You make your currency the reserve currency, tax the world by inflating it while restricting circulation, print money, then borrow.

When people or countries potentially disrupt the equilibrium, kill them.

In practice, it seems that politics generally takes precedence over problem solving. If you look into the psychology of it, neither politicians nor voters are really incentivized to solve big problems. This is especially true for big problems that will take more than an election cycle to solve.

It seems to me that it would be easy to support an argument that suggests more big problems could be solved if incentives were better aligned toward problem solving and if competent people, not professional politicians, were chosen to solve them.

The poor are food insecure. This leads to obesity not because they have access to an abundance of food but because their access to food is not stead, leading to over eating to compensate, and the food they can afford is not healthy.

Volunteering at a food bank in any large city will change your perspective.

If you’re not where the rubber meets the road your knowledge of a system will always be incomplete and inaccurate. Literal trade secret of S Class developers, you’re welcome.

I think it's not even the billionaires that are the biggest problem. It's more like the top 10-20% that are driving up housing prices and many other things. They are a large enough group that it makes sense to mostly cater to them which is something we already see in most new apartments being higher end, less and less cheap cars on the market, no small houses to buy, restaurant prices shooting up, concert tickers becoming crazy expensive and so on. Las Vegas used to be the place for the average guy to fun. In the last few years they have publicly stated that they don't want that population anymore but want more of the upper end.

All this leads to a system that favors the top 10-20% who can afford things, own assets like stocks and real estate, get better education for their kids and leaves the rest of the polulation out in the cold.

"You don't have to run faster than the bear to get away. You just have to run faster than the guy next to you."

Because on one level, we are all just competing for finite resources - especially quality females - economics is in that context an ordinal competition, not cardinal.[1] But on another level, it's the mutual cooperation, wealth creation from nothing (making the "finite" a little less finite and a little more infinite), etc that allows us to advance both as a society and as individuals.

[1]There is an interesting tie into Mises here if I wanted to rabbit hole it (value is subjective, not measurable in cardinal units, and exists only in the mind as a ranked preference of options)

Money is not like mana in a game, it does not create things by itself. It is more similar to votes, each dollar is a vote into the economy for what should be created, and where the goods and services should go. And the more money you have the more votes you have.

So yes, he payes for the apple, and that's good. But the apple existed, and would be sold to someone else if he had not bought it. The accumulation of wealth does centralise power over the economy, what gets produced, and how it gets consumed.

"Until he gets to Mars, then it's 24.66."

That's a cool life hack! Venus is even better with 5832

And roughly 80 or so years as well!

It reminds me of how Sam Altman recently said: "I'd rather hear from candidates about how they are going to make everyone have the stuff billionaires have instead of how they are going to eliminate billionaires." But the hyper-wealthy don't just have _stuff_, they also have power to make decisions affecting society -- to buy elections, to buy social networks, to influence which countries we do AI chip deals with, to start new cities, and so forth. A world in which everyone has the same amount of this decision-making power is probably not a world in which billionaires exist.

Agreed, but

> The consumption of "stuff" contributes to GDP, which is one of the first things people use to correlate to quality of life.

It's one of the first things governments use to correlate to quality of life, and imo it's a good way to get away with papering over inequality. A country's GDP can be stable or slowly growing and it won't be in recession, and yet much of that GDP can be produced by one generation of people who are in a class that's multiple orders of magnitude wealthier because the newest generation of people has to pay them to have a roof over their head and subsidize their retirement. The GDP comes from the appreciation of their property value and the rental income, while a massive proportion of working age people are just able to consume and work, largely for those same people. Very wildly different qualities of life even below what Mag World would consider Rich, maybe not in the moment when someone can but themselves some literal or metaphorical candy, but in terms of viable upward mobility and precariousness long-term.

In order to buy the house I live in the basement of, not even owned by a much older generation person in this case (seemingly a single mom, but an investment banker afaik), I would need to be able to sustain a $2m+ mortgage and come up with a $400k+ down payment, it will never be possible, and even though I never wanted that for my future, it's depressing that it's just laughably and insanely out of reach, GDP kind of hides that this is the case for many.

You’re slipping into a version of the broken window fallacy here. Consumption isn’t automatically good for society just because it “creates activity.” When you eat an apple, the apple - and all the labor and resources behind it - are gone. Same with luxury goods: the more resource-intensive they are, the more real wealth they permanently use up compared with simpler alternatives.

What actually increases long-run prosperity isn’t consumption itself, but efficient use of resources and investment - choices that expand the stock of tools, knowledge, and productive capacity in the future. New wealth is created when resources are not immediately consumed, but are instead used to boost productivity.

That’s why wealthy people who don’t spend all their wealth aren’t “hoarding” in the economic sense. Their capital is usually invested - financing factories, startups, research, tools, and infrastructure that generate more output. And when they die with wealth still invested, the state captures a chunk through estate and capital-gains taxes.

A better way to think about wealth is as decision-making power over how resources are allocated - toward current consumption (including luxuries) or toward future production (investment). Capitalism tends to concentrate that decision power in the hands of those who are best at growing capital, which raises total prosperity but also increases inequality.

Consumption uses up wealth; investment grows it. People like Musk have a lot of wealth because they’ve been good at growing it. We should absolutely guard against wealth hijacking politics - but it would be shortsighted to treat their continued investment as a net negative for society.

Not sure yet, curious to reflect on it more.

But initial take is that some environments people trust each other more. Trusting intentions, actions, words, ability. For example, a low-trust environment would probably be most prisons. High-trust might be a neighborhood where people don't lock their doors.

I remember reading a World Bank economist saying that we might be able to explain the difference in GDP per capita between the US and a place like Somalia based on how much people trust each other. How mistrust can add so much friction to interactions.

Liquidity can be broken down further into volume profile and net proceeds.

1) There is a good likelihood that a house and a stock portfolio can both be sold tomorrow, no problem. But you may have to offload the house at “fire sale” prices , vastly lower than the price it would bear if you had it on offer for 30+ days.

2) T-bills and stocks can both be sold tomorrow, but if your stocks have cap gains then the net proceeds after tax are going to be much lower from the sale of stocks than the t-bills.

These are some of the ways “paper gains” and “market price” fundamentally lie to you (irrespective of bubbles etc), that are seldom broken down in too much depth in personal financial discussions.

——

Another dimension that is missing is financial freedom. The author says:

> These wealth levels have existed throughout human history, even though the unit of currency changes.

↑-1 Wealth: Destitute (less than $3) At the bottom-most level, a person can’t even scrape together a few bucks for some food. Societal services aren’t accessible unless they are completely free. Finding a toilet and shower may be difficult. They have no possessions; their shoes and coat are probably decrepit and dirty.

Hard disagree here. An indentured servant in the 17th century, with a negative net worth, might have a very decent standard of living. Nice shoes, coat, bountiful table, etc. But they are not free to leave the land and move somewhere else. They are not free to pick up a different occupation.

> The same is true of stocks - loans can be taken against them

this is only available to the richest of the richest.

I was unable to use a HELOC to pay for renovation costs. The banks wanted basically the same assurances as you'd need with a conforming mortgage. I had investment assets several times the loan amount, and a fully paid off house. I ended up having to go private money at a higher cost in order to not liquidate more investments than I wanted to.

A house is a liquid asset outside of rare cases e.g. towns that have been severely hollowed out.

Non-liquid assets are typically small businesses or physical assets with no market. This can be because there are no buyers e.g. there are some asset markets where there might be a single transaction per decade on average. This can also be because there are contractual or statutory restriction on salability, which often extend to use of the asset as a security for credit purposes.

Another common reason is that the value of the asset is inextricably connected to who owns it. Selling the asset doesn't convey the value because that value is conditional on the current owner owning it, rendering it nearly worthless unless it is never liquidated.

At the very beginning of the article, the author immediately states that they're not using raw net worth (and explains why they chose to do so). The actual metric is

> the amount of money someone could bring to bear on a problem if they had to. If someone they loved fell deathly ill, but the treatment would cost some large amount of money, how much could they pull together in a month or two?

by my reading that is the authors point? if they are capable of getting a 700k loan, that makes them ↑5, regardless of their income or assets.

Net worth is purely about assets minus liability. “How many dollars are attached to your tax identity and how many dollars of stuff can be taxed”

It has zero to do with the value of the the life of a person. You can conflate the two if you’d like, you’re picking on shortcut verbiage so we don’t say a paragraph of disclaimer text before talking about net worth.

>Capitalists control our society, and live completely different lives than the rest.

Also, the Capitalists are good at keeping thing hidden from us. For example, we do not know how they arrive on Earth. I certainly don't believe they aren't born to a mother and a father like the rest of us.

How do you define "capitalists", in this context?

“The difference between Pichai and Bezos dwarfs the difference between Pichai and me”

I don’t understand: Pichai is a billionaire.

Incorrect https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

No, these are orders of magnitude. It's like a short man who is 5 foot tall, standing next to a 6 foot man and feeling envy. But standing next to a 50 foot tall creature would be abjectly terrifying for any human of any height.

Your armchair psychoanalysis is extremely distasteful. Can you engage with the other side without straw manning them?

It is perfectly explainable for someone to fear Musk, pouring billions into influencing elections to prop up an anti-workers candidate, who runs on hate of minorities and ends up severely impoverishing the country through huge tax cuts to the wealthy and the destruction of all remaining social nets.

No, I do not envy Musk. Frankly, he looks rather miserable on his own. A healthy man does not send 50 tweets a day, cheat at videogames on stream to boost his fragile ego, or consume 10 different drugs.

Same thing with the others.

What you said is impossible to argue against. "I said you were envious, so you are. Anything else is just you trying to cloak your envy." You already decided that everyone must secretly want to become a billionaire above all else, and the sole and exhaustive reason why all of them spew hatred towards that class of people is "they hate us cuz they aint us".

Thanks for the analysis...

But as I said, I have no problem facing my envy. I can be envious of independently wealthy people, and the feeling I have for billionaires is not the same. I don't know why my psyche would accept the envy for some but not for others.

I also really don't feel the shame you seem to project to me regarding envy, I tvink it is a complicated emotion with good and bad sides, certainly nothing to feel ashamed of.

But before I continue, is there any point continuing? From the comments so far you seem pretty settled in your believes about my emotions, and if you have decided apriori that whatever I say it's my mind defending itself, there is not much point continuing.

in this quote ↑6 describes the wealth level and ↑7 the number of people at that level. the author gives every number in log form.

Then you would have other design challenges :)