That's a hugely flawed north star. We've had inequality as long as we have had surplus. The more surplus, the more inequality.
But I'd rather live today than in hunter gatherer times, even though they were materially more equal.
"Why not modern life with less inequality?" Well because growing the pie and splitting the pie are competing drivers. If Elon musk weren't already obscenely wealthy, he wouldn't have been able to execute against space x. I'd rather live in a world where Musk is worth a quarter of a trillion dollars than in one where we didn't have Space X.
Jesus said we'll always have poor people. So you're not wrong.
It doesn't have to be a solvable problem to be the best way to measure success.
Your working definitions of "best" and "worst" still seem to be about net worth. If money isn't the measure of success, the delta probably wouldn't be net worth delta.
Space X is a bad, fan boy example. my life is greatly improved by the internet, by ubiquitous electricity, satellite communications, etc. the current form of many of these things was driven by a type of capitalism that is inseparable from inequality
That's exactly why it got its budget in the first place: to show up the Russians (who had shown up the Americans by launching first 'Sputnik' and then Gagarin), not necessarily to do something useful in space. But no matter how they got their budget, I'm happy they did.
Measuring simply by how well those who have it worst is a much better metric. A world where all people have it terrible is a bad world. A world where everyone has it at least okay is a much better world.
There are downsides to inequality, but a metric that counts "everyone is miserable" as a success is an awful metric.
No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. Which will result in a very large underclass who are deemed to have it 'well' and a small upperclass who have it 'amazing'.
The alternative is not a world where people have it terrible, it could also be a world where everybody has it good and to strive every day to make it better still.
Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system.
So, your alternative would be better than what we have today, but your reading of my comment is incomplete.
> No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst.
No, my metric is chosen over yours because mine is not relative. I don't care how well the worst off had it compared to other people. I care how well off they are. This means that in order to make the world better, the only option is to improve the lives of the worst off.
> Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system.
Hence the focus solely on making them better off. Doesn't matter how well off Elon Musk is if it doesn't improve the lives of those in need.
> but your reading of my comment is incomplete.
Your comment was one sentence. I read the whole thing. If you meant something else, you gotta say it.
We have no way to know if the other general recieved the message, we can only know that the block chain has committed it.
This is the same as a forum or a blog post. We can make a post, but we don't know if the our other party read it.
If the "enemy" army cut off internet access to one general after it responds to attack, even if a message is committed into a block chain, only one general is attacking at first light.
I mean I would also like to live in a world where everyone gave it their 100% for the betterment of all humanity. The reality though is that if we set those incentives naively, nearly all past examples have led to way less output then using monetary (capitalistic) incentives.
what's the best way for the world to be more selfless and productive without that being a pipe dream?
We don’t live in a world where success is measured by money. No decent people think that way, and even most Silicon Valley people you’d consider “indecent” don’t think that way. Most people look at money-obsession and conspicuous displays of wealth as crass and lame, which is entirely appropriate.
That said, money is a focus for companies as it is a measure of resources and scale. Without money, a company can’t survive or grow, and with it, it an do more of its “solving problems” work for more people.
I really don’t see many truly successful people or companies focusing on money beyond that.
I dream of a world where we try to solve problems first and monetize them second, and I don't mean growth hacking.
> It’s Y Combinator’s world, and we’re all invested in it.
There are many people who resent this world. I'd like to live in a world where success isn't measured by money.
reply