Great question! Mostly it goes toward maintaining the campus and paying the admin folks. PIs are paid to teach, basically, and are expected to pull in the money to support their own research (and maintain their facilities and pay the admin folks).
This is a general theme in the last decade. There is a lot of money, but it is more and more ending up in the pockets of the extremely wealthy.
I'm really no communist, but we've reached a point where the system starts to crumble because of it.
It also can't be in the interest of the billionaires. They also want to live in a safe country and use working public infrastructure (roads, airports, air traffic control). They even need a functioning academic ecosystem if they want their children to receive a real education, not just access to a few famous professors they can buy.
I am looking at your link and thinking I took crazy pills.
The graph shows just under 23% in 1989, going up past 27% by 1996, then dipping a few years later only to go up to 29% a bit before 2008, then another dip and rise to almost 32% today.
Am I misreading the graph? If not, the percentage of wealth owned by the 1% is on track to have increased 50% over ~40 years. (23% --> 34.5%)
I don't see why a shift from 23% to 34% should produce a qualitatively different result.
The annual US federal budget is around $7 trillion. The remaining Gates fortune is around $100B. So the feds are chewing through about 70 Gates fortunes per year. And that doesn't even account for state and local spending.
The idea that the system is crumbling because all the money is ending up in the pockets of billionaires does not pass the sniff test.
You’ve got some copium in there. Why wouldn’t billionaires want a few famous professors they can buy to teach their children the same way Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle.
You don’t have to share the education time for your kids with the poor and think of how exclusive and how much status is advertises.
As for everything else you said about it not being in the interest of the billionaires. Even if you are 100% correct they have enough money to pay someone else to deal with any frictions in life and not think about it.
On top of that, if you look at their behavior, there’s a lot of similarities between the wealthiest in society and how they treat money, and how addicts treat heroin. Addicts frequently engage in self destructive behavior for the next hit.
This is not true. Billionaires rely on public safety. To fly their private jets around the world they need ATC and airports. They need police, so angry people don't buy rockets and shoot their planes down.
They also want to chill at their pool, without hundreds of people outside rioting. They want to drive their sports cars somewhere.
They don't want to live their life in a zombie apocalypse shelter.
And how good will those bought professors be, if they didn't work at a good university?
> Billionaires rely on public safety. To fly their private jets around the world they need ATC and airports.
> They want to drive their sports cars somewhere.
If you weren’t aware the first car capable roads were laid by the rich to go racing around in their new technology called the “automobile”
> They also want to chill at their pool, without hundreds of people outside rioting.
We already have evidence of Zuckerberg buying up multiple houses to make a ring of privacy, or Bezos leaving his hedgerows higher than allowed around his property and just paying a fine. Or musks baby mama compound to handle his breeding fetish. For the physical security they already pay for armed guards.
> And how good will those bought professors be, if they didn't work at a good university?
Who cares how they are produced if there are millions of people around the world who could be classified as professors and they could just hire the best?
To be clear I’m not saying these viewpoints are viable, but they fit the behaviors we are seeing from the ultra wealthy and I already said, addicts don’t always act rationally.
Why wouldn't it be in the elite's interests? You're acting like we don't have an entire written history of elites throughout time immortal making terrible decisions that ended up killing 100s of millions of people from things like colonialism or slave trade or selling weapons of death.
There is no reason for billionaires to play nice with the public because they will never be held accountable under the current system.
You have to stop relying on their nonexistent "better angels" and actually start resisting and fighting back. Every single right or benefit that workers have gained was because they died fighting for it.
We have to continue this fight going forward because we're finding out that no one will save us except ourselves.
Perhaps you could clarify your view. Here is my understanding:
* The reason MIT has such a big endowment is because wealthy elites gave MIT money.
* The reason MIT is short on federal funds is because poorly educated voters (working-class) put their man in office.
Since you reflexively believe elites are the big bad, you should be happy with the new tax on big endowments like that of MIT. Soak the rich. Perhaps the endowment tax should go even higher. Power to the people.
I agree with you to some point. I just wouldn't frame it in a Marxist way, working class vs. everyone else. It concerns nearly everyone, not just the working class. Limiting it to the working class, excludes many influential people who are more wealthy, far away from being billionaires, but still suffer from the current developments.
We've seen such cycles before. Elites getting too wealthy and influential, until they are stopped. Long ago it was feudalism. But even early capitalism had such an example with the Gilded Age in the US. After WW2 it probably reached the state of being mostly reversed, only to start redeveloping. Funnily enough the Gilded Age was ended by Republicans.
Aside from the occasional problems like printers waking up at night to print gibberish [0] and attempts at locking down their ecosystem [1], Bambu Lab makes the most consistent, reliable printers for casual use you will find.
How about if people with a higher reputation contribute an exponentially higher score when voting? Like, someone with ten top-rated answers has a 1,000-point vote (more nuanced than that, obviously).
As someone who is essentially financially illiterate, what does this mean, "allocate resources efficiently?" Nobody's investing in companies that promise to cure world hunger or alleviate childhood suffering. They're investing in technologies that can extract the most wealth from the population, regardless of externalities. Is that desirable?
Then again, I can't fathom what people would be doing with their money if the stock market weren't there. I imagine they might naturally wind up with some sort of...stock market.
The operating principle here being that prices are units of information, which in aggregate reveal some combination of market demand, present supply, production costs, etc. All else being equal, an investor who's looking to put an investment into a new business will try to find the best rate of return. The existence of a relatively higher profit margin for an industry suggests an unmet market need, and then directs the flow of capital into it (if you expect that for every $1 you invest into a roofing nail plant will return $1.25 over the next year vs a $2 return from a new insulin plant, more new cash will flow into the insulin plant, more insulin gets made, and if the investor guessed right about the demand for it, they turn a profit). In a sentence, money flows towards trying to give people what we think they want more of.
The theory posited above is that you could try to manipulate these signals as a sort of economic warfare. If you expect that every dollar you put into our aforementioned roofing nail factory will get you minuscule or negative return, nobody's going to want to invest in building/expanding nail factories, and they'll put their cash somewhere it can grow instead. This is all well and good so long as you've got happy trading relationships with people who can sell you nails, but if one day the nails stop coming--you've got a supply chain shock until you either open new factories or find someone else willing to sell nails to you. The theory here being that if you had a LOT of goods that became tied up in a single point of failure--someone forcing that failure could create a great deal of internal instability to be exploited for geopolitical ends.
That's what's meant by efficiency, it's allocating it to the place that has the highest return on investment.
As you point out, in practice what's efficient is what can capture the highest return, not necessarily the highest return per se. If say investing in education had high returns society wide but those returns couldn't be captured, that's not an efficient use of private capital.
As somebody doesn't consider himself a capitalist, wouldn't it be fair to say it is "the most efficient" in precisely one thing: capital reproducing itself?
And if so, why is that necessarily a good thing? Why should that be our goal as society as opposed to things like minimizing child mortality, increasing literacy rates, making sure we don't have a ton of our fellow humans living on the street in misery etc etc - things that make the lives of our fellow humans better? Why is capital growth the metric we have chosen to optimize for? Surely there's better things to optimize for?
Excuse the polemic, but infinite growth with no regard for anything else is the ideology of a cancer cell - and to me that is increasingly what it feels like when we are wasting all these resources on a dying planet just to make numbers go up.
Ultimately that money is made by people choosing to spend their money on something, because it helps them, because they like it, because they need it for whatever reason (real or imagined). That's what grounds the financial markets: eventually someone is buying a thing because they want the thing, and all the rest of it is basically just figuring out who can make the thing, how many people want the thing and how badly, and whether the stuff used to make the thing could make a different thing that people want more. Financial markets can depart from that reality for a while, but mainly because of a collective belief in some falsehood about the above (everyone really badly wants AI, right?).
Number go up infinitely is due to inflation and that's basically just an incentive to not hoard cash indefinitely, and instead use it for something useful. But the only thing that uses up is numbers. Everything else is because people, on average, want more stuff and are willing and able to work hard to get it.
(Of course, this generally means that the markets chase the desires of those who have something valuable enough. People who don't will be marginalised by this mechanism, for sure. And of course there's lots of opportunity for people to steal or abuse powerful positions in the market to the detriment of others. Which is why a free market is not the be all and end all of organising a society, and other organisational structures exist to regulate it and to allocate resources in a less transactional manner)
But isn't that counter to the very article we're commenting on? Everyone is shoving half baked AI junk into everything because that's what makes number go up on the stock market, but I'm pretty sure that's not actually what most people would want those resources to be used for.
I'd posit that markets are completely detached from the real world and are more of a speculative/religious element than an indicator of any ground truths.
Edit: I just realized I missed a sentence of yours where you kinda spoke to this. I still believe that this is more of a rule than an exception - there is nothing inherently tying markets and reality together - they're mostly about people making bets on what the next big hype is; not on what is actually useful to anyone.
Most people or most people with money? Ultimately it's the people making investment decisions you need to convince in order to get the money from them. Then the reality check is whether you can give them that money back and more. Those investors should in theory be self-interested in making sure that this is actually useful, because if they don't they'll lose their money, but in practice they are not superhuman and prone to fads and echo-chambers (especially because it's a relatively smaller group that can move a lot of money around, and short-term investing rewards running with the crowd to some degree), but there's not a single group of people that would not fall victim to poor decisions in this regard (whether you're imagining a centrally managed economy, the electorate, or some hypothetical benevolent dictator).
Optimizing for capital returns is a simplification of the real world, where it allows for comparing whether it makes more sense to put one's money into opportunity A or B.
There's a lot that's not captured by solely looking at dollars, like the examples that you bring up, such as quality of life, human welfare, and so on.
If you care about minimizing child mortality, increasing literacy, pulling people up out of poverty, you should be a capitalist, as it's empirically the best way to meet those goals. This seems to be a hard thing for many to understand or accept because it is largely a second order effect, the capitalist primarily concerned with their own personal gain but winds up improving the lives of others as a side effect.
This is the essence of Adam Smith's often misunderstood invisible hand metaphor. Of the individual he observed: "By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Second order effects stack up and improve quality of life for more people better than trying to do so explicitly.
Multiplying capital creates abundance and that abundance allows for improved standards of living for and the means to spend excess resources in support of charitable endeavors. Growth is good because it means more abundance and opportunity. I would argue that pursuit of growth is not an ideology but a force of nature. Life is opportunistic and will expand to wherever there is fertile conditions, and often adapt even when they are not. We are part of nature and understand this intuitively, seeking growth opportunities. As an example, one is better off being part of a growing company (more wages and opportunities) than one that is stagnant or declining (fighting for scraps and survival).
>If you care about minimizing child mortality, increasing literacy, pulling people up out of poverty, you should be a capitalist, as it's empirically the best way to meet those goals
If you look at it empirically, the majority of people brought out of poverty (and I suspect the other metrics but am not as familiar with them) in the past few decades have been in China as the result of deliberate policies by the CPC.
Yes, it probably is. Have you ever heard of the spherical cow?*
Simplifying the surface makes it possible to model the system with equations that can be solved analytically--which gives theorists something to work on. Modeling more complex systems (which often happens, eventually) typically requires lots of computing power and results in a model that doesn't generalize well.
I hope you're not implying they're already digging mass graves. Some are unaccounted for--they're probably in Guatemala or something. Some will die. But I don't see the gas chambers being built for, like, another six months at least.
I have used zelle many times from the browser. It's been a while, so maybe that has changed, though. I never even tried to deposit a check from the browser or an app, so you may be right on that point.
I have 3 different banks (well 2 banks and a credit union.) I can use Zelle in my browser from all 3. I don't even have the app installed for 2 of them.
> You can actually see this cognitive dissonance play out most overtly in Wikipedia's definition of authoritarianism.
I'd say a more overt example is playing out on the national stage, where protests in support of (murdered, raped, and starving) Palestinians in Gaza are crushed, because the alternative is to have the executive branch try to extort a $Billion dollars from the host campus, putting universities in peril, to help buy another gold-plated plane or something.
Do you have examples of cars (that aren't Teslas, perhaps, since they don't play by normal car rules) having been disabled due to lack of cell service?
Not to avoid the question, because I simply don't know, but do you (or anyone) have directions on how to yank a cell module from a list of cars and still have the car function?
Would be nice to have a page full of forum posts like this for various cars.
Incidentally, this link recommends termination resistors, which I think are the better answer if there's a suitable connector (which I imagine is the case for most cars). If it's not terminated, I believe it can still pick up a nontrivial signal.
reply