplied more,
> including efforts that have economic consequences.
>
> In reality unequal actions do not produce equal results.   This is nothing
> to cry over and certainly nothing to impose limitations on anyone over.
>
> Or is the perceived "problem" that more money might buy more political
> favor?  Well the answer to that is that government's should have no favors
> to sell as legitimate government is severely limited in what it can exert
> major power over.     It is not the fault of the wealthy that government
> has so gotten out of hand that it controls aspects of about everything in
> our lives.   Nor that it has so drained the economy that despite how much
> it has taken for so long it has put (US) us nearly $20 trillion in debt as
> well and over $100 trillion if you counted unfunded liabilities (promise of
> bread and circuses tomorrow).
>
> - samantha
>
>
> On 05/07/2016 03:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bill Hibbard < <test at ssec.wisc.edu>
> test at ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> ​ > ​
>> He
>> ​ [Dumb Donald]​
>> is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
>> social disruption caused by technological change. In
>> ​
>> particular, lots of people are not needed by the
>> ​
>> market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
>> get
>
>
> ​Yes.​
>
> ​ There are 7 billion people on the Earth and in 2014 the richest 85
> people had as much money as the poorest 3.5 billion did, ​in 2015 the
> richest 80 did, in 2016 the richest 62 did. This trend does not promote
> social cohesion or stability and if the Libertarian Party wishes to gain
> power its going to have to address it. I'm not making a moral judgement
> just stating a fact.
>
> ​ > ​
>> Trump is just a symptom
>
>
> ​ Dumb Donald​
>  is more than that,
> ​ T​
> rump is a
> ​
> existential threat
> ​ .​
>
> ​ > ​
>> My bet is that the world will survive the Trump
>> ​
>> vs Clinton election.
>
>
> ​I agree, we'll probably survive, the betting market only gives Trump a
> 23.5% chance of winning.​
>
> ​ John K Clark​
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/8b3154fc/attachment.html>