No, it’s a byproduct of differences in skill and fitness to tasks, it’s gonna happen even in centralised economies (that were never tried and if they were it wasn’t real communism, I’m sure) it’s just not going to be recognised and rewarded if everyone is supposedly equal.
I don’t think we should prescribe to the idea differences in skill are AS great as riches would imply.
Elon Musk is not MILLIONS of times better at making cars than the next manufacturer. Most would say he’s worse.
What will also be relevant is the degree to which companies now subvert each other. If one person got really good at baking, he could take out an ad in the paper, right? Except adspot prices have gone way up because of rich companies running the same promo 1000x into people’s eyeballs about their frozen imported bread, even though this one guy might have something people actually want.
Or, look at game companies that all have competent products but are carefully managing their release date to avoid GTAVI.
All your objections are valid, however all of these factors only add noise to the equation.
The Pareto distribution still observably happens in non-centralised, non-profit driven systems.
It is a byproduct of unequal output, not market type, provided there is some sort of reward proportional to performance.
I don’t think we should prescribe to the idea differences in skill are AS great as riches would imply.
They are only in the beginning. Money has the ability to compound and, in the case of competitive, elastic markets, this is even more starkly visible.
If I make more money one year due to higher fitness/better output, I have more revenue with similar expenses to my direct competitors, so I have more profit, I get to invest more, rinse, repeat, compounding my competitive advantage more-than-linearly.
This however is just more visible in economics. In fact, I would argue it goes for any type of competitive environment; the fewer limiting factors on individual faculties the more obvious it is.
Individual sports like tennis, swimming, running, or martial arts are usually dominated by a handful of individuals, who reach the peak and then get replaced as they get older, and new, stronger athletes join the competition (or sometimes if rulesets are modified to shake up the meta, but that would also change the parameters to determine fitness).
The only scenario where this does not happen is where there is no running incentive, or only weak ones, to excel in a particular pursuit.
Should they pool game sales earnings and distribute the money equally among developers? I can’t think of any other platform that based on my own tastes recommends me games that don’t even have double digit all time high concurrent players (at most just basic lists that end up burying old titles at the end of the queue) and that I end up buying.
There’s plenty of valid criticism for steam, I don’t understand why we should focus on nitpicking.
For profit centralized economy perhaps
No, it’s a byproduct of differences in skill and fitness to tasks, it’s gonna happen even in centralised economies (that were never tried and if they were it wasn’t real communism, I’m sure) it’s just not going to be recognised and rewarded if everyone is supposedly equal.
I don’t think we should prescribe to the idea differences in skill are AS great as riches would imply.
Elon Musk is not MILLIONS of times better at making cars than the next manufacturer. Most would say he’s worse.
What will also be relevant is the degree to which companies now subvert each other. If one person got really good at baking, he could take out an ad in the paper, right? Except adspot prices have gone way up because of rich companies running the same promo 1000x into people’s eyeballs about their frozen imported bread, even though this one guy might have something people actually want.
Or, look at game companies that all have competent products but are carefully managing their release date to avoid GTAVI.
Yesn’t.
All your objections are valid, however all of these factors only add noise to the equation.
The Pareto distribution still observably happens in non-centralised, non-profit driven systems.
It is a byproduct of unequal output, not market type, provided there is some sort of reward proportional to performance.
They are only in the beginning. Money has the ability to compound and, in the case of competitive, elastic markets, this is even more starkly visible.
If I make more money one year due to higher fitness/better output, I have more revenue with similar expenses to my direct competitors, so I have more profit, I get to invest more, rinse, repeat, compounding my competitive advantage more-than-linearly.
This however is just more visible in economics. In fact, I would argue it goes for any type of competitive environment; the fewer limiting factors on individual faculties the more obvious it is.
Individual sports like tennis, swimming, running, or martial arts are usually dominated by a handful of individuals, who reach the peak and then get replaced as they get older, and new, stronger athletes join the competition (or sometimes if rulesets are modified to shake up the meta, but that would also change the parameters to determine fitness).
The only scenario where this does not happen is where there is no running incentive, or only weak ones, to excel in a particular pursuit.
Should they pool game sales earnings and distribute the money equally among developers? I can’t think of any other platform that based on my own tastes recommends me games that don’t even have double digit all time high concurrent players (at most just basic lists that end up burying old titles at the end of the queue) and that I end up buying.
There’s plenty of valid criticism for steam, I don’t understand why we should focus on nitpicking.