My problem with assumption that you make is that you assume the billionaires came to their billions through some divine magic, and thus "a very few bad apples" can't spoil the bunch.

I start my line of thinking from the other end -- what kind of regulation and laws exist that can create exponential wealth for someone whose work output only ever scales linearly. The gap between single person's output produced and wealth generated is proof that our simple abstraction that "money is just a symbol proportional to one's contribution to society" breaks down at very large (and sometimes really tiny) scales. Effective altruism will never fix that because it presupposes the system where billionaires are created and exists comfortably. The alternative, of course, is taking a closer look at the system itself and making sure our abstraction of "money = effort given to society" functions properly at all scales.

> Effective altruism will never fix that because it presupposes the system where billionaires are created and exists comfortably. The alternative, of course, is taking a closer look at the system itself and making sure our abstraction of "money = effort given to society" functions properly at all scales.

I disagree with a few things you say, but this is the biggest: what does this have to do with EA?

Yeah, sure, EA will never fix the systemic problems of the system it's in. Neither will scientists working on new vaccines, but you're not criticizing them for it, I imagine. You can do plenty of good in the world within the "current system", without also trying to change that system, and the fact that you're not trying shouldn't be held against you.

(Although, for the record, some people in EA do think political activism is important and spend a lot of effort there.)

> I start my line of thinking from the other end -- what kind of regulation and laws exist that can create exponential wealth for someone whose work output only ever scales linearly. The gap between single person's output produced and wealth generated is proof that our simple abstraction that "money is just a symbol proportional to one's contribution to society" breaks down at very large (and sometimes really tiny) scales.

I don't think that's how anyone should view money. And I don't think someone's output only scales linearly.

I mean, that's clearly not the case. Stephen King has written lots of books that many people enjoyed. The value he has created in the world is far larger than the value I've created, or will likely create, and it's not a linear difference. There are lots of examples like that.

In general, regulations and laws don't "allow" for creation of exponential wealth, they just don't prevent something that happens completely naturally. We can certainly decide to "tax more" or something as a society, but that comes with its own problems.