• teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I’m arguing that it’s almost tautologically true that if those events could happen, then my position holds water. I’m only arguing that it’s within the bounds of the possible.

    But I think we’re still talking past each other. Imagine a contrived situation where people are picking apples, and each have their own basket they’re collecting them in, and their own strategy for collecting them. I’m saying that person A’s strategy will never result in them having the most apples, and to me it sounds like you’re saying “well if they happen upon a secret trove of apples, then they would have the most apples”. Which, yeah, you’re right, but that’s not my point.

    Or like how the optimal strategy to the Secretary Problem is to search ~37% of applicants without accepting, and then take the first one that is better than all of them. No, you’re not guaranteed to accept the best applicant, but it’s still provably the best strategy for any random set of applicants.

    Seems pretty easy to maintain your wealth that way. Am I missing something there?

    You would not remain the richest person in the world with that strategy, any other strategy that gains more than 2%/yr would overtake you.

    Edit: I probably am moving goal posts here at this point, but you are helping me refine what it is I’m actually trying to say. I agree that ethical behavior could theoretically result in the most profits, but I’m also convinced that it is not even close to the winning strategy in our current society.

    • testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The issue is that your example fails to be analogous in that no one has ever had a winning strategy to becoming a billionaire. If there was an implementable strategy that anyone could do if they were unethical enough, there would be a hell of a lot more than 3000 of them in the world.

      The only way to become a big-apple-person in your example is to find the treasure trove. You aren’t physically capable of beating people up quick enough to steal all their apples. No current billionaire strategized their way into that position. They all found the apple lotto pile. Sometimes that pile is called Minecraft, and sometimes it’s called Amazon, but they all became billionaires by finding a giant pile of apples.

      And absolutely not on any strategy that makes more than 2% overtaking you. If I have 200billion dollars, at 2%, and you have 1billion at 10%, it’s gonna take you nearly half a century to even reach my starting balance. Yeah, sure, you’ll overtake me eventually, but that’s more likely to happen because I died than because you ended up making more money than me.

      And this is once again you moving the goalposts. What does it mean to “maintain that level of wealth”? Stay the richest for 5 years? 10? 20? 100? Your whole life? What if I die the day after I got the money? Do I have to invent an immortality potion to ever be able to claim to have “maintained” it? If you are unwilling to define what you mean by that, I’ll just be aiming for an ever expanding, nebulous, “that’s not quite enough.”

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        this is once again you moving the goalposts.

        I still maintain that I didn’t set the original goalposts, but yeah, I hoped I had made my edit in time for you to read it. I’m enjoying the respectful discussion, regardless.

        no one has ever had a winning strategy to becoming a billionaire.

        If that were true, wouldn’t there not exist any billionaires?

        If there was an implementable strategy that anyone could do if they were unethical enough, there would be a hell of a lot more than 3000 of them in the world.

        Not if the game is zero-sum, the initial conditions for each participant are randomized, and some execute the strategy better than others. You can take the 100 best battle royale players in the world, all of them execute their strategy perfectly, but at the end of the day they can’t all be winners as defined by the parameters of the game. In the real world the parameters aren’t clearly delineated, I’d say the limit on the number of excessively rich people possible is emergent based on various factors (laws, how unethical parties are willing to be, amount of value being generated, etc.).

        (And to head off the “how can you say zero-sum, but also wealth is being generated?”. If the volume of exchanges of value between parties exceeds the amount of value being generated, then there is effectively always a cap that parties have to operate within, thus it is effectively a zero-sum system for those parties despite total value in the system increasing.)

        The apple gathering metaphor was intended to convey my point about the difference between a wealth gain attributed strategy vs good fortune. We would need to extend it quite a bit to talk in terms of ethical apple picking, at which point I think we would just be talking about actual dollars.

        No current billionaire strategized their way into that position. They all found the apple lotto pile.

        And we’ve circled back to where we disagree. “Billion” (or rather, X) doesn’t happen purely by chance. There exists a value over-which you cannot get purely by chance, it takes unethical exploitation, and there are people beyond that value.

        What does it mean to “maintain that level of wealth”? Stay the richest for 5 years? 10? 20? 100? Your whole life?

        This seems like a red herring. The rate of change that employing a certain strategy gets you is the more relevant quantity. An unethical strategy will diverge into unreasonable amounts of wealth territory, whereas an ethical one won’t ever (and I have to keep saying, in this late-stage capitalist society.)

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Of course billionaires can exist without having a winning strategy. Notch didn’t set out to be a Billionaire. He just played infiniminer and thought it was cool, so he asked Zach Barth if he could make a spinoff. Facebook was started because Zuckerberg was trying to trick a chick into sleeping with him. These billionaires didn’t have some Machiavellian scheme to become billionaires. They just made a thing that happened to dominate their respective industries. It happens when someone is first to market in a field that is prone to natural monopolies.

          And of course money is a zero sum game. There’s a limited amount of currency in circulation. That’s true on it’s face (ignoring government’s creating more, etc.)

          But I think the issue that we are actually disagreeing on is your claim that someone can’t get more than X dollars by chance.
          My counter to that is, “sure they can, by winning an X+1 dollar lottery.” And I don’t think you’ve made any sort of counter to that point other than, “yeah, but they couldn’t keep it without being unethical,” without ever providing a timeframe that you would consider sufficient to meet the definition of “keeping it.”

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Notch isn’t a good example to bring up because, like the other lottery winners, they’re the exception, not the rule. And again, Zuckerberg didn’t become a billionaire from his initial rollout, that took years of deliberate decision making. Can we agree on that?

            Regardless of their goals, they executed a strategy that directly resulted in them being billionaires. It wasn’t random, it was years of decisions they actively made.

            My counter to that is, “sure they can, by winning an X+1 dollar lottery.” And I don’t think you’ve made any sort of counter to that point

            My counter was the apple picking example. When discussing the viability of various apple picking strategies, it subverts the discussion to say “but if the strategy results in them randomly finding a trove of apples, then that strategy could possibly win out”. In that case, it’s not their strategy that earned them those apples, is it?

            • testfactor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Here’s the the disconnect though. There are hundreds and hundreds of businesses that have done exactly the same things that Facebook did and went nowhere. Same strategies. Same exploitation. Same formula.

              What makes Facebook different isn’t that they did those things better. It’s that they did them in the right place at the right time to corner the market.

              I think there’s a good analogy to the music industry. The most popular/famous/wealthy musicians aren’t that way because they are more talented, or ruthless, or have the “winningest” music strategy. There are tens of thousands of other musicians who can play their songs as well or better than them, with more natural talent and willingness to murder for fame and wealth. So why are the famous people famous? Why are they household names while so many who are just as good if not better, with the same drive and strategy and goals, can’t earn enough to put food on the table? It’s luck. They won the popularity lottery by being in the right place at the right time to play to the right people that started the ball rolling.

              And sure, ruthlessness and being unethical can help on that path, just as natural talent and determination can. But ultimately, at the scale we’re talking about, they’re negligible forces in the face of raw luck.

              To use the apple picking example, what I’m saying is this. If you remove all “extraordinary” luck, and just see how well someone can do by being the meanest, most ruthless, crafty apple gatherer it is possible to be, the most they could end the day with is, let’s say, 10 million apples. But we know that some people have 200 billion apples. So how do we reconcile that? The people with that many apples found an apple pile. That’s the only way to get more than 10 million apples. And sure, maybe you actually found some other guy who found the pile and killed him to take the pile from him, or had some system by which you could trick people into pile hunting for you, so that you have better odds of finding the pile, but at the end of the day you have to find the pile to get more than 10 million apples. There is no other alternative. And yes, being unethical can greatly raise your odds of finding an apple pile, but anyone can find it. It’s just very likely to be one of the unethical people.

              But all this is, again, irrelevant to your original position, which was that there is some dollar amount X that you cannot get or keep without engaging in unethical behavior. Not that it’s unlikely to get or keep, but that it is an actual impossibility. Do you still hold to that position in the face of the lottery example?

              • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Same strategies. Same exploitation. Same formula. What makes Facebook different isn’t that they did those things better. It’s that they did them in the right place at the right time to corner the market.

                This is effectively my “battle royale” analogy. Agreed.

                I think there’s a good analogy to the music industry. The most popular/famous/wealthy musicians aren’t that way because they are more talented, or ruthless, or have the “winningest” music strategy.

                Not the musicians, the record labels. But yes, record labels have been ruthless in the music industry since, afaik, around the 1950s. As I mentioned before, I’m not well versed in the music industry, but I know of numerous examples of corporations cornering the music industry. There’s a reason radio stations are always playing the same 30 songs, and why the vast majority of musicians end their careers in debt to their labels (at least 20+ years ago).

                And there’s a reason people call them “starving artists”. It is a supremely rare occurrence for the actual musician to see much of the profits from their work. That’s something the internet is changing (in both directions. No one’s looking forward to those fractions of a cent per play on Spotify, but now you don’t need to sign with a label to get a reasonable audience).

                the most they could end the day with is, let’s say, 10 million apples. But we know that some people have 200 billion apples. So how do we reconcile that?

                Sorry, I don’t follow where these values came from or are supposed to represent. How do we know the max number of apples in this under-defined analogy I’ve come up with? It sounds like you’re envisioning 10 million apples out on trees, and 200 billion stashed away to be found, while I’m picturing the vast majority (200 billion I guess) to be out on the trees needing picking.

                But how this ties back to reality…you’re saying that you believe the primary way to reach an unreasonable amount of wealth is in bulk, via pure luck? That’s where we disagree. Going back to the top of your post, and my “battle royale” example, luck can get you a lot, but to amass an unreasonable amount X, you need a pattern/strategy, that keeps wealth coming towards you and away from competitors. And in order to amass an unreasonable amount, you need to use unethical means.

                Hm, I’m not sure it’s possible to say which of our worldviews is right here without a large amount of data that…which I don’t know if is available.

                • testfactor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I don’t think you understood my last apple analogy at all, but honestly, I’m not really emotionally invested in trying anymore.

                  I think our impasse at it’s core is that we simply disagree on how much luck plays a factor in becoming a “X-ionaire.”

                  You seem to think that the ones who did it are just the best of the best at being unethical businessmen. I look at the ranks of those who made it and I don’t see genius Machiavellian strategic masterminds. I see people who capitalized on exactly the right idea at exactly the right time.

                  I can’t pont to a Zuckerberg or a Gates or a Musk and say, “ah, this was the unethical strategy that got them to the top.” I see that they were at the right place and time to fill a massive unfilled niche in society, and to beat everyone to the punch.

                  That’s not skill. That’s luck. That’s not masterful strategy. Luck. It’s not the inevitable outcome of their unethical business practices. It’s dumb luck.

                  Are they unethical? Absolutely. Did that help along the way? To a degree, certainly.

                  But like, think about it like this. Did Bill Gates ruthlessly stomp on others people and companies to grow Microsoft to what it is today? Absolutely. But how many competitors were there in that space that he needed to stomp? Five? Six? That means that out of 8 trillion people on Earth, he was one of 5, maybe 6, that even had the opportunity to corner that market.

                  And why is that? Because life isn’t perfect information, and opportunities aren’t evenly spread.

                  To make one final pass at the apples example. In life, the apples aren’t uniformly spread across the trees. You have to have the thought, “I bet there are some apples over in that part of the orchard,” and then go look for them there. Sometimes there’s a few. Sometimes there’s a lot. Sometimes there’s none. Not every area you search will be bursting with apples. Sometimes, very very very rarely, there’s 200 billion apples in the area you go looking. And not everybody knows what’s going on everywhere else in the orchard at all times. Sometimes you and 5 or 6 buddies stumble onto the same patch of 200 billion apples at the same time, and you fight to the death over them. Sometimes you leverage that big pile of apples you just got to force others to look for big apple patches for you. Sometimes you use the influence from your big pile of apples to change the apple finding rules in your favor. Or sometimes, you’re a random dude who thinks, “man, I bet there’s a bunch of apples over there,” and you find them and pick them all on your own. At the end of the day, the people who have big piles of apples have them because at some point they either looked and found a motherload of apples, and beat out anyone else who saw it while they were picking, or someone who did gave them all their apples on their deathbed. And being unethical can help you kill off the people in your immediate vicinity who saw the same bunch of apples you did, but to even have that opportunity to crush your competition means that you were lotto winning lucky to even be in the race at the start.

                  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    For this part:

                    think about it like this. Did Bill Gates ruthlessly stomp on others people and companies to grow Microsoft to what it is today? Absolutely. But how many competitors were there in that space that he needed to stomp? Five? Six? That means that out of 8 trillion people on Earth, he was one of 5, maybe 6, that even had the opportunity to corner that market.

                    I agree 100% (except for the part where the list of competitors was WAY larger, but that’s neither here nor there). Yeah, obviously luck is always a factor for everyone, and opportunities don’t present themselves to everyone, but for those who do have the opportunity, the person willing to be the most unethical will have the largest advantage, and thus is most likely to beat out the rest.

                    I agree that I don’t think we can take the discussion further than this. Good talk. I’m just glad I found someone on here that didn’t call me a proto-captialist nazi for calling the original post oversimplified.

                    Have a good one!