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

601–610 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#601

Post by WalterBright »

jonathankoren wrote: post #582
WalterBright wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So you agree. A robust government regulatory agencies with effective enforcement is required to ensure the protection of the environment and workers' safety and dignity. I'm glad we see that the inevitable outcome of free market deregulation is destruction.

Do you think communist industry has a better track record of safety?

BTW, dignity comes from within. It is not imposed by external influences.

The power the workers have in a free market is the power to say "no" and walk away.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#602

Post by AndrewKemendo »

missedthecue wrote: post #179
yedava wrote: post #103

Extreme wealth is a symptom of an underlying problem - inhumane exploitation. People can get that rich because the economic system says that it is perfectly acceptable for a class of people to pee in bottles/diapers in order to maximize profits. The solution for this doesn't have to target the rich explicitly. We can strengthen labor laws; update anti-monopoly laws. Make human dignity the central argument. This will…

Wealth isn't zero-sum. Your earnings aren't extracted at a cost to someone else.

Measurably untrue for equity ownership which is a prerequisite for “wealth” in that you need to have undifferentiated ownership of assets that increase in value.

Equity in a for profit corporation is fixed to the current round of funding with theoretical increases at certain intervals. These increases very specifically reduce the existing size of the “wedge of the pie” - aka takes from and redistributes ownership in the new pie size. This is called “Dilution” and we’re just told it’s how the game works.

Note that the theoretical expectation is that the overall “value” stays the same despite literally being called “less than.” However, we know that those valuations are not rooted in any type of mathematical or otherwise natural function like let’s say the gravitational constant, that is unchanged and unmoved by exogenous circumstances, therefore the fact of splitting the pie Redistributes functional ownership, irrespective of what the value theoretically is.

you’ll also note that the specific function of private equity is to ensure the retention and growth of equity ownership over all goals. So specific to the mechanisms within the commerce system, specifically ownership, they are not only functionally but mathematically zero-sum.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#603

Post by roenxi »

tdullien wrote: post #536
roenxi wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most frustrating part of economic arguments, right there. There is an official policy that prices will go up exponentially, controlled by a tiny committee who implements the policy by, effectively, money printing. The official justification is a just-so story with no compelling evidence that I've ever seen. We seem to have gotten there because politicians don't like sound management any more than anyone else and…

Which just-so story without evidence do you mean? Are you saying a liquidity trap does not exist? ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap )

It probably exists. I don't see any reason that it should always be a good idea to lend money. But the link between "it is a bad idea to lend money" and "therefore we should cause prices to rise exponentially" is absurd on its face. The obvious alternative is people shouldn't lend out money until someone figures out a good use for the borrowings. I've never heard an argument that justifies a policy response.

There are a couple of metrics that I'd accept as a goal for the economy. Maximising median leisure time, maximising wealth creation, maximising payoff for working hard, minimising waste. Something like that or any reasonable combination. I don't think exponentially increasing the prices of goods and services helps with any of those. As far as I can tell it just transfers wealth to asset owners. Which is nice enough if you are an asset owner but it seems arbitrary, unfair and pointless to me. I propose alternative strategies of asset owners have to rely on the value of the asset to make money, rather than waiting for handouts.

I own enough assets that this policy probably benefits me. But it also appears to be causing terrible damage to the community and general faith in capitalism so I expect there will be a nasty backlash at some point that will outweigh the short term benefits. I can't buy stuff if people don't see a benefit in making it.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#604

Post by ch4s3 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #487
ch4s3 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a nation-state any less farcical to you than private land ownership? Its even more abstract and far removed from material reality.

It's chosen and controlled by the citizens. Private land ownership is chosen and controlled by the owner. I support the latter, and protection of their rights, but the former certainly has more legitimacy.

Is a nation state necessarily chosen and controlled by citizens? Individual property rights predate nation states by thousands of years.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#605

Post by ch4s3 »

poncho_romero wrote: post #194
thunfischbrot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Exactly. Tax the profits, thereby encouraging the company to invest internally in higher salaries, R&D, new equipment, etc.

How does that encourage more R&D and higher salaries? Or rather can you show an example of a country with high corporate taxes and higher relative wages and R&D spending? I’m not aware of one.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#606

Post by smsm42 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #597
smsm42 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a separate question. The fact that you want to do something doesn't make you automatically the owner of somebody's else money. You can't just say "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed". There's nothing "fair" in this. It's not what "fair" means or ever meant. Especially given that Elon Musk is already paying for so much - and still y…

> The fact that you want to do something doesn't make you automatically the owner of somebody's else money. That's exactly what I was thinking. I am the owner of your money, in fact. Hand it over. Post your BTC here (nobody else touch it, it's mine). > "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed" We are equal under the law and we all should pay f…

I just point out your pretense at "fairness" is nothing but deception, and you have to resort to clowning and ad-hominem attacks as a response, which indeed proves you don't have any proper argument beyond "me want!". If is not me and not Musk who cries childishly "not fair!" when things are not as you like, as you can easily witness, and others are reluctant to finance your wants.

Your surprise that somebody can object to untruth where it's not personally beneficial to him tells yet more about your approach to fairness.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#607

Post by latency-guy2 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #563
latency-guy2 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that tax rates are lower again compared to the "90%" rates, is the same saying not true for today compared to that time period? So, surely, you will agree the people who live the easiest and highest quality lives are people today, and lowering tax is actually fully indicative of increasing life expectancy and quality of life. Be consistent.

As we've cut taxes beginning in the 1980s, most people in the US have been living worse. Now life expectancy has been dropping, iirc home ownership, access to education, etc. I don't mean there's a 100% direct correlation, but that investment is needed for returns. If we don't invest in healthcare, we'll have worse health. If we don't invest in education, etc.

> investment is needed for returns

What returns? A very important part of "investing" is ensuring your losing positions are cut early and cut fast, its not continuously putting money into a black hole hoping one day the worst of the worst magically becomes the best of the best.

The rest of your comment is you being quite inconsistent, and frankly, a position that is full of lies.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#608

Post by latency-guy2 »

vonjuice wrote: post #589
latency-guy2 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it shouldn't be a surprise that such evidence is lacking, no? So there's no way for you to be wrong? But there is indeed all the ways for everyone else to be wrong?

I'm not the one with the power to stop that evidence from being gathered.

Right, so, no way for you to be wrong, ever.

Just your assertions that are always true, in every universe.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#609

Post by wolverine876 »

ch4s3 wrote: post #604
wolverine876 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's chosen and controlled by the citizens. Private land ownership is chosen and controlled by the owner. I support the latter, and protection of their rights, but the former certainly has more legitimacy.

Is a nation state necessarily chosen and controlled by citizens? Individual property rights predate nation states by thousands of years.

Agreed, I'm talking about democracies.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#610

Post by infinitecost »

alkonaut wrote: post #57
kuratkull wrote: post #4

I'm wondering if people understand that almost all the pleasures/comforts in modern life were created by people who wouldn't exist in this system.

As I understand it, very few entrepreneurs ever said “this is interesting but if I can’t be a billionaire what’s the point?”. Which are the examples driven by extreme wealth (note: not just regular 1%er wealth and not people who became extremely wealthy - I mean people who expressed that the reason they created something was because they knew it would make them extremely top-0.01% wealthy)?

I had a lucky exit and no longer need to work. I now only consider working on something if it could increase my net worth by an order of magnitude or so — because if it won’t make me a billionaire why bother working?

I’d rather do art or open source or go fishing.

(That’s not quite what you asked but I don’t know how many actual billionaires will read your comment so figured I’d chime in — to me it doesn’t seem unreasonable that calling wealth would change what people work on and how much they produce.)

Post reply on HN