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

511–520 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#511

Post by WalterBright »

jonathankoren wrote: post #304
WalterBright wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited I recall reading after the USSR collapsed that Poland was the most polluted country in the world. All due to the rush to industrialize and to heck with the environment. Chernobyl is another case about communism giving short shrift to environmental considerations.

Of course one could argue that that this wasn’t the fault of socialism, but rather a government that prioritized the desires of industry above all else. Lest we forget when that paragon of free market capitalism, the United States, prior to the creation of the EPA and its glorious burning Cuyahoga River. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...

> a government that prioritized the desires of industry above all else.

Communist governments simply have to, as starving people tend to revolt.

Free market economies generated enough surplus that they can afford to be clean. Communist economies cannot even feed themselves.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#512

Post by maeil »

asadotzler wrote: post #302
jdiff wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in this thread aren't making 6-7 figures. The boogeyman you're railing against isn't here.

How many people here aren't making 6 figures? I'd wager a slim minority. And I'll bet that some who show up here are making 7 figures. Did you think you were replying on reddit or twitter or something?

If you look at the job threads on HN you'll see a huge number of Europeans (and otherwise non-US persons), many of whom likely make less than $100k+. This isn't 2015, HN has quite a broad non-SV audience now.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#513

Post by Jensson »

wolverine876 wrote: post #486
the_optimist wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They infringe if they don't pay their share of what is needed to provide for the common welfare, defense, etc.

They are paying their share, for every worker they pay the appropriate taxes on the wages and those taxes are there to provide the common welfare, defense etc. since they pay their workers quite a lot they probably pay more than needed, so not sure why you would single them out, many companies pay much less like Walmart etc, they pay so much lower salaries so therefore contribute way less taxes per person they need to work there, complain about those first.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#514

Post by wslh »

crotchfire wrote: post #479
wslh wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My question was just following your "brainstorming". Sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly:

My point is that when you start arguing about capping and/or taxes you should take into account the concept of power, governments, and realpolitik into account. You can put a set of rules for handling corporate power (e.g. taxes) but those corporations could be really smart and move to another jurisdiction such as Ireland (e.g. Google) as a kind of safe heaven. In those cases the whole thinking turns more complex. Gaming the system is part of the game and every rule you put has a loophole except if a government is really strict and/or a dictatorship, and power (e.g. reality) plays there beyond the rules.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#515

Post by Jensson »

Voultapher wrote: post #510
pdonis wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 conc…

> Our economies, political systems and culture are all built on the concept of infinite growth

Not really, everything could work exactly the same as now even when growth stops. The current system did bet on growth continuing for 40 more years, but there is no infinite there, other than those bets failing there is nothing in current society that demands infinite growth.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#516

Post by Jensson »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #354
jimbokun wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a difficult problem to reconcile capitalism and sustainability from a technical perspective. Just a question of political will. Carbon taxes. Water prices reflecting scarcity. Compensating people living in rain forests to not cut down their trees. Capitalism is still the best tool we have for setting prices and incentivizing efficiency. Just needs to be guided to place appropriate prices on externalities.

You’re confusing markets with capitalism Capitalism requires a philosophical split between labor, productivity, and capital ownership A market is simply a price clearing mechanism in the context of known exchange rates of commodities, you don’t even need money for it, and says nothing about the ownership composition of the actors making trading decisions

If you have a labor market then you have capitalism, since it lets you hire labor to work for you and that is enough to make you a billionaire. So markets and capitalism are tightly coupled things, you can have some very limited markets without capitalism but in general if you have a pretty free market you have capitalism.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#517

Post by DrNosferatu »

rockemsockem wrote: post #422
DrNosferatu wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The point is that progressive very high taxes are indeed a good idea (or some form of “Limitarianism”).

Alternatively, but in the same direction, the taxpayer should get a dividend on their investment. Is not by chance that big tech prospered in comfortable societies, and not in, say, some place full of roaming gangs flashing fixed big machine guns on the back of their pickup trucks.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#518

Post by Jensson »

devbent wrote: post #232
jimbokun wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if Bezos had not founded Amazon, you and others would have been unemployed and poor? If nobody founded companies like Amazon, yes many more people would be unemployed and poor. Bezos is just one example. > History is full of philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, doctors who weren't after money, yet managed to contribute more than Bezos ever could. If all the philosophers, mathematicians and scientists and d…

> If all the philosophers, mathematicians and scientists and doctors were put in charge of running all the world's companies, we'd be in big trouble. Totally different skill sets. Eh, worked well enough for Singapore. Also it worked well enough for the founding of many great companies. Ford, GE, Intel, Microsoft, Google, companies started by people who were experts in their field. Traditionally that is how things wen…

> Ford, GE, Intel, Microsoft, Google, companies started by people who were experts in their field.

Amazon as well, Jeff Bezos has a degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer science, he doesn't have a typical management only background.

But yeah in general successful companies were made by experts, not the management nobility class.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#519

Post by Jensson »

alkonaut wrote: post #90
kuratkull wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People start out to create something awesome. People continue when they have the motivation. When you hard cap them in any measurable way, they stop.

This sounds like guesswork around peoples motivation. Not saying you are wrong, but I'm making the argument that this is a pretty big claim (people being motivated not by wealth or status or curiosity but by extreme wealth). I just don't buy this claim. I don't think it's been a motivation of anyone who has made (say) a billion dollars, to only make another billion. Perhaps be the biggest company or invent the greate…

If you pay someone to do X, and then stop paying them they will stop doing X even if they enjoyed it. The same will be true for these leaders, you can't just take all their future wealth and expect them to continue, they will stop the instant they stop making money, just like any other person.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#520

Post by germandiago »

yellowapple wrote: post #381
germandiago wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if that "gift" was stolen from someone else beforehand? Then that would be theft and not legitimate property transfer. I was talking about cases where a gift is from someone who earned it and transferred something, a donation. Not from a government that gifts via regulations or a thief that steals something and donates after the fact. Though there is no difference in either IMHO.

How about from a government that conquers land and sells it to profiteers on the cheap (who then rent it out and/or resell it for considerable profit)? How about from a government that - instead of taxing that aforementioned conquered land and the ownership thereof - shifts the tax burden onto the working class (via income and sales taxes), robbing us blind while subsidizing the owning class (who is then happy to rob…

I am against taxes in general. For a tax to exist, there must be a justification. And even after that, I doubt it is fully legitimate: what if someone does not want or use the public schools system or health system? It must pay for it?

So yes, a government that taxes people against their will for a service they do not use, from my perspective, is theft to tax payers.

A different story is wether we want to support to some extent people who need it: in that case, it would not be theft against a person giving support, but it would not be a tax either.

As for who earns and how, yes, crony capitalism is quite bad. What I support is mostly free market capitalism as much as it is feasible and realistic.

I am not sure it is ideal, but as long as laws for damage are applied and the consumer is informed, it works way better than all this political cloud full of a system with favors, licenses, and excuses to avoid comptetition.

I am even more against subsidizing than taxes themselves. That is the worst possible distortion of things.

I am hopeful there are other ways, and I would like to put them in practice.

But those come from our own beliefs.

The land conquering is a difficult topic. I agree it is not a good thing. But the history of humanity is the history of conquer. A person that violently takes territoy in some way should not be the owner. I am not sure it is practical or even possible to fix that, though.

Post reply on HN