> Historically the only time the trend of wealth accumulation reverses is during massive crises, wars, and civilizational collapse which make life worse for everyone and nobody with any sense would wish for.
Yes. Which is why the question of social responsibility of the rich matters far more, because they can't help getting involved in politics. And a lot of them seem surprisingly pro-collapse, or at least pro-authoritarian. It's a common pattern in South American countries where demands for rights and equality scare the property owning class, because they might have to share a bit with the general population; this results in coups, dictators, suppression of protests etc, which results in an equally violent retaliation. You don't get Castro without Batista.
Since the general agreement that money = speech = votes, the habit of rich people buying news media to be their personal propaganda (e.g. Bezos with WaPo, the Berlusconi media empire, Murdoch etc), has also made the world a lot worse.
AI accelerates the problem, since part of the pitch is "we're going to obliterate a large amount of white collar and lower middle class work entirely, while also removing the state safety net". Not clear whether that will actually happen as promised to the shareholders, but it could be hugely disruptive.
The power of wealth certainly comes with a lot of responsibility. Which is why I would be curious to have a more detailed view on what all these hyper-rich people are actually doing with their money, and how they came to be so wealthy. We have some obvious examples of power accumulation and evil, and some clear examples of doing great good in the form of philanthropy. So while It doesn't make sense to me that so few individuals should have so much money and power, I still don't think we should count them all as defacto evil.
I'm more saying there's a sort of historical inevitability in the whole situation and we might benefit by taking that into consideration. And that some degree of nuance and tolerance of unfairness might play into a realistic solution.
Regarding landlordism, it's another tricky issue where yes there are bad big landlords, but the policies I've seen that put in place to tackle them tend disincentivize renting altogether and the first ones out of the market are the little guys, exasterbating the housing crisis in most cities. It seems to me an area where tolerating the bad actors is necessary to avoid crashing the whole system, to my point.
Yes. Which is why the question of social responsibility of the rich matters far more, because they can't help getting involved in politics. And a lot of them seem surprisingly pro-collapse, or at least pro-authoritarian. It's a common pattern in South American countries where demands for rights and equality scare the property owning class, because they might have to share a bit with the general population; this results in coups, dictators, suppression of protests etc, which results in an equally violent retaliation. You don't get Castro without Batista.
Since the general agreement that money = speech = votes, the habit of rich people buying news media to be their personal propaganda (e.g. Bezos with WaPo, the Berlusconi media empire, Murdoch etc), has also made the world a lot worse.
AI accelerates the problem, since part of the pitch is "we're going to obliterate a large amount of white collar and lower middle class work entirely, while also removing the state safety net". Not clear whether that will actually happen as promised to the shareholders, but it could be hugely disruptive.
Then there's people's more local, lived experiences with landlordism and the minor rich. A particular local example I heard recently: https://www.sheffieldtribune.co.uk/a-london-lawyer-bought-hu...