Even the citizens of Kardashev Type III civilization can’t all date Emma Stone and/or Keanu Reeves at the same time.
This is not trivial. Genetic engineering/plastic surgery/other forms of self-enhancement can push everyone to pretty much the same ceiling. Of course, “status” itself is kind of a relative “resource,” and it can affect “attractiveness,” but our society is far from this being its bottleneck.
I also believe that even status is not a conserved resource. As other resources increase and the general population becomes more resourceful, more ethical, smarter, etc, the median/mean of status will also increase. As a matter of fact, people do seem to be respecting the poor, the foreign, etc more nowadays than some centuries before.
Aren’t all the dollars of the top X percent more or less frozen in investments? I.e., if the money were to be redistributed, wouldn’t the production actually fall, and people be left worse off?
Well, one person is much more likely to keep the stock, while some of the thousand will cache out. This seems to me to encourage consumption, discourage investment and labor on the first order, while the consumption itself can encourage investment on the second order. I don’t know how these opposing effects will play out in the long run, but the short term effect is most probably going to be high inflation and costly labor.
Caching in will involve transfer rather than destruction of the stock. The stock will have a new owner who has then voluntarily bound to the production. At the very limit the single original owner could buy it back. If he is unwilling because he would run out of neccesity money ie bread then that would transfer the “frozeness” to the new owners.
That the value of the stocks goes down doesnt really impact the operation of the company. Money isn’t the same as production the impact would be mostly on the paper side of things instead of real economy.
This is not trivial. Genetic engineering/plastic surgery/other forms of self-enhancement can push everyone to pretty much the same ceiling. Of course, “status” itself is kind of a relative “resource,” and it can affect “attractiveness,” but our society is far from this being its bottleneck.
I also believe that even status is not a conserved resource. As other resources increase and the general population becomes more resourceful, more ethical, smarter, etc, the median/mean of status will also increase. As a matter of fact, people do seem to be respecting the poor, the foreign, etc more nowadays than some centuries before.
Aren’t all the dollars of the top X percent more or less frozen in investments? I.e., if the money were to be redistributed, wouldn’t the production actually fall, and people be left worse off?
If a companys stock is held by 1 person vs a thousand how does that make the production fall?
Well, one person is much more likely to keep the stock, while some of the thousand will cache out. This seems to me to encourage consumption, discourage investment and labor on the first order, while the consumption itself can encourage investment on the second order. I don’t know how these opposing effects will play out in the long run, but the short term effect is most probably going to be high inflation and costly labor.
Caching in will involve transfer rather than destruction of the stock. The stock will have a new owner who has then voluntarily bound to the production. At the very limit the single original owner could buy it back. If he is unwilling because he would run out of neccesity money ie bread then that would transfer the “frozeness” to the new owners.
The stock’s value declines (as supply has gone up). So the “frozen” money declines, too.
That the value of the stocks goes down doesnt really impact the operation of the company. Money isn’t the same as production the impact would be mostly on the paper side of things instead of real economy.