[ExI] Donald Trump

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Tue May 10 20:08:34 UTC 2016

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>

> 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
> ​If I am not mistaken, Congress got rid of death taxes several years ago.
> Too bad.

​bill w​

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160510/277d7b18/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list