Preferences

Is that a bad thing?

That's an interesting point. America is a good example of an economy where the majority of businesses are designed to channel the majority of their revenues to the ultra wealthy. I could see an exodus of ultra wealthy people where it opens up greater economic opportunity for regular people and small businesses.
> America is a good example of an economy where the majority of businesses are designed to channel the majority of their revenues to the ultra wealthy.

A boy is born into the Colonel Sanderson's plantation. Young eyes see thousands in stooped labor on vast fields disappearing to the horizon.

Do you believe the economy is a zero sum game?
No but if there are no billionaires to buy up our media and politicians maybe we can start making positive changes in this country.
If real wages stagnate while the ultrawealthy amass wealth at a superlinear rate, I think you could argue it is.
Likely negative sum since once we burn all oil, it will collapse.
I for one don't think it's zero sum, but I'm genuinely not sure if the ultra wealthy have net positive or net negative contributions
plenty of it is.

attention is finite. land is finite. resources are finite. access to qualified doctors is finite. access to food is finite (something we'll realize at the next great famine). access to water is finite. your time living on earth is finite (and shorter the less money you have).

we operate at a scale where that matters nowadays.

How you say that would that impact the IQ of the population? Will go up or down?

And note that being an IQ denier would transform your question in an insult to intelligence.

Would a very-small number of people leaving affect a well-distributed and population-wide metric like IQ in a measurable way at all? I'd expect not.

What are you trying to get at? Could you be more direct? I'm having trouble making sense of this post.

I suspect that being born into money is a much stronger predictor of becoming ultra-wealthy than IQ.
From where the higher IQ groups would get their even higher IQ inspiration from and push up / raise their networks of influence? (improve social mobility).

How their daily lives will cross vs common experiences with substantial opportunities creators be permanently aborted?

How that wouldn't produce irreversible consequences in a population?

You could say, oh wait, just loosing one Elon has zero impact in a population and yet whole humanity might not become multiplanetary without that one guy in the country that had created the conditions for that raising a ton of talented guys up.

I doubt it would have a measurable impact on the IQ of the population.
It would probably go up, seeing how excess wealth is associated with psychological illness.

But Social Darwinism is an ugly way to see the world.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal