I see the divide as being between those of us who created wealth by working vs. those who do not create wealth and instead play zero sum and negative sum games.
You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world.
You could have a low-level white collar worker who isn't making very much money at all, all of it in wages, who decides to screw over the company's customers with something economically inefficient because it gives them some advantage in internal corporate politics.
> You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world.
If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill-gotten gains, that doesn't make them any less ill-gotten.
Rentiers inherently make their money in a zero-sum way; it's perhaps not the only way to be zero-sum, but it is a major one.
> If they're making skilled capital-allocation decisions that most people couldn't, that's work. If they're being charitable in the allocation of their ill-gotten gains, that doesn't make them any less ill-gotten.
Why do they have to be ill-gotten gains? Someone could invest money they've earned through productive work.
And could invest it in something charitably while still making money, e.g. you have the option to make 10% doing something anti-social or 5% doing something socially beneficial and you consciously choose the latter knowing you could make more by being less charitable.
> Rentiers inherently make their money in a zero-sum way; it's perhaps not the only way to be zero-sum, but it is a major one.
Do they? Suppose you have some money and you put it in some investment fund and then live off the earnings while having no real involvement with how the fund is managed. Meanwhile the businesses you invested in are off doing productive net-positive things with your money that wouldn't have been possible had you stuffed it in your mattress, while yielding you a positive return which is nonetheless smaller than the total amount of net good created by the business.
The best you can say is that the returns are zero-sum, even if the act of investing is positive sum. But isn't that true of anything? If you get a raise, that's zero sum. Someone else would have had the money in the alternative.
> Why do they have to be ill-gotten gains? Someone could invest money they've earned through productive work.
Because your hypothetical was specifically about someone who doesn't do productive work?
> Suppose you have some money and you put it in some investment fund and then live off the earnings while having no real involvement with how the fund is managed. Meanwhile the businesses you invested in are off doing productive net-positive things with your money that wouldn't have been possible had you stuffed it in your mattress, while yielding you a positive return which is nonetheless smaller than the total amount of net good created by the business.
You're begging the question - why was it your money in the first place?
If it's value you've produced, yes you can partner with someone else to compound it. But if it's just privilege that you had, then you don't get any credit for allowing it to be used productively.
> The best you can say is that the returns are zero-sum, even if the act of investing is positive sum. But isn't that true of anything? If you get a raise, that's zero sum. Someone else would have had the money in the alternative.
If you do something that produces real value in the world then that's positive sum - if you turn some planks and nails into a table, that table is more valuable than the stuff that went into it, the world is better off.
> Because your hypothetical was specifically about someone who doesn't do productive work?
That's anybody who has enough money that they don't have to work. It doesn't tell you anything about where they got it.
> You're begging the question - why was it your money in the first place?
What if you found it in the street? Would that affect whether or not the business you invest it in produces a net positive as a result?
> But if it's just privilege that you had, then you don't get any credit for allowing it to be used productively.
That doesn't seem right. You could have spent it on drugs and sex. Your choices matter.
> If you do something that produces real value in the world then that's positive sum - if you turn some planks and nails into a table, that table is more valuable than the stuff that went into it, the world is better off.
Suppose the planks are the status quo. You're getting paid $10/hour to make tables. Now you get a raise and get paid $12/hour to make tables, but you still only make exactly the same number of exactly the same tables as you did for $10/hour. The extra $2/hour is zero sum, isn't it? Why should you get it instead of the boss or the customer?
> What if you found it in the street? Would that affect whether or not the business you invest it in produces a net positive as a result?
Does finding a large amount of money in the street make someone more deserving that someone who found a smaller amount of money in the street?
> That doesn't seem right. You could have spent it on drugs and sex. Your choices matter.
So you put part of it back into circulation and kept the rest for yourself. You're still not doing any better than morally neutral.
> Suppose the planks are the status quo. You're getting paid $10/hour to make tables. Now you get a raise and get paid $12/hour to make tables, but you still only make exactly the same number of exactly the same tables as you did for $10/hour. The extra $2/hour is zero sum, isn't it?
Well where did the value that it corresponds to come from? (I assume you're not just talking about inflation, or labour being scarcer or anything like that - but in that case the raise won't have come from nowhere). If you're making better or more tables through your own skill, you've earned it. If the boss has made production work better or got better machines or something, maybe he's earned it. If it was previously just economic rent that the boss was extracting then yes it's zero sum because it was zero sum to start with.
You could have someone who is solidly in the investment class and only works three hours a year, but during those three hours they tell their pet executives to put the capital into energy storage tech and new housing construction and do a lot of good in the world.
You could have a low-level white collar worker who isn't making very much money at all, all of it in wages, who decides to screw over the company's customers with something economically inefficient because it gives them some advantage in internal corporate politics.