If I need money, and you have money, there are only two ways I can get money from you (ignoring charity):

1. By giving you something worth more than money to you.

2. By promising that giving money to me will make you richer, earning you more than you gave me. (A loan, a business investment, etc.)

The richer you are, the fewer things there in category 1 that I could plausibly deliver. I probably can't get away with lying to you in category 2 for long, so going that way may save me today, but it will make you richer.

Without redistribution of some sort, wealth concentrates, and wealth concentration probably even accelerates. No AI needed. That's just the interesting flavor it takes these days.

▲

crostlybostly 4 days ago | parent [-]

There are plenty of inventors that made more money than the capital providers. Nearly every founder (Jobs, Zuck, Musk, Google Guys, Gates) all made more wealth than the investors that bought in along the way.

▲

vintermann 4 days ago | parent [-]

I didn't say that was impossible. It can happen from time to time. But Jobs, Zuck, Musk etc. are terrible examples of it, because there's a third "type 2", besides investments and loans, that I should have mentioned. It is employment.

An employer, too, isn't going to employ someone in the long run unless they make more money on them than they pay them. Jobs, Zuck's etc. investors succeeded (well, on average) in getting back more money than they gave out. But Jobs, Zuck etc. got rich by convincing a lot of others -- their employees -- to take the same kind of deal: make me richer than I make you.

▲

crostlybostly 3 days ago | parent [-]

The reverse is also true though. I am not going to work for you unless you pay me more for my time than it is otherwise worth.

▲

vintermann 3 days ago | parent [-]

That's still a "Want something more than money" or rather a "Want money more than something" trade, the one I've called type 1. Not a trade money for more money, type 2. It does nothing to counteract the problem of accelerating accumulation.

▲

crostlybostly 3 days ago | parent [-]

But if a billionaire pays you $100k and makes $110k in revenue the inequality went down, right?

Their wealth went up by 10k and yours went up by 100k.

▲

vintermann 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, but now ask: who gave you that $110k, and why? There are two reasons people may give you money (not counting charity)...

	▲	crostlybostly 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I dunno, just seems like an okay system to me. We both get richer, I press some buttons on a keyboard then get paid and go hang out with my family. I am sure it could be better, but there is no organization I trust any more than corporations these days. USG is untrustworthy. Religious institutions untrustworthy. Academic institutions are untrustworthy. A typical American likely believes in anti-vax, MAGA, Religion, or other conspiracy, so its not like you can trust the broad population. So yeah being able to work for the corporate overlords looks pretty appealing.