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

421–430 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#421

Post by vonjuice »

jimbokun wrote: post #217
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a sort of sleight of hand being performed here. Communism is being blamed for the consequences it has on its own country.

Capitalism on the other hand, you can look at and say "look how well it works for this country", because meanwhile it is doing terrible things to other countries.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#422

Post by rockemsockem »

DrNosferatu wrote: post #311
rockemsockem wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean it always makes the best decisions. It seems valuable to have those who are so inclined with enough resources to try things that the government can't or won't try. We've gotten so many good things through this process. I'm not saying the government shouldn't do stuff, it very much should.

A strong Democracy safeguards the interests and priorities of the majority of a society - say, like the Brenton Woods system. Whereas our recent Pax Neoliberalia only caters for the interests and priorities of the richest. Thomas Piketty wrote a whole book demonstrating this: r > g.

I'm sorry, but this feels like a non sequitur.

I completely agree with both of your statements. But I don't see it being related to what I said? Unless you're saying that having any rich people contaminates the system?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#423

Post by rufus_foreman »

bradlys wrote: post #393
rufus_foreman wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you alluding to real estate taxes, or something else? I know that you have to pay property tax to keep your land, but you have to pay property tax to keep your car, and I don't see how that means that the state owns your car. I think the current system, and specifically the Supreme Court under Roberts has done an excellent job protecting individual property rights from the state. The Roberts court gets criticized…

You don’t pay property tax to keep your car. You pay registration fees to drive your car on public roads. You can still drive that car on racetracks and other such places. The car/house comparison doesn’t make any sense here. You don’t own the land and never will. You just lease it from the government and we all get that.

>> You don’t pay property tax to keep your car

I pay property tax to keep my car. I get a yearly bill based on the value of my car, and I pay taxes based on that. I pay property tax to keep my house. I get a yearly bill based on the value of my house and I pay taxes based on that.

The car/house comparison makes sense here because I get a bill in the mail for property tax on my house and I get a bill in the mail for property tax on my car, they are from the same locality in two different envelopes.

I own the land. I own the car, I get property tax bills for both of them in the mail every year, they are precisely 100% the exact same.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#424

Post by vonjuice »

germandiago wrote: post #301
yellowapple wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is watching those around you starve/freeze to death due to having $0 (or less!) not a reason to care about whether some people make more than $15M? How many people could that hoarded wealth have housed and clothed and fed?

I think that is a wrong perspective. Of course many people care about that. The problem is that by looting rich people you will not end up with the problem. In fact, you can make the problem much bigger mid-term by killing incentives and making people into poverty... Cuba or Venezuela were richer than Spain in the 50s just to give you a couple of examples. And Venezuela has natural resources. What happened? Well, yes…

> What happened?

Um, the US?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#425

Post by vonjuice »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #275
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…

>> I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million Do you think your standard of living under such a system would be lower, the same, or higher than it is now? I think it would be much lower. I think most people will stop working when they stop getting paid. Some I guess would spend money as fast as they make it on experiences and services and other things that do…

> Do you think your standard of living under such a system would be lower, the same, or higher than it is now?

that would probably depend on whether you're being exploited by the current system

Imagine looking at a group of slave owners and slaves and asking a similar question with regards to ending slavery, and being all like "well let's hear both sides".

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#426

Post by vacuity »

FredPret wrote: post #409
vacuity wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, there's already much to be said on how encouraging private citizens to amass wealth at all costs is highly dangerous to society. Clearly, there are massive problems that our current model has. Second, we don't need to go for a utopia right now. Personally, I'm not a "communist" or whatever fan. I think that we can remove the negative impacts of capitalism without a crusade, through borrowing elements of…

No there isn't. What practical difference is there in your life now that Musk is worth 200B versus when he had 100B or 0B? Probably your life is actually better because there is now Starlink and Tesla and you have more options. Let's say we can push a button and grow the economy 10% in real terms, but some rich guy like Bill Gates gets his wealth not increased 10%, but 10x. Do we press it? Next time we press it, some…

If there was such a button that had no side effects, perhaps it would be best to press it infinitely, as you say. But clearly "economic growth" doesn't lift everyone up equally. Somehow, there are still many poor people even in the US. Or take the average person in the entire world. Are they better off because of Starlink. Can Starlink solve world hunger? Cancer? What world changing breakthrough does it accomplish that makes the likes of Elon Musk untouchable? On HN, the community is fairly insular to people who already have many means and opportunities.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#427

Post by rockemsockem »

vonjuice wrote: post #417
rockemsockem wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be better to have fewer entities allocating large chunks of capital?

Wouldn't it be the opposite? In a hypothetical country, if there's 1B dollars and no limit, one person could own the 1B and everyone else in the country be dirt poor. If there is a 1M limit, then one person could own 1M tops, and the rest of the money is still there. Therefore there would be more entities capable of allocating large sources of money.

The parent comment said:

> are you open to the possibility of the answer being "Despite the apparent potential benefits, it isn't beneficial overall to society or humanity to have extremely rich individuals starting research projects, and perhaps not beneficial overall to even have extremely rich individuals at all" ?

That seems to me to say "maybe no one should be rich enough to fund a major project on their own".

I'm not arguing against a limitation on wealth, I'm actually in favor of one, because like you point out then there would be a less extreme distribution of wealth. I'm saying that if such a limit were to be imposed that it should be high enough to allow significant projects to be started by an individual. That limit is still probably really low compared to the high valuations some billionaires have today.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#428

Post by rufus_foreman »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #298
rufus_foreman wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACA subsidies or, in most states, expanded Medicaid would be available for health insurance for someone living off $1 million in assets. You can get an apartment in a cheap city for under $800 a month. In a cheaper city it will most likely be downtown, and that will be a bad thing.

Touché. I forgot about subsidies, once your income gets that low. (Remembered that marginal tax rates would be low, at least.) The difference between "cheap city downtown" and "expensive city downtown" is an interesting phenomenon. It isn't a hard and fast rule, but you're right about the general pattern. It's also true that I could have aimed even lower than I did. If I'd assumed roommates in a larger apartment, I c…

I did the starving artist thing as a young man, decades ago. On one hand, there's really no limit, it's about how committed you are to this starvation thing, but on the other hand, yeah, less than $1k a month in current dollars, you're out of the joke starving artist level and into the real starving artist level.

Now I'm an old man and I'm looking at it from the other direction. Is $x amount enough to get me by until SS and Medicare. It's scary because as an old man I don't think I'm going to be able to jump back in to a software developer job once I quit. And on the other hand, the clock is ticking.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#429

Post by vacuity »

missedthecue wrote: post #414
vacuity wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people aren't better off for it, like the people who are being overworked at Amazon.

Better to be overworked at Kmart? That's a red herring.

Why do we have to overwork people anywhere? But certainly it shouldn't happen at Amazon, seeing as Bezos makes so much money. If not that alone, then maybe the fact that Amazon has used many unethical business practices. Unbridled capitalism and propping up the super rich (who, if they are so impressive, surely wouldn't be handicapped by having to play fair) isn't good for society as a whole.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#430

Post by vonjuice »

rockemsockem wrote: post #427
vonjuice wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be the opposite? In a hypothetical country, if there's 1B dollars and no limit, one person could own the 1B and everyone else in the country be dirt poor. If there is a 1M limit, then one person could own 1M tops, and the rest of the money is still there. Therefore there would be more entities capable of allocating large sources of money.

The parent comment said: > are you open to the possibility of the answer being "Despite the apparent potential benefits, it isn't beneficial overall to society or humanity to have extremely rich individuals starting research projects, and perhaps not beneficial overall to even have extremely rich individuals at all" ? That seems to me to say "maybe no one should be rich enough to fund a major project on their own". I…

I do see a fair reasoning in not allowing the possibility for a lone mad man to start a big project without needing to like, check up with other people on whether what he's doing is right.

In regards to fame, Adam Savage recently said:

"When there’s no one around you that can tell you ‘no,’ you’re in deep trouble, and you’re also going to traumatize the people around you.”

Post reply on HN