Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Not so. It's a lot worse now because before, people just monopolized fixed quantities of gold. If they made bad bets, their gold holdings would shrink.

Now the monopolies aren't over limited quantities of units... They are monopolies over entire money flows with unlimited (and adjustable) quantities of units... People who control these flows can make many bad bets and barely feel a thing. The people who decide the flows don't do so at any expense to themselves; it's the public's money which is printed out of nothing. People like Richard Werner literally proved this after everyone was gaslit about it for over a decade... And now AI is used to spam all reasonable discussions about the system out of view, in spite of all the evidence of dysfunction.

As an extreme example, look at what happened with Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and their divorces... Lost a lot of units of currency at one point but it barely affected them financially, it's like the money pipelines just adjusted themselves to bring them back to the level they were before.



I mean yes it is unsurprising that people with nearly infinite money are materially impacted by losing half of it.

But neither is at the level they were at before, at least in comparison to the market and economic growth overall.

> Not so. It's a lot worse now because before, people just monopolized fixed quantities of gold. If they made bad bets, their gold holdings would shrink.

Yes, this is precisely the "zero-sum" thing you said is problematic.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: