Date: October 2nd, 2026 10:18 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
I think that if you have 1,000 millionaires, there will be a broader range of interests, a broader range of deployed capital, and less opportunity for outsized bribery. In short, I think a group of people exercising its own various individualized interests are less likely to create concentrated distortions like the ones I would expect to see from individual billionaire interests
I'm not one who believes strongly in PROGRESS for its own sake, so I don't really care that we have the occasional billionaire like Musk doing transformative things. Writ large (beyond the few Musk types), I think the extreme concentration of wealth has been a huge net negative from the perspectives of personal freedom, economic freedom, government policy, and general peaceful coexistence
Most of us would go back to the 80s or 90s if we could, and there's a reason for that. The billionaire interest-driven concentrations and dislocations I mentioned above are a big part of it
Date: October 2nd, 2026 10:37 AM Author: Laughsome glassy set dopamine
Most people would go back to the 80s or 90s because that is when they were kids and being a kid is more fun than being an adult.
And lol at less opportunity for outsized bribery. Because unions dont exist and arent the main force of bribery of govt officials in the US and the main reason our govt sucks at getting anything done.
Lol at "a broader range of deployed capital." Yeah you would have shittier deployment of capital. Billion dollar fortunes grow in the first place because that capital was deployed more effectively.
Date: October 2nd, 2026 10:47 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
You are really struggling with understanding the differences inherent to individual versus group dynamics
If you don't understand the difference in singular interests versus organizing separate but somewhat aligned interests, and the fact that competing groups arise to combat one another, I can't really help you
If you can't understand the existence of the underlying assumption I'm bracketing at the end of your statement that "billion dollar fortunes growing in the first place because capital was deployed more effectively [for the individual billionaire]", then I can't really help you
Genuine question: how much smarter than the average do you think you are?
Date: October 2nd, 2026 11:07 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
Is your reading comprehension so low that you really can't follow the actual question posed or the response given? Is your reasoning ability so poor that you can't connect a few thoughts together to explain whatever abortive point you're trying to make?
I didn't use any big words or esoteric concepts in any of my posts. From your response, I can only guess that you think you're a REAL MAN OF GENIUS whose greatness people inexplicably can't recognize or appreciate
Date: October 2nd, 2026 11:22 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
I am. I prefer to give people everything they need to evaluate and decide for themselves. It admittedly doesn't do much for people who can't engage with the ideas actually presented, but I'm fine with that
Date: October 2nd, 2026 1:14 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
They're not people, but they are individualized interests that are capable of being incoherent and schizophrenic like people
Unsurprisingly, I think we'd be better off with many more and much smaller companies than we are with ones that dwarf the economies of entire countries. As I said, I'm not much of a fan of PROGRESS for its own sake
Date: October 2nd, 2026 3:12 PM Author: Laughsome glassy set dopamine
Many billionaires have their capital deployed in public stock, and if their fortunes were dispersed, much of that money would end up deployed in the same stock (the portion that isnt squandered in consumption or in unproductive enterprises). So how would the landscape of individualized vs group interests change?
And why are corps individual interestss while unions are group interests?
Date: October 2nd, 2026 3:22 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
You seem to be reading a whole bunch of shit into the question that isn't stated or even implied and that isn't even internally coherent
In your take, it's a question about transforming current society through redistribution or similar mechanics. If you find that question compelling, you should answer it
My take has been on the actual question itself, which simply asks which of two things is better. You don't seem capable of following that, which is causing you to ask things that are totally irrelevant and completely off base relative to the question I'm answering. It's honestly pretty bizarre
Date: October 2nd, 2026 10:02 AM Author: Laughsome glassy set dopamine
It is such a stupid economically illiterate question. As if it can actually be made one way or the other by flipping a awitch without second order effects.
Date: October 2nd, 2026 10:14 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
If you try to take into account second order effects, and if you make assumptions about what it means to be a billionaire or a millionaire, I don't see why you can't make a meaningful response
I say frequently that humans are fucking retarded in large part because we are so terrible at anticipating second order effects and beyond. So I won't pretend that whatever forecast people give will be a good one. But we are called upon to make decisions and to make assessments of things like this all the time. This isn't some unusually stupid version of that
Date: October 2nd, 2026 10:20 AM Author: Laughsome glassy set dopamine
If we interpret the question to be "would it be better to seize the assets of existing billionaires and redistribute them to 1000 people to make them millionaires" the answer is no. It would lead to a massive drop in investment which would destroy economic growth.
Date: October 2nd, 2026 10:31 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
"Should we seize assets and redistribute them" wasn't the actual question. I mean, you can interpret it and answer it however you like, but you'd be answering your own question instead of the one that was posed
Date: October 2nd, 2026 2:14 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
What's your take on whether that amount of good in a single person is enough to offset the bad created by concentration of wealth and power in the others?
Similarly, what's your take on the amount of bad that is made possible by crazy wealth concentration relative to a more distributed model of wealth?
yes and hes also apparently getting laid every day of his life by fertile women. id be doing good for society too if i had daily unlimited fertile women sex
I'll take the 1,000 millionaires, Alex, I dont know why, just call it a hunch, but I think 1000 of them would be better than a single billionaire, and I know a billionaire irl; they're feet dont touch the ground when they walk, they never have a bad day, but most importantly, they are utterly out of touch on what its like to be a regular human being.