[hackererror404]

Some things cost way more than 10 or 15 million in terms of investment.

Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined?

Also almost all of super wealthy people's "wealth" is tied up in assets that are funding entire economies. This money is creating jobs, allowing for affordable loans, the money is working for many other people... It's not as if the money wealthy people have is just in physical gold coins in their swimming pools.

[CorrectHorseBat]

>Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined?

Starting land to fund cancer research is fine, but I don't see why we need billionairs for that? Multiple people can fund it. They are going to work alone in that lab either.

>It's not as if the money wealthy people have is just in physical gold coins in their swimming pools.

And it's not as if taxing that wealth makes that fact go away.

What's different is that when all that wealth is concentrated with a few people, they get to decide what research they spend it on and which jobs are created. And that's a bad thing, it's a threath to democracy.

[rockemsockem]

Needing more people for funding just adds friction to an already hard problem and will reduce the number of such things that get started.

I fundamentally agree with your arguments, but not your conclusion.

IMO we need a greater number of rich folks and fewer ultra rich ones. Those with over 100 billion dollars simply cannot spend it, which means capital is not being allocated at all! Bill Gates has so many employees just dedicated to spending his money responsibly, and he still keeps getting richer.

[kagakuninja]

>Needing more people for funding just adds friction to an already hard problem and will reduce the number of such things that get started.

Because governments can't fund projects?

Not sure what you are arguing for, but IMO there is this idea of the "great men" who build cool things like Space-X. So we should let the wealthy keep their great wealth so that we get more companies like Space-X.

Except what we really get is more corporate looting, oppression and monopoly, plus the hyper-wealthy having excessive influence over government.

If the wealth is spread around, and we no longer have to be wage slaves our whole lives, then collectives of like-minded people could band together and build cool things. We do see that in the open-source world, but most contributors are not earning money they need to pay bills.

[rockemsockem]

I very specifically said that the government should fund projects and personally I think it should fund more. But they can't do everything and they won't always have the foresight to fund everything worth funding.

I am arguing that more-or-less randomly allocating wealth to individuals to then re-allocate will produce better results and the larger number of individuals, above a certain amount of wealth necessary for grand projects, the better. I think we are better off when we have a diversity of directions in funding grand projects. There is a very real cap on how much money is actually necessary for great projects. No one needs 100 billion dollars to do any particular thing. Idk where the line is, probably the high hundred millions or low billions?

We also really need better wealth distribution in the middle too, but the main post's assertion is literally "no rich people" so I'm arguing against that because private investment has created an incredible amount of the good things we enjoy every day. I'm not talking about the "great men" I'm talking about boring people writing checks for new companies that they think sound cool.

[tsimionescu]

> Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined?

Well, why should they? What if instead of a genetics lab, they want to start a flat earth research center? Or a think tank to influence policy in their favor?

[gottorf]

Who instead should be capable of doing such a thing?

[tsimionescu]

Groups of many people working together. Historically, this has proven far less likely to produce bad results.

[u32480932048]

What exactly do you think a research lab or think tank is? A single-person effort?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined?

The answer might be "they should be able to"

But are you open to the possibility of the answer being "Despite the apparent potential benefits, it isn't beneficial overall to society or humanity to have extremely rich individuals starting research projects, and perhaps not beneficial overall to even have extremely rich individuals at all" ?

[rockemsockem]

Why would it be better to have fewer entities allocating large chunks of capital?

[vonjuice]

Wouldn't it be the opposite?

In a hypothetical country, if there's 1B dollars and no limit, one person could own the 1B and everyone else in the country be dirt poor.

If there is a 1M limit, then one person could own 1M tops, and the rest of the money is still there.

Therefore there would be more entities capable of allocating large sources of money.

[gottorf]

This hypothesis presupposes the "manna from heaven" concept of wealth, which isn't how it works. Wealth is what people want[0]. There isn't a real limit to what people want, so there's no real limit to what wealth can be created, either.

Even on a deserted with five people, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth that can be divided over those five people. A fixed amount of land? Sure. Maybe a fixed amount of rocks and trees? Okay. But there's no fixed amount of the ingenuity and labor that is required to convert those natural resources into things actually desired by people, like a roof over one's head or warmth during a cold night.

And some people are more industrious and clever than others and therefore are better at meeting people's needs and being compensated for it.

[0]: https://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

[vonjuice]

> And some people are more industrious and clever than others and therefore are better at meeting people's needs and being compensated for it.

You could replace the words industrious and clever with manipulative and abusive, and where does that lead you?

[rockemsockem]

The parent comment said:

> are you open to the possibility of the answer being "Despite the apparent potential benefits, it isn't beneficial overall to society or humanity to have extremely rich individuals starting research projects, and perhaps not beneficial overall to even have extremely rich individuals at all" ?

That seems to me to say "maybe no one should be rich enough to fund a major project on their own".

I'm not arguing against a limitation on wealth, I'm actually in favor of one, because like you point out then there would be a less extreme distribution of wealth. I'm saying that if such a limit were to be imposed that it should be high enough to allow significant projects to be started by an individual. That limit is still probably really low compared to the high valuations some billionaires have today.

[vonjuice]

I do see a fair reasoning in not allowing the possibility for a lone mad man to start a big project without needing to like, check up with other people on whether what he's doing is right.

In regards to fame, Adam Savage recently said:

"When there’s no one around you that can tell you ‘no,’ you’re in deep trouble, and you’re also going to traumatize the people around you.”

[rockemsockem]

We have that though, they're called laws. I'm not advocating for getting rid of them.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Who said anything about fewer?

[rockemsockem]

I was taking this last comment

> perhaps not beneficial overall to even have extremely rich individuals at all

To mean there would be fewer. I suppose it depends on where the "extremely rich" line is drawn, but I feel like you must be extremely rich to start a project that normally only a government could start.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Why do only the resource allocations of rich people count as the decisions about resource allocation? What about the decisions made by non-rich people?

As the bumper sticker says, it seems easier for most people today to imagine the end of the world than to imagine an alternative to corporate capitalism.

[rockemsockem]

I said why, because for capital intensive processes it's unrealistic to expect large groups of individuals to raise enough money to start them.

We do have Kickstarter, Go Fund Me, etc, but I don't think those have turned out to be great tools for raising a very large amount of money. And I am referring to large capital allocations towards a goal. I wish there was a better version of Kickstarter, but VCs seem like a better tool.

I'm just talking about capitalism and what ideal wealth distributions look like under a fundamentally capitalist system. I think America's system has lots of points for improvement, particularly on the side of worker protection from exploitation, wealth distribution, and campaign finance. But, I still think that we should have individuals wealthy enough to fund weird projects just because they want to. And in fact we should have more than we have today just with less extreme wealth.

What is it exactly that you are saying we should change? Everything? Please be specific.

[germandiago]

That is exactly what I thought also.