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

341–350 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#341

Post by FredPret »

jimbokun wrote: post #233
lostlogin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the description ’mini-Mao’ fits both the ambition to blocking others from excess wealth and the behaviour we are seeing from some billionaires. Extremes promote extremes. Getting lots of people to make lots of small decisions is not easy and the masses are not necessarily that sensible. Delegating decision making to a chosen representative is the least bad system seen so far, but has a way to go.

> Getting lots of people to make lots of small decisions is not easy and the masses are not necessarily that sensible. Delegating decision making to a chosen representative is the least bad system seen so far, but has a way to go. I'm with William F. Buckley on this one: > “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory,” he said, “than by the Harvard University faculty.” https://quot…

One ancient form of democracy was to draw lots and the unlucky winners had to go and be the senate for a term. I kind of like it! Like jury duty, but you have to run the country. It can work if you draw enough lots.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#343

Post by rsoto2 »

jimbokun wrote: post #203
rsoto2 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Workers created all those things not Jeff Bezos. A lot of the services and technologies leveraged by AWS are created via open source projects for example PostGres.

Managing and growing companies is a distinct skill. Open source software is wonderful and amazing. But it's not a replacement for Amazon and other companies.

There are now at least five major cloud providers so something tells me it's not a 'bolt of lightning idea' and it's actually rather easy with some funding behind you.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#344

Post by AgentOrange1234 »

ch4s3 wrote: post #251
thunfischbrot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay your employees more, or be taxed near 100% on the excess gains?

But why? If someone is creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services what moral justification is there for it to be confiscated, particularly at your arbitrary level?

Hrmn. I might ask the same question in reverse.

What moral justification is there for them to hoard absurd sums of money, particularly when we have folks without homes and kids in poverty?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#345

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

jryan49 wrote: post #313
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I see you edited your post to add the last line). Elon is not "ruining his own money". He gained control over large quantities of economic and financial resources, and because of the way our society works, he gets to "ruin" those resources by choosing to direct them to the purchase of an asset followed by its degradation. But there's an opportunity cost to all that: what might have happened in Elon was not in a posi…

You could make the opposite argument about all the innovations, are and science, rich people have funded throughout history. Like what if Boeing didn't have all that money to dump into airplanes.

You are presupposing that such things would not have happened if the resource allocation decisions made by the wealthy had been made via some other (more democratic) means.

There's not really much evidence to support that claim (though to be fair, not much evidence to refute it either).

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#346

Post by ydlr »

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…

Let folks keep their wine and art collections. Limits need to be placed on ownership of productive assets.

Employee, consumer, or even municipal ownership of firms would be a natural consequence of such a limit. No other way to offload assets fast enough, especially since the usual sources of capital would be under the same limits.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#347

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ch4s3 wrote: post #251
thunfischbrot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay your employees more, or be taxed near 100% on the excess gains?

But why? If someone is creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services what moral justification is there for it to be confiscated, particularly at your arbitrary level?

Explain how to reconcile these two things:

“ if some minerals are discovered on your heretofore low value land”

And

“ creating millions of dollars worth of goods or services”

Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value?

How did the land to acquire become yours?

Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to think you should receive anything

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#348

Post by the_optimist »

kagakuninja wrote: post #310
JackFr wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, big talker, step up: Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Reporting and Analysis Branch 2 P.O. Box 1328 Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

That's not how it works. Get Elon and friends to donate half his wealth and then we can talk. Progressive taxation is a good idea...

Specifically, this is how it works.

Are Elon’s rocket and car company infringing on your well-being? What about the pensioners holding Tesla shares? Are they stifling your ability to come up with some funds for the public good?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#349

Post by AgentOrange1234 »

yellowapple wrote: post #175
lostlogin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Wouldn’t a tax system that steeply ramps up, includes property and tends to it’s loopholes (family trusts, property etc) achieve most of this?

A land value tax alone would address the vast majority of this, considering that virtually all wealth derives from land access/ownership.

Is that still true? I’m probably in a software bubble, but like: none of FAANG have any real land holdings, for instance?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#350

Post by ebb_earl_co »

missedthecue wrote: post #187
jdiff wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You score points. No one has ever earned a billion dollars.

Who did JK Rowling steal her billion from?

*Whom did I suppose some people would say all of the workers who manufactured the glue and binding for the books and harvest the trees that constitute the books, and the truck drivers and ship captains who sent her books around the world. The causality is beyond me, but if I could steel man someone on that side of the argument, I think it’s that
Post reply on HN