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

81–90 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#81

Post by rfwhyte »

The problem I have with extreme, gratuitous wealth, and the inequality that creates it, is that it is fundamentally anti-democratic. It is well known by anyone with a pulse that money = political power, which means those with the most money, have the most political power, and given how just how much wealth so few people in the world have now, an infinitesimally tiny fraction of the population of most democratic countries have essentially entirely captured the political apparatuses of the countries in which they reside. Meaning the interests of the majority of the people in most countries are no longer being represented by their elected officials, instead the people being elected solely represent the interest of wealthy elites who can afford to make huge political "Donations" and pay lobbyist's salaries.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but one of the most effective changes we could make in the world is to get money out of politics, as its the only real way democracy can be put back in the hands of the people.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#82

Post by FredPret »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #37

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).

What's the deal with Michael Phelps hogging all those medals?

Or with Taylor Swift hogging the charts? I sing in the shower - I want a record deal too!

On a smaller scale, these damn farmers are making too much money. I'm sure I can grow an orange just as well - they should be made to hand over part of their farms to me.

Same goes for all the software startups and those coders hogging the SaaS startups!

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#83

Post by kuratkull »

alkonaut wrote: post #57
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.

As I understand it, very few entrepreneurs ever said “this is interesting but if I can’t be a billionaire what’s the point?”. Which are the examples driven by extreme wealth (note: not just regular 1%er wealth and not people who became extremely wealthy - I mean people who expressed that the reason they created something was because they knew it would make them extremely top-0.01% wealthy)?

People start out to create something awesome. People continue when they have the motivation. When you hard cap them in any measurable way, they stop.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#84

Post by avgcorrection »

kuratkull wrote: post #78
avgcorrection wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things were created by working people, most of whom are not wealthy.

Look at each valuable item that you use often, now look up the salary of the leader of the company that made it. Edit: You wouldn't have that item without that compensation. This should be more traumatic than people make it out to be. You wouldn't have your iphones, twitters, facebooks, vr goggles, steams, ikea tables, etc.

People of my opinion/disposition already know that CEOs make too much. You don’t have to indirectly tell me.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#86

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

sudden_dystopia wrote: post #19

Nobody should even be a millionaire it says. A small house in California is a million dollars ffs. The irony of charging 20 pounds for this is palpable.

Yeah, the blurb does literally say, "No-one deserves to be a millionaire." That threshold is the wrong choice, at least with prices where they are today.

If you do the math, millionaire is just about where your assets start to balance your liabilities. By liabilities, I mean the cost of a modest and frugal life. In that fuller accounting, the millionaire is merely the freedman, the person who has climbed out of the debt-hole into which almost all of us are born.

Let's do the math.

1. A millennial can get a decent Gold PPO plan on the health insurance marketplace, including basic dental and vision, for about $500/month. Anything below Gold merely coinsures ER visits and does not actually protect against catastrophic loss.

2. If you move to a cheap city and shop around, you can rent a decent one-bedroom apartment for $1,300/month. Even in a cheaper city, it will not be new and it will not be downtown.

3. Now consider utilities. Say $30 for a cheap cell phone plan, $50 for Internet, $100 for electricity (if you have electric heat), $20 for water. That's $200/month total

4. Allow another $80/week for groceries and $100/month very-occasional minor luxuries (get lunch out, get Starbucks).

5. Finally, let's say you really hit the jackpot with apartment and job location and are able to get by with a monthly bus pass costing $50/month.

We're at $2,230/month, or $26,760/yr.

Now assume you can get a 3% real yield. To finance your $26,760 annual costs, you need $892k invested -- nearly $900k.

This analysis has assumed unusually cheap rent and lifestyle. Add in car payments for a Corolla, or a less optimistic rent, and you're quickly at $1M needed. Yet I'm still talking about living frugally. I'm also assuming no childcare expenses.

So, for those reasons, and because $1M is a nice round number, I simply summarize that $1M is actually zero.

And it's only zero in a cheap place. If you're in California with only $1M you're still in the hole.

...

Yes, there is a problem. The natural world was expropriated from us before we were born, we were born into a system we didn't choose, and we must work off an indenture we never signed up for. So I agree with much of the spirit of what the author says.

But, quantitatively, if everything else about the current system remains as it is and we are only talking about where the cap is, then $1M is too low. Because $1M is merely where assets begin to balance a single person's liabilities.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#87

Post by eej71 »

MeImCounting wrote: post #71
eej71 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am not in favor of a planned economy, but I do believe our society faces a significant issue with certain individuals hoarding money and resources. If we are to employ a group that uses violence to enforce the will of the majority under the threat of violence, then we should at least utilize this forceful approach to prevent some individuals from becoming entrenched in power and wealth. As they exist now, mechanism…

You have provided, perhaps unintentionally, a wonderful concretization on the difference between political power and economic power. In even simpler terms, its the difference between the gun and the dollar.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#88

Post by kuratkull »

avgcorrection wrote: post #84
kuratkull wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at each valuable item that you use often, now look up the salary of the leader of the company that made it. Edit: You wouldn't have that item without that compensation. This should be more traumatic than people make it out to be. You wouldn't have your iphones, twitters, facebooks, vr goggles, steams, ikea tables, etc.

People of my opinion/disposition already know that CEOs make too much. You don’t have to indirectly tell me.

You wouldn't have those items without that compensation. This should be more traumatic than people make it out to be. You wouldn't have your iphones, twitters, facebooks, vr goggles, steams, ikea tables, etc.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#89

Post by jdiff »

Dalewyn wrote: post #70
sackfield wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever people talk about how much wealth is comfortable (or ethical) to have, its usually just a notch above their own (well within their social class status). To be fair I don't know your wealth at all but its just an observation I've had from talking with others about this. The end result of this would be to make these people some of the wealthiest in the country by dragging the wealth curve to just above their l…

These arguments nearly always come back to the fundamental desire (greed) for "Giev moniez pl0x.", as you say the limit is above their own wealth as to not be an inconvenience to themselves while siphoning monies from those around (and presumably above) them. It would make for better discussion if these social justice warriors were at least honest about what they actually want.

Most people in this thread aren't making 6-7 figures. The boogeyman you're railing against isn't here.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#90

Post by alkonaut »

kuratkull wrote: post #83
alkonaut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, very few entrepreneurs ever said “this is interesting but if I can’t be a billionaire what’s the point?”. Which are the examples driven by extreme wealth (note: not just regular 1%er wealth and not people who became extremely wealthy - I mean people who expressed that the reason they created something was because they knew it would make them extremely top-0.01% wealthy)?

People start out to create something awesome. People continue when they have the motivation. When you hard cap them in any measurable way, they stop.

This sounds like guesswork around peoples motivation. Not saying you are wrong, but I'm making the argument that this is a pretty big claim (people being motivated not by wealth or status or curiosity but by extreme wealth). I just don't buy this claim. I don't think it's been a motivation of anyone who has made (say) a billion dollars, to only make another billion. Perhaps be the biggest company or invent the greatest product or have more money than the other billionaire who is an asshat, but just the money itself. Never heard of that. Every billionaire since the dawn of time has written memoirs. They might be lying, but I doubt any of them said "After 150M I just felt I had to make another 500M". They all say "after making successful product A and being set for life, I really wanted to make thing B". I have not read all the billionaire memoirs, and I'm sure memoirs usually claim you were in it for the thrill or the curiosity. But still.
Post reply on HN