I always wonder, what would happen if all objects of desire that come from systematic manufactured want suddenly become borring
Nature will throw a party.
Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
111–120 of 660 posts
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#112Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…
> Productive wealth is a good thing
You have a lot of faith, it seems, in the ability of the already rich to somehow make better decisions (by some metric) than an arbitrary political process. I don't mind if Jeff Bezos the person exists, but I have no reason whatsoever to want him to have control over the scale of resources and decision-making that he does.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> You wouldn't have those items without that compensation.
Asserted without evidence.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#114Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#115Earlier 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.
Saying social justice warriors on hacker news is just awesome.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#116Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#117How 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…
> How about we just don’t empower a central planning body to make monetary decisions…
For people that might argue with this statement, I’d highly suggest reading the book The Panic of 1907.
And if you’re wondering I’m bringing up a book about 1907 instead of 1929, then that should lead you to go read the book.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#118Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…
"Funny" things will happen, when the labor factor is removed from the three factors of production by AGI. ~Jeff can finally have the planet all for himself.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#119Interesting how "extra" wealth is always someone else's problem.
"No-one deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you."
Stopped reading right there. Hubris overload.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#120Adding 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…
Some things cost way more than 10 or 15 million in terms of investment. Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined? Also almost all of super wealthy people's "wealth" is tied up in assets that are funding entire economies. This money is creating jobs, allowing for affordable loans, the money is working for many other people…
> Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined?
Well, why should they? What if instead of a genetics lab, they want to start a flat earth research center? Or a think tank to influence policy in their favor?