Should Billionaires Exist?

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

Anything this guy has written up or explicitly references?

This is that one specific paper/link that he references  at the end of that debate.

http://digamo.free.fr/moseley95b.pdf

1 hour ago, Ero said:

scientific theories

By that I think he just means that the theory makes predictions (and that it isn't just a just so story merely constructed to explain the facts on the table)

1 hour ago, Ero said:

Economic debates should start with a bibliography list from both sides. "If you didn't do your homework, you don't get to talk in class."

I agree and just to be clear - im not here to defend LTV. I just thought it was interesting to see him destroy Destiny in that debate.

Edited 5 hours ago by zurew

[Ero]

54 minutes ago, zurew said:

This is that one specific paper/link that he references  at the end of that debate.

http://digamo.free.fr/moseley95b.pdf

I agree and just to be clear - im not here to defend LTV. I just thought it was interesting to see him destroy Destiny in that debate.

Thanks, I didn't get that far because I was losing brain cells lol. If one is ignorant from the get go that LTV have prescriptive power, then losing a debate to a moderately well-read individual isn't a particularly high bar. 

54 minutes ago, zurew said:

By that I think he just means that the theory makes predictions (and that it isn't just a just so story merely constructed to explain the facts on the table)

In general, I treat LTV as I do any theory or explanatory framework: through the lens of "meta-epistemic synthesis", i.e. first I conduct a self-contained "for-its-own-sake" examination of assumptions, confounding variables and dynamics and only after do I pass on epistemic filters, such as empiricism. From a contemporary POV, even the author of the paper you linked above acknowledges that "empirical evidence generally supports this prediction of Marx's theory at least up through the Great Depression of the 1930s". This failure is explained, but not exhuasted by, the Federal Reserve Act and the beginning with Roosevelt in 1933 of the U.S gold-standard break, both of which need to be accounted for in any contemporary economic framework. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Ero

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Ero said:

through the lens of "meta-epistemic synthesis", i.e. first I conduct a self-contained "for-its-own-sake" examination of assumptions, confounding variables and dynamics and only after do I pass on epistemic filters, such as empiricism

Just to make sure im tracking - are you basically saying that you verify internal consistency first, and only then draw on your background knowledge of the world and the topic at hand?

[Carl-Richard]

Billionaires -> AGI -> UBI though 🤔

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Ero]

45 minutes ago, zurew said:

Just to make sure im tracking - are you basically saying that you verify internal consistency first

Yeah. Think of the distinction between the Pure Mathematics vs that of Applied Mathematics. The former is abstract concepts in of themselves, whereas the latter is some segment of the world with its own effective theory. For Pure Math, internal consistency is the minimal requirement for a theory/ framework to even be considered. What one does is to make a full description of the theory/object as a system - what it assumes, what it tracks, what are the dynamical laws, etc. in order to place it into the context (i.e. background) of all other theories/ ideas. 

47 minutes ago, zurew said:

only then draw on your background knowledge of the world and the topic at hand?

For Applied Mathematics, "background knowledge" is implicitly limiting here. The world is always noisy and more complex than you can account for, so in the context of an applied theory (such as economics), after you have set on a model, you need to perform statistical inference and hypothesis testing. That's why "empiricism" is in fact a much more nuanced concept than naive science bros can appreciate. 

[Ero]

42 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Billionaires -> AGI -> UBI though 🤔

Sam Altman already (1) backtracking (2).

Edited 3 hours ago by Ero

[Elliott]

37 minutes ago, Ero said:

Sam Altman already (1) backtracking (2).

Good, we don't want to pay him while he's in prison.

[Basman]

I'm not against billionaires existing in principle. They provide a lot of value to society and enable the survival of thousands, but they also tend distort politics and acidify the pond so only they can survive. A lot of wealth is squandered after certain point too, so I'm generally in favor of heavy taxation of the wealthiest people. Give back to the society that enabled them to flourish in the first place. It's only fair.

In an ideal world, it should be harder than it is now to become a billionaire/millionaire but easier to be average.

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

Yeah. Think of the distinction between the Pure Mathematics vs that of Applied Mathematics. The former is abstract concepts in of themselves, whereas the latter is some segment of the world with its own effective theory. For Pure Math, internal consistency is the minimal requirement for a theory/ framework to even be considered. What one does is to make a full description of the theory/object as a system - what it assumes, what it tracks, what are the dynamical laws, etc. in order to place it into the context (i.e. background) of all other theories/ ideas. 

For Applied Mathematics, "background knowledge" is implicitly limiting here. The world is always noisy and more complex than you can account for, so in the context of an applied theory (such as economics), after you have set on a model, you need to perform statistical inference and hypothesis testing. That's why "empiricism" is in fact a much more nuanced concept than naive science bros can appreciate. 

What fault did you find in Labor Value Theory? I'm a pro-capitalist and I believe in 'Marx's' labor value theory, as a descriptive theory(i think marxists misunderstand it).

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Billionaires -> AGI -> UBI though 🤔

This path doesn't even have to happen, it could all be total lies and marketing tactics, hell, maybe we will hit a completely unbreakable technological wall somehow. And socwokies would STILL be full of crap in terms of their vision, in fact even moreso

[Ero]

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

What fault did you find in Labor Value Theory? I'm a pro-capitalist and I believe in 'Marx's' labor value theory, as a descriptive theory(i think marxists misunderstand it).

The faults are numerous and fundamentally about "missing variables" to the theory - Fed capital devaluation and inflation accounting, globalization and deindustrialization, intangible capital and IP, financial derivates and instruments, etc.

To put it simply, we are long past the point of history where labor, be it useful or abstract, is the sole and primary determinant of monetary value. It's like trying to do a linear fit (first order Taylor expansion) on a multi-dimensional manifold. Being a Marxist in today's day and age is an ideological position, not a scientific one. 

That is to say nothing of automation, which is another matter entirely. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Ero

[Elliott]

40 minutes ago, Ero said:

The faults are numerous and fundamentally about "missing variables" to the theory - Fed capital devaluation and inflation accounting, globalization and deindustrialization, intangible capital and IP, financial derivates and instruments, etc.

To put it simply, we are long past the point of history where labor, be it useful or abstract, is the sole and primary determinant of monetary value. It's like trying to do a linear fit (first order Taylor expansion) on a multi-dimensional manifold. Being a Marxist in today's day and age is an ideological position, not a scientific one. 

That is to say nothing of automation, which is another matter entirely. 

Are you very familiar with the theory? The reason I ask is you're using "monetary value".

I see it as a much more general theory, not to be used for predicting how things will exactly happen, just end stage. I actually think it's provable.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Ero]

28 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Are you very familiar with the theory? The reason I ask is you using "monetary value".

I have read Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital and a dozen other books and textbooks, most recently Keynes's Treatise and General Theory books. 

28 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I see it as a much more general theory, not to be used for predicting how things will exactly happen, just end stage. 

How you see or what it means to you does not change the epistemic power of it as a "theory", which is something you can test and see that it as a statistical predictor (Ref 1). You can conduct similar statistical tests for the other variables I mentioned (Ref 2) (Ref 3) with demonstrable contributions, not explainable by labor. I have about 14 more references. What are yours?

As I said above, I treat LTV as any other explanatory framework or theory, I never said there isn't value in it. If you choose to LTV/Marxism as your "end stage", that's a perfectly fine choice to make, but we are no longer talking about a 'general theory', rather a 'social metaphysics' which is a different discussion entirely that I am not at all interested in. 

The thing with economic theories is that you can literally put your money where your mouth is. I and all my quant friends at Jane Street, Jump Trading or Citadel would gladly take any bets you wanna make. 

Edited 48 minutes ago by Ero

[Elliott]

39 minutes ago, Ero said:

 

How you see or what it means to you does not change the epistemic power of it as a "theory", which is something you can test and see that it is a rather poor statistical predictor (Ref 1). You can conduct similar statistical tests for the other variables I mentioned (Ref 2) (Ref 3) with demonstrable contributions, not explainable by labor. I have about 14 more references. What are yours?

 

Ya I don't see it as a theory for this either, I don't think that's what Marx meant. I think he's just explaining why we'll end up socialist, not as in what socialist means today in common parlance though. Marx 'didn't care about money' or value capitalist economics.

Edited 18 minutes ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

57 minutes ago, Ero said:

 

The thing with economic theories is that you can literally put your money where your mouth is. I and all my quant friends at Jane Street, Jump Trading or Citadel would gladly take any bets you wanna make. 

The way I see the theory, a true Marxist wouldn't 'bet' on the market, even Put options. They bet the market is going to end.

Edited just now by Elliott