Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

hive.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#31

Post by glitchc »

dbingham wrote: post #6

Adding 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 o…

Any solutions that are in conflict with human nature will never be successful. Ambition and envy are basic human traits. At a deeper level, we are beings that measure everything (including light, sound, smell, touch and taste) by way of comparison.

Communism fails because no one has anything left to aspire to and everyone is therefore equally miserable.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#32

Post by FredPret »

kuratkull wrote: post #4

I'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.

No, people don't know this. The degree of economic and historical naiveté has really skyrocketed in recent decades.

"Let's just try a planned society one more time, THIS time will be different, look how nice and kind we are!" is a perfectly reasonable statement to many educated people today.

It's really an indictment of the education system.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#34

Post by lostlogin »

FredPret wrote: post #12
dbingham wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When we allow the state to dictate wealth ceilings, we hand it absolute power.

It’s not that black and white.

What if those in power are elected? What if it wasn’t an absolute limit but harsh taxation?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#35

Post by boppo1 »

How about we just don’t empower a central planning body to make monetary decisions that devalue wages & salaries while inflating asset prices? QE & LIRP have literally been “rich get richer, poor get poorer: the policy”. People educated enough in finance to follow the effect tend to be in the asset-holding camp so there is less complaint.

I’m not advocating high rates as good for the poor; I’m championing shaping the yield curve with a market mechanism. It might be too late for that to be anything other than disastrous though, after years of addiction to funny money.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#36

Post by eej71 »

tehjoker wrote: post #7

What 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.

I think you'd have to be very clear about how this is different than the previous attempts at such "rationally planned democratic societies".

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#37

Post by readthenotes1 »

A US politician said no one deserved to be a millionaire until he sold a book and became a multimillionaire. Now, he says no one deserves to be a billionaire.

We should also say no one should be devastatingly handsome or pretty, outstandingly intelligent, excessively lucky, or extraordinarily persuasive. Or tall. Or athletic. Or motivated. Or powerful (which is rather more related to limiting someone else's money).

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#38

Post by golemotron »

dbingham wrote: post #21
FredPret wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we allow the state to dictate wealth ceilings, we hand it absolute power.

The state is democratic, not absolute. When the state implements policies like this it is acting as a democratic expression of the community's will. We as a community are saying "We're not going to allow individuals within our community to accumulate undo influence over it."

The power of that community is absolute.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#39

Post by sudden_dystopia »

dbingham wrote: post #21
FredPret wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we allow the state to dictate wealth ceilings, we hand it absolute power.

The state is democratic, not absolute. When the state implements policies like this it is acting as a democratic expression of the community's will. We as a community are saying "We're not going to allow individuals within our community to accumulate undo influence over it."

The majority community clearly doesn’t will this. This sort of thing only happens via violent revolution. Good luck with that.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#40

Post by lostlogin »

avgcorrection wrote: post #24
golemotron wrote: post #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 stand…

> Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living. Ah so both literal millionaires and common people should be happy with a median wealth life. I agree.

> millionaire

Part the problem is that the word isn’t inflation adjusted.

‘Billionaire’ is probably a closer comparison to the railroad tycoon, millionaire of ye-olden-times.

Post reply on HN