Pretty sure they already can, but it's not enough, and you end up with a society where the more selfish you are, the more money->power you have.

Tragedy of the commons is not a new concept.

That's not a Tragedy of the Commons. Tragedy of the Commons is what happens when nobody clearly owns something that many people use, so none of them use it responsibly. That's not relevant at all to people hoarding their own wealth.

> That's not a Tragedy of the Commons.

GPs example is exactly game-theoretix tragedy of the commons / prisoners dilemma.

> Tragedy of the Commons is what happens when nobody clearly owns something that many people use, so none of them use it responsibly.

It's specifically, originally, a term for overgrazing a pastureland resulting from the kind of arrangement you described; there are a number of generalizations from that example which have been given the name, including both the one you describe, and the even more general condition in which each player has a dominant strategy of defection even though all players cooperating has a better payoff than all defecting.

The fact that Tragedy of the Commons is a subset of game theory defection problems does not change the fact that its defining requirement is the existence of a "Commons."

The Commons need not be an overgrazed pastureland; it can be any open access resource. The best modern example would be Earth's atmosphere and how its being filled with pollution. GGP has not specified a Commons and the existence of one is not implied in his comment.

> The fact that Tragedy of the Commons is a subset of game theory defection problems does not change the fact that its defining requirement is the existence of a "Commons."

The fact that the term has long been widely accepted as a label for the general class of problems, OTOH, does.

(Arguably, the structure of the payoff matrix in the class of problems implies an economically real if intangible “commons” in any problem in the class, which is probably why the label is used that way.)

Ok, what is the Commons he is talking about?

Presumably the 'Commons' here is control over the government. However, the example is a trivialization of reality and that matters, in the same way that assuming all economic actors are rational matters (they aren't). It's fun when we can use simple laws of nature to make predictions accurately. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in the field of economics\politics almost ever.

You didn't mention the effect of the poor who are now richer getting more power. You didn't mention that people can gain power by being virtuous and admirable, in fact damaging your own interests on purpose is a direct sign of power. Signalling is not a new concept.

The overall effect is more uncertain than you suggest, but presumably it's clear that the 'giving' that is highly desired and publicly demanded by certain people can be implemented by them today.

Further, I'd postulate that the desire to only give if everyone gives is a rather convenient mechanism to simultaneously not give and appear virtuous.

No government income redistribution.. This kills the country.

Lies. The silent generation had a top income tax rate that was never less than 75%, and for a long time it was above 90%. Of course, not maybe people got hit by it because they found ways to avoid it. What ways? Well, by taking deductions that reduced their taxable income below those high brackets. What are tax deductible expenses? Things like charitable donations, and starting or growing a business.

So they had high taxes, massive redistribution that was basically compulsory. The policy was, use it or lose it. You spend it, or we spend it. You don't like how we're spending your money? OK, find a way to spend it differently, take a risk on a business, and deduct those expenses.

Taxes are so cheap at the top end that it's better to pay those taxes, and stuff the remaining money in real estate, the stock market, or bonds, than it is to take the risk on a business. Being a greedy hoarder should be very expensive in terms of taxes. WE've done it before, the country was not killed, instead it thrived. That era of high top end taxes built massive public and private infrastructure.

It's the greedy hoarders who are killing the country. Below a certain level of wealth, saving money is very good. Above a certain amount of wealth, it's very bad. Draw the line to make it really punitive to stay above that line.

Otherwise, you're just a cranky advocate for aristocracy, and oligarchy. And that's what'll kill a country.

People who save money for their families are "greedy hoarders"? I imagine in your eyes, then, people who want to take other people's money are somehow virtuous and charitable?

Key phrasing I intentionally left undefined, because there is valid room for debate, "certain amount". I have no idea what that amount is. $1 million? $10 million? Certainly above $100 million, yes greedy hoarders. And any civilized society would have a 100% inheritance tax on such "certain amounts" of wealth, to prevent the rise of aristocratic families.

Aristocracy is how you turn every damn thing into a product including life. Oh you're sick but you can afford health care, too bad, life is unfair, you die. Oh you're wrongly accused of murder, can't afford a good lawyer, have fun in jail, bye. It makes the entire society untrustworthy, and its stability is specious falling apart abruptly and violently. And that's what we should be trying to avoid.