Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
1–10 of 660 posts
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#2> The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you.
It won't cure envy.
Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living. Absolute standard of living continues to grow but that is invisible if you compare yourself to your peers.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#3> The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you. It won't cure envy. Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living. Absolute stand…
It doesn't have to. The point isn't a perfect society, the point is to prevent resource hoarding and the accumulation of totalitarian power. When we allow wealth to accumulate we are also allowing power to accumulate.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#4I'm wondering if people understand that almost all the pleasures/comforts in modern life were created by people who wouldn't exist in this system.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#5I agree with the premise that "nobody deserves to be a millionaire" (although maybe with inflation we should say deca-millionaire), but a hard cap seems like a crude tool with many potential downsides. A UBI would be a better tool for raising living standards, and a progressive wealth tax would be a better guard against hereditary fortunes, without removing the incentives for high earners to continue working.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#6Adding this to my reading list. I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million. Because that's the point at which you have enough wealth to live a comfortably middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life, still pass down a substantial chunk to your children, and never have to earn another cent.
I've argued we should combine this with a move towards a worker owned economy - in which businesses are democratic institutions governed by the people who do the work involved.
But either of these changes on their own would do _substantial_ good. Going to make a note to read this book!
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#7What about having a rationally planned democratic society instead of people chasing dollars at the expense of everything? No rich people, just democratic processes accessible to all incl. in production.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#8Hell yeah. You accumulate $100m (or whatever the limit is) and we throw a parade for you. You get an award and your name on a plaque. You won capitalism! and you're not allowed to make another cent
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#9We should place a hard cap on political ambitions like these. These utopians will be the end of us with their ridiculous schemes involving always what other people should do.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#10I agree with the premise that "nobody deserves to be a millionaire" (although maybe with inflation we should say deca-millionaire), but a hard cap seems like a crude tool with many potential downsides. A UBI would be a better tool for raising living standards, and a progressive wealth tax would be a better guard against hereditary fortunes, without removing the incentives for high earners to continue working.
You don't need incentives for high earners to continue working.
1) We can afford for them to stop working. Really, it's okay. People can just chill. We're more than efficient enough for it. 2) People don't need monetary incentives to work. Most of us get bored just chilling. We want to feel useful. We need community. We need something to engage our brains. The vast majority of people, left to their own devices, will find some sort of work to do.