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

211–220 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#211

Post by MacsHeadroom »

yellowapple wrote: post #199
manithree wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they don't know it. They actually believe that the state is better at managing money than the people creating products and jobs.

They're actively destroying jobs at this very moment, not creating them. If I had a nickel for every "we're making record profits, oh and we're also laying off 10% of our employees" announcement, I'd be a billionaire.

Unemployment has never been lower, with jobs growing every month of the past year. January 2024 saw the most growth followed closely by December 2023. https://www.axios.com/2024/02/02/us-jobs-report-january-2024

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#212

Post by WalterBright »

poncho_romero wrote: post #177
WalterBright wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communist societies tend to be a lot more destructive of their environments. The reason is straightforward - people take care of things that they own, they don't take care of things they don't. For example, which is threatened with extinction - ocean fish, or cows? Are you more careful with your boss's money, or your money? And so on.

Who said anything about communism? This is a false dichotomy.

The parent did:

"you'd be hard pressed to find a system more effective at destroying our world"

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#213

Post by jan3024-2r »

boppo1 wrote: post #35

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…

[dead]

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#214

Post by patrickmay »

missedthecue wrote: post #179
yedava wrote: post #103

Extreme wealth is a symptom of an underlying problem - inhumane exploitation. People can get that rich because the economic system says that it is perfectly acceptable for a class of people to pee in bottles/diapers in order to maximize profits. The solution for this doesn't have to target the rich explicitly. We can strengthen labor laws; update anti-monopoly laws. Make human dignity the central argument. This will…

Wealth isn't zero-sum. Your earnings aren't extracted at a cost to someone else.

Exactly. Too many commenters here are ignoring (or unaware of) the fact that wealth is created.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#215

Post by yoyohello13 »

missedthecue wrote: post #179
yedava wrote: post #103

Extreme wealth is a symptom of an underlying problem - inhumane exploitation. People can get that rich because the economic system says that it is perfectly acceptable for a class of people to pee in bottles/diapers in order to maximize profits. The solution for this doesn't have to target the rich explicitly. We can strengthen labor laws; update anti-monopoly laws. Make human dignity the central argument. This will…

Wealth isn't zero-sum. Your earnings aren't extracted at a cost to someone else.

TIL, exploitive labor practices are not a cost to someone else.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#216

Post by patrickmay »

leothecool wrote: post #74
frabjoused wrote: post #44

No NBA player may score more than 100 points per season. After reaching this cap they may only pass the ball.

We should make a wealth shot clock. Nobody is allowed to hold an asset for more than a few seconds.

Just make money radioactive. Problem solved.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#217

Post by jimbokun »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109
glitchc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This presupposes there is some way to know what human nature is. The best definition I've ever found is "altruistic and cooperative with an in-group, competitive and aggressive towards out-groups". And that doesn't say much at all on this particular point.

> This presupposes there is some way to know what human nature is.

Empirical observation.

Look what happened in all the 20th century communist countries.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#218

Post by ryandrake »

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.

You're giving a preposterous amount of credit to executives for the value that is mostly being created by the lower level workers. So, if every CxO-level leader in the world disappeared tomorrow (or if their compensations simply got capped arbitrarily), nothing would get built ever again?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#219

Post by rockemsockem »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #154
hackererror404 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Starting land to fund cancer research is fine, but I don't see why we need billionairs for that? Multiple people can fund it. They are going to work alone in that lab either. >It's not as if the money wealthy people have is just in physical gold coins in their swimming pools. And…

Needing more people for funding just adds friction to an already hard problem and will reduce the number of such things that get started.

I fundamentally agree with your arguments, but not your conclusion.

IMO we need a greater number of rich folks and fewer ultra rich ones. Those with over 100 billion dollars simply cannot spend it, which means capital is not being allocated at all! Bill Gates has so many employees just dedicated to spending his money responsibly, and he still keeps getting richer.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#220

Post by DrNosferatu »

rockemsockem wrote: post #206
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Much better to have a large number of wealthy actors deciding how to allocate capital than just one (the government). Certainly we can do with higher taxes for the ultra wealthy though. It's hard to imagine what one can do with 100 billion dollars that you can't do with 10 billion.....

But the government is (in principle) elected democratically.
Post reply on HN