22290 pts ยท March 29, 2019
And how do you KNOW you have an advantageous hierarchy? How do you KNOW you have power over others? You do things to them and you (hope to and often do) get away with it. "If I can hurt you then I am powerful and can feel good." So they might aspire to shooting a minority and getting off scott-free by claiming self defense, or maintaining a big symbolic border wall that reminds everyone that their homeland and its resources are exclusive, or... Doing something terrible to a powerless child.
So, one of the fundamental differences between someone who decides to be progressive and someone who decides to be conservative, is that the former bases their evaluation of "good vs evil" through a lens of fairness and helpfulness (or harm reduction). The latter defines "good vs evil" on the grounds of in-group benefit against outgroups, maintaining purity, and obedience to authority. Because of this, it is absolutely alien to the progressive when the conservative craves advantageous hierarchy.
"Well, I don't have that problem so it's not really a problem."
Sounds like an atari game. :D
It took me longer than wish to admit to realize how clever this is.
Depends on what you mean. When I say "distribution", I mean the total value of all assets.
We'd like everyone to hold something instead of someone holding everything. The act of holding isn't the issue.
The existence of all of these assets isn't the problem. SOMEONE is going to be holding them. The problem is in the distribution.
A stock is a sellable asset. You could ask the exact same question of a bar of gold or a bitcoin or a valuable baseball card.
"money in a bank" (even if it's a bullshit offshore tax haven bank) isn't "removed from the economy" like many people think.
and what's going on out in the global markets can push or pull on the domestic reality. But my core point remains that >
Certainly we can have too much or too little supply of those funds, consumer confidence plays a role too, as do investment alternatives >
That isn't the position at all. The existence of loanable funds isn't what "drives debt". It's the entire basis for multiplier effects.
If you have $1M in bonds, the government is spending that on programs until it matures. And so on.
Money doesn't sit still. It's never idle. It's never "out of the economy". If you have $1M parked in a bank account, the bank lends it out.
Economist here. Over-concentration of wealth has negative impacts on a society, but the "hoarding" isn't the part of it that does that. >
So you are indeed correct that the allowing the beneficiaries of the total workload to concentrate is detrimental to the remainder.
Economist here. Every economic system answers the questions: What work is done? Who does the work? Who gets the benefits of that work?
"Graphene can do absolutely anything... Except leave the lab."
Butt scratcher?
The company that was heavily invested in solid boosters for the space shuttles? Bit of a bias there, no? :D
But anyone who talks about a manned mission to Mars without mentioning a 10+ year timeline and $200B in funding is selling a bill of goods.
I have no grief with private launches or liquid fuels. These are both perfectly viable things.
That's the nose of an A-6 intruder, introduced 1960. So yeh, modern shoot.
And how do you KNOW you have an advantageous hierarchy? How do you KNOW you have power over others? You do things to them and you (hope to and often do) get away with it. "If I can hurt you then I am powerful and can feel good." So they might aspire to shooting a minority and getting off scott-free by claiming self defense, or maintaining a big symbolic border wall that reminds everyone that their homeland and its resources are exclusive, or... Doing something terrible to a powerless child.
So, one of the fundamental differences between someone who decides to be progressive and someone who decides to be conservative, is that the former bases their evaluation of "good vs evil" through a lens of fairness and helpfulness (or harm reduction). The latter defines "good vs evil" on the grounds of in-group benefit against outgroups, maintaining purity, and obedience to authority. Because of this, it is absolutely alien to the progressive when the conservative craves advantageous hierarchy.
"Well, I don't have that problem so it's not really a problem."
Sounds like an atari game. :D
It took me longer than wish to admit to realize how clever this is.
Depends on what you mean. When I say "distribution", I mean the total value of all assets.
We'd like everyone to hold something instead of someone holding everything. The act of holding isn't the issue.
The existence of all of these assets isn't the problem. SOMEONE is going to be holding them. The problem is in the distribution.
A stock is a sellable asset. You could ask the exact same question of a bar of gold or a bitcoin or a valuable baseball card.
"money in a bank" (even if it's a bullshit offshore tax haven bank) isn't "removed from the economy" like many people think.
and what's going on out in the global markets can push or pull on the domestic reality. But my core point remains that >
Certainly we can have too much or too little supply of those funds, consumer confidence plays a role too, as do investment alternatives >
That isn't the position at all. The existence of loanable funds isn't what "drives debt". It's the entire basis for multiplier effects.
If you have $1M in bonds, the government is spending that on programs until it matures. And so on.
Money doesn't sit still. It's never idle. It's never "out of the economy". If you have $1M parked in a bank account, the bank lends it out.
Economist here. Over-concentration of wealth has negative impacts on a society, but the "hoarding" isn't the part of it that does that. >
So you are indeed correct that the allowing the beneficiaries of the total workload to concentrate is detrimental to the remainder.
Economist here. Every economic system answers the questions: What work is done? Who does the work? Who gets the benefits of that work?
"Graphene can do absolutely anything... Except leave the lab."
Butt scratcher?
The company that was heavily invested in solid boosters for the space shuttles? Bit of a bias there, no? :D
But anyone who talks about a manned mission to Mars without mentioning a 10+ year timeline and $200B in funding is selling a bill of goods.
I have no grief with private launches or liquid fuels. These are both perfectly viable things.
That's the nose of an A-6 intruder, introduced 1960. So yeh, modern shoot.