Why you should stick it to the man

This is a continuation of my reply on the Stop building on the blockchain post. In which I argue against:

"Sticking it to the man" isn't really feasible. And even if it was, it's not actually good.

Seriously. How exactly would stopping the rich from getting richer help anyone? Wealth is not a zero-sum game. When Facebook stock does poorly and Zuck loses billions, it's not like the world's poor gain billions as a result. That's not how it works.

To start, I disagree with is the statement:

"Wealth is not a zero-sum game."

I believe it is very much a zero-sum game. In fact, the reason why we used Gold as a form of currency before, and possibly Bitcoin in the future is due to its scarcity. The scarcity of a good (high demand, low supply) determines something's value. Gold was scarce due to the world we live in, Bitcoin is scarce by design to mimic the world we live in.

The next statement

"When Facebook stock does poorly and Zuck loses billions, it's not like the world's poor gain billions as a result. That's not how it works."

is true. That is indeed not how it works. However, I believe someone having billions affects the world negatively because we are by nature comparative creatures. We learn by imitation. So if someone made the life of themselves and their loved ones better by doing x, we will try to do x to get that result. However, as I said before money is limited by design. It is impossible within the current economic structure for this to be the case.

This leaves a large group of the world wanting a life impossible for them. Feeling less than for not being able to complete the task. If you don't believe me, check out the Self-Care group.

So while I understand that billionaires losing all of their money wouldn't give that money to the poor, they could gain peace of mind.

The general crypto narrative seems to push "riches for all". But by the nature of a currency, the value is in its scarcity. You can't make a billion dollars from crypto if the common people of the world didn't lose a billion dollars.

Things to keep in mind.

1. These responses are cherry-picked against the parts of the comment I didn't like, but there are plenty of valid points to be had as well. An example of one is below.

Wealth is frequently accumulated as a result of technological innovations which tend to spread far-and-wide and improve life for humanity as a whole. Billions of people have cell phones, the internet, running water, time-saving appliances, life-saving medicine, durable clothing and shelter, and an unlimited plethora of entertainment options available at our fingertips, at unimaginably low prices, as a side effect of individuals pursuing wealth.

2. I know this sounds like it's entering communist territory because it preaches an equal world. And this definitely fits that narrative, however, I don't believe this is the time for communism. I don't want to dive too deep into it, but communism kills incentives to complete hard tasks, which the world is full of and we need people to conquer them. However, when at some point humans create an AI that is smarter than the collective intelligence of all humanity, we will no longer need people to be incentivized in the same way.

3. Check out this great article on the priority view. Which unlike egalitarianism (the belief that we should remove all inequalities among people) and Utilitarianism (the belief that actions are right if they create the most utility) it creates the most utility while also keeping the less fortunate in mind.