Remix.run Logo
jrm4 8 hours ago

Please don't bury the lede here of how the author completely and epically misses the point of the statement.

It's not about the math of the thing, it's about the arguably necessary exploitation that must occur to hit those kinds of numbers.

And in fact, IMHO, you don't even need to get to "exploitation" to criticize this mentality.

Any normal human would (and if not would, SHOULD) want to stop "earning" well before they hit those ridiculous numbers. Let's say -- at about 50 million, a normal person should realize, yes, that's enough. Time to pivot to something that doesn't cause so much accumulation. This does happen, we just don't hear about it enough.

simianwords 7 hours ago | parent [-]

There’s no exploitation involved because it is not a zero sum situation.

jrm4 7 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a ridiculously oversimplified application of first year economic theory. No, we do not live in the textbook fantasy of "everyone is always free to make favorable trades and therefore no one is exploited."

simianwords 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes but yours is more of an edge case than mine is.

Trades are almost always positive sum with some externalities.

Trades aren’t exploitative like you claim.