If true, the “every billionaire is a policy failure” idea is woefully incomplete. $999M would still be a policy failure; $10B is a bigger failure than $1B. It’s a non-binary spectrum, then, where any amount of wealth creation is some degree of failure. Therein lies the problem.
-
-
I think what they want to say is “wealth creation is good but excessive amounts of that wealth residing in a few hands means something is wrong with the system”. They may be wrong but I (maybe charitably) think that’s what they’re trying to say
-
I agree that’s what they’re trying to say. But I’ve never seen a logically-consistent definition of “excessive” or “few.”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Haha while there would have to be an arbitrary “0% bad to more than 0% bad” point it would be feasible for it to go from 0%-1% over $100MM - $500MM and then quickly start ramping from there, or something like that.
-
Eager to see a proposed chart that shows magnitude of policy failure vs net worth.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It’s all about how many people they’re willing to demonize
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Assuming good intent & that you're not intentionally being provocative etc.. in data science there's the concept of cumulative error - each unit error is not bad, but if the cumulative exceeds a threshold, it should be corrected.
-
While it may seem arbitrary to choose a hard threshold, we do it all the time ex: marginal tax brackets. Which actually show a good strategy to establish a soft boundary.. I.e. consecutive brackets do not have continuous boundaries, there's some overlap.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.