undefined | Better HN

0 pointssurvirtual1y ago0 comments

Yes, it is foolish to hoard allocation aimlessly. Anyone who amasses resources without a vision or for the sake of amassing it is a fool.

There is a sacred responsibility implicit in the acquisition of resources. It implicitly says "I know what to do better with these resources than others." To take on that responsibility then do nothing with it, and actually publicize you don't know what to do with it, is disgraceful. As long as there is suffering, there is more work to be done.

Move aside and let people who know what to do take over.

In the past, when people didn't know what to do with resources, the people would very loudly & painfully clawback the misallocated hoards and make better use of them. Recently, a CEO that didn't know what to do with resources & took active part in misusing them returned his misallocation to others.

This kind of misallocation is a universal crime. A life is nothing compared to the magnitude of this crime. Ideas of "ownership" and "it's my money" are irrelevant. The crime stands, and the justice of balance for this crime always comes, one way or another.

Escaping the responsibility of this duty, and the negligence of misusing funds, is easy; sell everything you own and reallocate resources to others who are better able to manage them.

Revolution is the "final" reaction to misallocated funds. It is when a mass of misaligned, foolish resource allocators who collectively lost their way and lack all vision to allocate, hoard most wealth. This misallocation chokes out the society they've hoarded from, like a blood clot, and leads to a death of the society if not addressed.

I would be very scared right now to be part of the group of people who have hoarded resources and mismanaged them, because this planet is on the cusp of a clawback.

Alternatively, if visionary resource allocators are allowed to operate, it brings wealth to everyone. It raises the standards of existence, brings about lasting peace, and makes for a prosperous existence. These visionary allocators are most definitely not in operation in these times, and it shows.

I will dream of a day when this changes. I hope that this change occurs peacefully, and with minimal suffering, even to those who has caused incomprehensible suffering due to their greed.

0 comments

Lionga1y ago

To be very charitable with you: If someone puts all their funds into stocks or similar (what almost all wealthy do) isn't that them letting others decide how to allocate these resources? So they have done all they could. Or are companies outside of the "sacred responsibility" you claim? who decides which organisations or efforts are "sacred "?

To be less charitable you seem like an arrogant person at best to tell people they should always know and allocate resources aligning with your values. I am almost sure all your efforts for this cause while maybe well meaning will be in vain due to your attitude.

cwalv1y ago

> As long as there is suffering, there is more work to be done.

A noble sentiment that I think resonates with most people.

> There is a sacred responsibility implicit in the acquisition of resources. It implicitly says "I know what to do better with these resources than others."

No, it doesn't. I may 'acquire resources' and use them (or not) simply because nobody else is around who wants them more. I may spend money on something frivolous (e.g. going to the movies), even while knowing there's a possibility that donating it to some 501c3 (or some other person directly) could end up improving lives significantly more than mine was improved from watching the movie, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

> This kind of misallocation is a universal crime.

We have fundamentally different conceptions of property rights.

You seem to believe that people who come into money have a responsibility of spending it in ways that you think are important. In my mind, unless they're ill-gotten gains, they've already improved people's lives proportionally, and they can spend or not spend the value others have accrued to them as they see fit.

There are economic systems where committees get to decide the most appropriate allocation of resources, independent of the people who "amass" the resources themselves. These systems universally end up with lower levels of societal wellbeing than ones where property rights are respected.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse