Billionaires Build • Hacker News Board

Re: Billionaires Build

#471

Post by RestlessMind » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

austinpena wrote: post #206

RestlessMind wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amazing nugget which should be the context for any controversial discussion about "Billionaires". I have utmost respect for the former category, but I also believe that the later category should not exist (as in those people should exist but they should not have any unearned billions and all the unearned power and privileges that come with it).

You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children?

If someone earns billions, they can do whatever they want with it as long as it is legal. Only when someone gets something which is not earned, that should become a taxable event.

This way, a billionaire giving his fortune away won't be taxed. If that fortune goes to charity, still not taxed. If that fortune goes to his kids or to their trust fund, it should be heavily taxed.

Re: Billionaires Build

#472

Post by arrosenberg » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #369

danans wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a strawman insofar as there are people who literally say exactly that People oppose billionaires paying low taxes, and the related lack of public investment in bedrock services and infrastructure they need. When a rural area has no hospital, or a city has crumbling roads and transit, yes, people resent enormously wealthy people for whom those are not concerns. People do not, however, oppose their success a…

> That, however, is a strawman. Nobody suggests that at all. People who support more progressive taxation point to things like the New Deal and the strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure and education that propelled the United States forward. You're making that exact argument in fancier words. "strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure" implies…

Maybe the government has enough money, maybe it doesn't. It's the structural disparity that Jeff Bezos' wealth represents that is the problem. His wealth also gives him disproportionate power to shape the incentives of the government, the economy, and the media narrative. Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws.

Re: Billionaires Build

#473

Post by UK-Al05 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #464

UK-Al05 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically the labour theory of value and ignores the value of capital and organisation. Some guy delivering stuff in a garage is not going to be nowhere near as productive as an Amazon worker. The crucial bit that people miss is that it is capital, goodwill and organisation allows employees to generate so much money in the first place. Basically the sum is greater than its parts. If you want to know where pro…

The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations , Book 1,Chapter 5 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_…

Adam Smith's labour theory of value hasn't been used in modern economics. And has tons of problems with it. That and Ricardos version is probably the basis of the Marx version. They we're the popular interpretations at the time and he was probably inspired by them.

The marginal revolution happened in economics and a lot of those problems disappeared. A lot the things they couldn't explain suddenly could be using marginal economics and subjective preferences.

Marx simply didn't have the modern tools we have now. In fact if he was around afterwords it is likely he would never came up with Marxian LTV.

Frankly the only reason for it's popularity now, is because of it's association with communism. It provides the moral basis for it. As a result you've had a lot of people desperately trying to get it work in modern economic models as well without much luck.

But you can critique market economics using marginal theory of value. It just means markets have failures, not they are morally wrong at the core.

Re: Billionaires Build

#474

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #422

cactus2093 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your explanation I see the feedback loop that makes it easier for you and your children to stay out of poverty if you're already successful. I don't see a feedback loop that makes it hard to escape poverty. Why did the high school dropouts drop out in the first place, and why does that make their kid more likely to drop out? Ideally their kid should still have access to public school education, with all the tools…

> Ideally their kid should still have access to public school education, with all the tools needed to go on to become successful themselves. Ideally, but in reality public education is not an equalizer like that. Wealthy parents give their students advantages that school can't provide in our society: e.g. upper class culture and habits, resources for extra education, connections, etc. Even the institutional bits aren…

[deleted]

Re: Billionaires Build

#475

Post by 8note » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

hnracer wrote: post #224

chillwaves wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe in meritocracy? Because ownership of that amount of wealth is surely going to skew the entire system. How long before we just have a permanent ruling class, and how does that move humanity forward?

Familial wealth disperses and collapses pretty quickly, eventually being split up between 2 to the n heirs thereabouts. Irrespective, the wealth is the property of an individual who earned that wealth through voluntary exchange. If they want to give it all to their kids, to a charitable cause, or just destroy it, that should be their right as owners of that property, it is not just for the state to steal that propert…

"voluntary" is pulling a lot of weight here. Let me know when food and water become voluntary things for people

Re: Billionaires Build

#476

Post by refurb » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

eschaton wrote: post #379

RIMR wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's absolutely a strawman. The exploitation billionaires create isn't direct. The problem is that Billionaires amass this wealth while people beneath them struggle. Jeff Bezos shouldn't be making 12-figure gains while his warehouse workers are on welfare. Those warehouse workers shouldn't be paying a higher tax rate than he does on their income. That IS an unquestionably exploitive relationship between a CEO and…

And if, say, Jeff Bezos hired his warehouse workers as employees, paid them an inflation-adjusted minimum wage (eg about $25/hr), and offered real benefits, he and his company would still be making massive profits. That’s what makes it unethical and exploitative: They don’t actually need to be paid so little or treated so harshly for the company’s economics to work!

If Amazon hired warehouse workers at $25/hr would it still be making massive profits?

Amazon has 1.3M employees in the US and $11B in profit globally.

If you increase the wages at the bottom that pushes everyone up (why would a manager of the warehouse workers make less than the people they manage?).

So if you divide up that $11B in global profit across all 1.3M US workers, you get $8,700 per worker or maybe $500 extra per month after tax. A much appreciated boost by the folks at the bottom, but now global profit is $0.

I’m certainly not arguing against paying warehouse workers more. I’m just saying the “billions in profit” don’t go that far in a company the size of Amazon.

Re: Billionaires Build

#477

Post by RestlessMind » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

eej71 wrote: post #220

chillwaves wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe in meritocracy? Because ownership of that amount of wealth is surely going to skew the entire system. How long before we just have a permanent ruling class, and how does that move humanity forward?

There is always more wealth to create.

So? I already said that I have utmost respect for those who create wealth. I am in full support to letting people create wealth as much as they want.

What I firmly oppose is someone who has a birth lottery of being born to such wealth creators - they don't deserve to inherit a vast fortune and all the power and privilege that come with it.

Re: Billionaires Build

#478

Post by RestlessMind » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #211

RestlessMind wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amazing nugget which should be the context for any controversial discussion about "Billionaires". I have utmost respect for the former category, but I also believe that the later category should not exist (as in those people should exist but they should not have any unearned billions and all the unearned power and privileges that come with it).

Neither category should exist. The fact billionaires exist is an indictment against our system and how we allocate resources.

Not really. If someone designs a COVID vaccine tomorrow and decide to charge just 1$ for every person receiving that, I would not begrudge them becoming a billionaire when a billion people benefit from that vaccine. That is some real value created and delivered to the society.

Re: Billionaires Build

#479

Post by postingpals » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #381

postingpals wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of people who invoke the labour theory of value misunderstand it. Welcome to the 99%.

Please don't post snarky dismissals to HN. If you know more than others, the best way to respond is to share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. If you don't want to do that or don't have time, that's fine, but in that case please don't post. Letting the internet be wrong about everything is the primary survival skill we all have to work on anyhow. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=t…

Sorry, as you know it's a contentious issue and we get tired of repeating the same information. Then again, I'm sure you get tired of repeating yourself too.

Re: Billionaires Build

#480

Post by centimeter » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

bedhead wrote: post #378

drewrv wrote: post #235

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this: The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more…

You are right about the feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty. The most uncomfortable one to talk about is basic social network effects. Two people meet at some prestigious college and get married - are we shocked they have children who are predisposed for success? Besides from having god-given IQ, they are likely some combination of ambitious, punctual, respectful of authority, long-term oriented, hard-…

Heritability studies suggest this is much more strongly mediated by genetic factors (such as IQ and time preference) than social factors.