Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth • Hacker News Board

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#501

Post by kuratkull » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 7:56 AM UTC

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.

You are looking at a too short of a time frame. Expecting a system to be getting strictly better every second of every day is utopian. The real world has ups and downs, restructuring to accommodate change, shutting down legacy industries, making room for new ideas, etc

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#502

Post by kuratkull » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 7:58 AM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #139

smeeth wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting Edison would have invented everything he did if he wasn't allowed to get rich? You chose an extremely funny example if that's what you're trying to say. Edison was famous for caring about money more than other inventors. One of his most famous quotes was “Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success.” The guy helped found some of the largest…

> Are you suggesting Edison would have invented everything he did if he wasn't allowed to get rich? Who said anything about not being allowed to get rich? 10s of millions of dollars is rich by any measure.

So he would have stopped after 10% (random ratio) of his inventions. Or probably not started at all if there was a cap he knows he would reach very quickly.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#503

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:08 AM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #372

WalterBright wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People quit Amazon all the time. Nobody is chained to their desk. Zero-sum games are called "theft", "fraud" and/or "wealth redistribution" schemes.

Being able to quit a terrible workplace doesn't imply that one has achieved a reasonable standard of living and is just making more money. Indeed, if people continue working at a workplace where they're subjected to conditions they think are terrible, they probably don't do it just to make more money.

It doesn't mean it's zero sum, either.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#504

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:10 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #314

WalterBright wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just so absurd that it's really not worth deconstructing. Do you believe Bezos got rich by not giving people what they wanted?

The age old conundrum: do people want what they get, or want what they get? Bezos got rich by buying labor from people for less it was worth, buying products for less than he could sell them, and using them both to create a new retail possibility that had some distinct benefits for a lot of us in our role as consumers. Oh, and AWS.

> Bezos got rich by buying labor from people for less it was worth,

It was worth it to the people who took the jobs.

> buying products for less than he could sell them,

It was worth it to the people who sold it to Amazon.

> and using them both to create a new retail possibility that had some distinct benefits for a lot of us in our role as consumers.

I.e. not zero sum.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#505

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:12 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #336

WalterBright wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just so absurd that it's really not worth deconstructing. Do you believe Bezos got rich by not giving people what they wanted?

Also, your question sort of implicitly requires ignoring all the attempts to do "something like what Bezos did" that failed. A bunch of resources went into those efforts that came to nothing. This is not a zero cost to society. There was always going to be someone who succeeded at this, so noting that Bezos did so is relatively information free. The bigger question is whether the way this happened - let a bunch of mo…

It's worked far better than any other system. It isn't even close.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#506

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:13 AM UTC

Draiken wrote: post #291

WalterBright wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet you'll find their track record is a lot better than that of non-wealthy people. Most non-wealthy people I know do a lousy job of managing their finances. Frontline ran an episode a few years ago about 401k plans. They found that the wealthier the employee was, the better returns they had on the company 401k plan, despite the fact that the plan was identical for all the employees.

What a load of crap. Capitalism rewards existing capital. These people have opportunities 99.999999% will never have and still they got lucky. It's not about competence. It never is. Our current society rewards people that can lie, cheat and backstab while punishing those who care about anything other than profits. Just take a look at SBF and all the startup snake oil culture and it's clear they're not competent at a…

So everything you've bought you didn't actually want and were cheated on?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#507

Post by pizzafeelsright » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:18 AM UTC

Leary wrote: post #152

How about a hard cap on inheritance instead.

Theft is how to ensure hostile accumulation.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#508

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:21 AM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #371

WalterBright wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figgered someone would fixate on that. Well done!

You did just imply that peeing in bottles is fairly reasonable for certain hectic environments. Perhaps so, but you'd need another explanation for why it's reasonable for a workplace like Amazon's warehouses to embody that. I think there should at least be heavy scrutiny towards that premise.

It's not the horrible thing it's made out to be. Some people may even find it preferable to unsanitary, unsafe restrooms.

Heck, during the recent pandemic, all the public restrooms were locked closed.

What do you think people do when they go hiking?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#509

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:23 AM UTC

guhidalg wrote: post #286

WalterBright wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have always peed in bottles when they're on a long drive, piloting an airplane long distance, on a sailboat, and so on. Some peoples' bladders have a short fuse, and carry a bottle. Do you think Lindberg brought a port-a-potty along with his Spirit of St Louis? I remember the opening sequence in a Jeff Bridges movie where he pulls over in his car and dumps his pee bottle. P.S. My dad was a B-17 navigator in WW…

Just read the story https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/de... I'd rather live in a world where Amazon employees have time to pee on the job and Jeff Bezos has $10M less. Iterate until Jeff Bezos only makes ~10^2 what the median Amazon employee makes instead of ~10^6.

Nobody makes anybody work for Amazon. You're also free to create your own Amazon and run it as you see fit.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#510

Post by Voultapher » Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 8:23 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #159

Voultapher wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth, at least the way we measure it, is inextricably tied to modernity. The system you say is a "good thing" is literally speedrunning the destruction of our biosphere. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a system more effective at destroying our world. What many see as prosperity, is irreconcilable with sustainability. I find that's an uncomfortable thought.

> Wealth, at least the way we measure it, is inextricably tied to modernity. Only in the sense that modernity produces a lot more wealth than any other system humans have come up with. > What many see as prosperity, is irreconcilable with sustainability. No, it isn't. What might be is allowing people to accumulate wealth by playing zero sum games, siphoning wealth out of other people's pockets into their own, instead…

> Only in the sense that modernity produces a lot more wealth than any other system humans have come up with.

Wealth, as measured in GDP. A metric that has proven itself a poor predictor for happiness and fulfilling lives, and we do all this at the cost to our environment https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/.

> No, it isn't.

Our economies, political systems and culture are all built on the concept of infinite growth. Argue as much as you want, physics makes that impossible in a universe with limited resources.