Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth • Hacker News Board

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#471

Post by latency-guy2 » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:08 AM UTC

rsoto2 wrote: post #332

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bezos' AWS made cloud computing viable, leading to the last two decades of economic growth without per capita energy consumption (due to datacenter energy efficiency). Bezos' Amazon lowers the cost and availability of goods of all kinds drastically, enriching everyone (and especially the poorer among us). The State makes bombs and drops bombs, not Bezos. Bezos deploys capital in ways which have proved to fill market…

AWS would not be possible without the contribution of hundreds of thousands of people and projects from the inception of the internet. It really is just a software on some redundant servers running open source software... it's not that incredible.

> AWS would not be possible without the contribution of hundreds of thousands of people and projects from the inception of the internet.

Quite notably, that number of people developing, distributing, supporting, and extending AWS is a few magnitudes smaller than the billions of people that live on the earth and benefit from or use AWS everyday.

So, what do you have to say about that inequality?

You can claim the man sweeping streets in Africa was quite integral to developing AWS alongside myself and thousands of engineers, but you will never make me believe it.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#472

Post by latency-guy2 » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:15 AM UTC

Draiken wrote: post #416

rsoto2 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS would not be possible without the contribution of hundreds of thousands of people and projects from the inception of the internet. It really is just a software on some redundant servers running open source software... it's not that incredible.

More importantly, Bezos did nothing. Nothing. He used money he hoarded from another venture to allow the thousands of engineers to build it. Anyone can do that. And I'm 100% sure Bezos was not the one that came up with the idea either. He just benefited from being in a position of power with tons of capital at the right time.

> He used money he hoarded from another venture to allow the thousands of engineers to build it. Anyone can do that.

So why didn't they?

> And I'm 100% sure Bezos was not the one that came up with the idea either. He just benefited from being in a position of power with tons of capital at the right time.

Same question again. What in your opinion, is a bet that you can make right now, today, that will lead to another Amazon? Or maybe even something bigger?

I have a similar amount of capital as Bezos did free and ready to go to when he started Amazon, even inflation adjusted. I probably have a lot more power than he did at the same time since I am actually a manager of a few engineers which he was not.

Are you going to make that bet?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#473

Post by latency-guy2 » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:18 AM UTC

devbent wrote: post #237

missedthecue wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has collectively voted that Amazon massively improves their lives. If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart and hosting their software on HP enterprise servers in a musty office basement. That's all the clear and evident result of the market system which is very democratic. People vote with their dollars every day. The winners of these billions of daily democratic votes ris…

> If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart Let's be clear: Amazon has been responsible for the shutting down of so many in-person businesses that entire product categories are can only be purchased on Amazon. The choice is a false one.

> The choice is a false one.

No, its just something you personally dislike and generate false equivalences to.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#474

Post by rufus_foreman » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:22 AM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #470

rufus_foreman wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 p…

> 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. In the US? This isn't common. I've heard of things like this to register your car but not to keep it. There's no laws in the USA where they'll repossess your car if you don't pay regi…

>> In the US? This isn't common

It's state by state: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest...

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#475

Post by missedthecue » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:30 AM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #429

missedthecue wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not saying we have to overwork anyone or that overworking is good. I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people.

And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#476

Post by latency-guy2 » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:30 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #397

FredPret wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, here come the arguments for "monitoring". Next come regulations about having to "cooperate". Then the question will be raised as to what happens to those rich people who don't cooperate, or middle class / poor people who, god forbid, don't agree with this plan for society. Pretty soon, you've got your jackboots and your re-education camps.

The US used to tax up to 90% or so at the highest brackets. Rich people survived.

The US also used to have no income tax. Lots of people survived then too.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#477

Post by ahepp » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:48 AM UTC

jaredhallen wrote: post #457

ahepp wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that confusing cause and effect? You’re getting interest because they’re paying it to you. They wanted to borrow, and even if there’s no risk, you won’t lend it out for free.

One might argue about the relative value of interest rates vs risk, but all lending incurs risk. Maybe very little, but non-zero.

Nonetheless, I think you can derive a “time value of money” from the data?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#478

Post by bradlys » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 5:50 AM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #474

bradlys wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In the US? This isn't common. I've heard of things like this to register your car but not to keep it. There's no laws in the USA where they'll repossess your car if you don't pay regi…

>> In the US? This isn't common It's state by state: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest...

I own vehicles in CA. There is no property tax for vehicles in CA. I can guarantee you that. I specifically own vehicles that I don’t renew with the state and there’s no problems with that.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#479

Post by crotchfire » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 6:00 AM UTC

wslh wrote: post #440

crotchfire wrote: post #268

Will you cap the wealth of corporations too? Because if not, people with insatiable appetites will simply seek control of those corporations rather than direct control of piles of money. Personally I'm an advocate of the exact opposite of what seems to be proposed here: controls on corporate size rather than individual wealth. Living cells don't grow without bounds; at a certain point they get too big and are forced…

Will you cap military spending? Beyond the side people take there is some human natural tendency to power that cannot be artificially capped or if it you try to artificially cap it, there is a flow with a lot of pressure that go somewhere else.

I am not proposing to cap anything. Please re-read the entire comment you're replying to, not just the first line.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#480

Post by dools » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 6:07 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #439

dools wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interest rate I'm referring to is the cash rate, ie. the rate at which banks lend to each other. That's the interest rate central banks set and defend using the sale and purchase of bonds on the secondary market. If they didn't prop it up, it would tend to zero because banks have so much liquidity.

Why would a bank lend money to another bank for nothing, instead of the alternative course of action of not lending?

The lowest recorded interbank lending rate in Australia was 0.03%

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/interbank-rate

If you're lending someone a billion dollars, and your labour cost for doing the lending is in the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of dollars, then interest rates quickly approach 0.

Sure, no-one would do it for literally 0 dollars, but the rates at which banks lend to each other when there is a ZIRP policy at the central bank (including 0% paid on reserves) is negligible as far as the real economy is concerned.

Like the "cost of capital" in that case for issuing a mortgage has nothing to do with the interbank lending rate.