[itsyonas]

I do think that this is at the heart of the problem. The issue is not an overall lack of wealth, but how it is distributed. This is not going to change, no matter how many data centres or factories are built in the US. Ultimately, all the wealth will still end up in the hands of a select few.

Not to mention that we are already exceeding a number of planetary boundaries, which endanger humans. The ever-growing demand for natural resources and energy, which is directly coupled to GDP growth, is not likely to end well.

[Imustaskforhelp]

After spending quite a long time on this thread writing my thoughts etc, I feel like this is the most correct explaination of the situation

Distribution of wealth is the biggest issue and In my opinion, the most tangible way to solve things but then again, this is the core of the issue

Either you need a really anti corrupt body which can do their work and fight against such issues

But with causes like lobbying etc., those get washed up

Or we can have new people (like Zohran etc.) who try not to take lobbying money and then America can have new people who genuinely want to help and not be corrupt

But I am not sure what would happen, perhaps more people follow the example of zohran perhaps not. People are keeping an keen eye of the progress and what can happen. But one of the things which we saw was that although zohran won, I just didn't expect so much competition in the first place when Cuomo got around 40% I think?

it's wild because zohran's message was so well put out and received and this is the state then, I doubt that the voters might replicate it or not

It really depends ultimately on the voters. The truest form of responsibility but its also the lack of options and the two party system which is really bad in America ultimately causing the problems to exist even further.

[itsyonas]

> Either you need a really anti corrupt body which can do their work and fight against such issues

If changing the system is off the table, then this is what any solution would inevitably look like. I do not think the problem is a flaw in the system though. Calling it a systemic issue is misleading, because the system is largely functioning as designed. The logical response, therefore, is to change the system itself.

That idea sounds frightening, largely because most political parties treat the system as untouchable, presenting it as if there are no viable alternatives (thus convincing people that there are none, making them feel helpless). This creates a dead end: people experience the full force of the system's pressures while being told that nothing fundamental can be changed.

In that vacuum, scapegoating becomes an easy outlet. When the system itself cannot be questioned, frustration is redirected towards marginalised groups, under the implicit belief that punishing or excluding them will somehow relieve the pressure on everyone else, and that's how we ended up at this point (imho).

A system centered on people's needs would judge success by outcomes like health, stability, and quality of life rather than by growth metrics. If a policy reduces stress, improves wellbeing, and lowers long-term costs, it should be pursued even if it shrinks parts of the economy or even the economy overall. The fact that we currently treat any reduction in economic activity as a failure, regardless of human benefit, reveals how misaligned our priorities are.

I hope Zohran succeeds in improving people's lives, but I'm not holding my breath. I've been burned too many times before...

> But one of the things which we saw was that although zohran won, I just didn't expect so much competition in the first place when Cuomo got around 40% I think?

I think this primarily relates to how people are socialised. In Germany, we call this an 'elbow society', i.e. a society where people aggressively push their own interests and compete ruthlessly, showing little regard for cooperation, solidarity or fairness. People feel so lost in the world that they are losing their humanity, only looking out for what maximises their own outcomes. I believe this can be changed, but it will require a large-scale cultural shift driven by society, education, the media, and so on - the same institutions that pushed us in the other direction in the first place.

[Imustaskforhelp]

I Agree with your comment but one of the idea that terrifies me is not that change is impossible but rather change requires the whole world to do something about it and I am not that optimistic about it simply because of what you call about "elbow society"

> I think this primarily relates to how people are socialised. In Germany, we call this an 'elbow society', i.e. a society where people aggressively push their own interests and compete ruthlessly, showing little regard for cooperation, solidarity or fairness. People feel so lost in the world that they are losing their humanity, only looking out for what maximises their own outcomes. I believe this can be changed, but it will require a large-scale cultural shift driven by society, education, the media, and so on - the same institutions that pushed us in the other direction in the first place.

I so so agree with this statement, this is probably what I thought as well but one of the most terrifying things about this is that its sort of like a chicken and egg problem because the media,education and so much more are so influenced by policies/directly by the govt and the elites that I would doubt that making such change or giving people the idea that "change is possible" is itself possible

But there have been instances in the past where we pulled out of things but I am not sure how we can do it right now.

A large-scale cultural shift.

> the same institutions that pushed us in the other direction in the first place

So the thing which worries is me that I don't see a reason why these institutions would change? Do you see something in this perhaps?

I think that the best way is probably via at a small scale level and then having that grow up. Adopting it ourselves and discussing about it like we are doing right now is the only thing possible that we can do

My issue with this is that the incentives just aren't there for something like this. Let's say I want to create a social company and I just want "enough" and afterwards I'd just do it for helping etc. and getting miniscule gains because I think that the goal of money and only money itself is very dim

Even if we do something like this, the incentives really change because companies wont invest, you wont get funding etc.

So in a way, I think that the best way is probably getting attention of like minded people and having them invest with such knowledge but we really haven't seen such platforms. I think Kickstarters are a good idea for small scale projects but even they feel like you still have to get yourself a promotion or attention itself to fund it and it just becomes really 10x harder imo

I feel like microgrants are genuinely the best way moving forward. If people can provide 1-10k$/perhaps 50k? for an idea with intentions of good once it scales. To me it feels like the best way and I found ways to look at microgrants and they exist but I dont see many of them in much action either.

We really need to change incentives where doing good is favoured more than doing bad, We can even start small because sometimes even small good incentives are all one needs for real change.

I wish there was more interest in microgrants, I must admit that I had thought about working in this space or similar and perhaps I will jump back to it someday but what are your thoughts on it? Do you know of some mechanisms where good incentives can be generated at a societal rate?

[mlsu]

The distribution is a problem, but not for the reasons people think. At these amounts (billions) the money stops being human-scale and starts to become civilization scale. You can accomplish big things with 150 billion. Things like: installing a gigawatt of solar, building a 1000km HVDC line, etc.

The issue is that when that 150 billion is concentrated into one person's hands, it tends to be inefficiently allocated. This is the argument against central planning; it's inefficient, it does not actually go where it would maximally benefit society.

We have, with the amount of wealth inequality, essentially re-invented central planning. It's arguably worse today, because rather than giving central control to a worker's council which is nominally accountable to regular people, we've given it to Larry Ellison who is going to build yet another datacenter for AI, instead of spending it on energy or manufacturing capacity.

My home electricity bill has doubled since AI came out. That is my evidence that this concentration of wealth is egregiously misallocating capital. It is a civilization-scale self-own. Countries that allocate capital properly will wipe the floor and we are beginning to see that play out.

[UncleMeat]

Yep. The structural incentives for the bosses don't change when their employees are assembling cars or treating patients or serving coffee or writing code. Power is tipped towards capital and against labor. The owners extract wealth, which tips the scales further. Labor organizing has been kneecapped in this country and it will only get worse (there is an ongoing case trying to get basically the entire NLRB declared unconstitutional).

[lta]

I think he's talking litteraly about distirbuting wealth :)