Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth • Hacker News Board

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#651

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 4:10 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #285

cosmojg wrote: post #75

Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…

>> Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil How would hoarding of gold, in and of itself, be bad? Say someone goes out and works and makes money, and they take the money and buy gold coins and keep them in a safe, or fill up a swimming pool so they can dive into their hoard of gold like Scrooge McDuck. They are contributing to society, and to the extent they hoar…

Charlie Munger achieved the vast majority of his wealth not by hoarding inelastic goods but by investing and reinvesting in dividend-paying stocks and bonds, virtual tokens representing liquid fractional ownership of productive enterprise. He can "hoard" those all he wants, and we all benefit from the greater levels of capital available to said productive enterprise.

Now, if gold or other precious metals are necessary for the production of desirable goods, the hoarding of such assets increases the price of those goods in a zero-sum fashion. Of course, I'd never want to deny someone the pleasure of swimming in a pile of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be able to profit as much off of keeping the pile locked away in their mansion. Rather, they should repay society for its losses in the form of a land value tax.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#652

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 4:23 PM UTC

api wrote: post #176

cosmojg wrote: post #75

Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…

This is basically Georgism: a tax on idle assets like land paired with very low or non-existent taxes on income and capital gains. Land value taxes would be on the land only and not things like buildings on it, so this would heavily incentivize maximally efficient use of land. I'm generally a fan though I would also add pollution taxes and short term capital gains (gambling) taxes.

> This is basically Georgism: a tax on idle assets like land paired with very low or non-existent taxes on income and capital gains.

Ah, so you've seen the cat! Yes, this is precisely what I was getting at.

> I'm generally a fan though I would also add pollution taxes and short term capital gains (gambling) taxes.

The former is known as a Pigouvian tax[2], and I yearn for such taxes with no less of my heart than I yearn for land value taxes. The latter, however, seems almost completely unnecessary. Why not allow people to gamble on noise? And if they're making a profit, it's more likely than not that they're adding signal and contributing to price discovery, along with providing short-term liquidity to all market participants! I don't mind anyone getting paid for that.

[1] https://www.henrygeorge.org/catsup.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#653

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 4:33 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #294

cosmojg wrote: post #75

Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…

But it’s not productive wealth is it? It’s just stock. It’s Locked up value that he hordes like a dragon. That money isn’t actually being used to generate anything. Even when it is spent, it’s just financial products that generate money through financial transactions instead of actual goods and services. This has been the case since the 1980s when capital gains started being taxed below income, and the carried intere…

> But it’s not productive wealth is it? It’s just stock. It’s Locked up value that he hordes like a dragon. That money isn’t actually being used to generate anything.

Oh, but it is! That value isn't locked up, it's invested in the company. That investment raises the level of capital available to the company, allowing them to hire more employees and offer more goods and services. That's all real value for real people, and yes, if it works out, capitalists get paid for making it possible.

We already live in a world where one can own the means of production. The likes of Vanguard and Robinhood broker access. With a few clicks, you too can become a more productive capitalist.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#654

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 4:37 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #581

cosmojg wrote: post #75

Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…

> the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. What do you mean by "hoarding"? I don't think any living person owns enough land, gold or oil to represent even tiny percentage of the overall market. The whole Russia, for comparison, owns 12% of oil market. So if you personally owned all the oil in Russia (by any measure an achievement far beyond the wildest dreams even of the richest Russian oligarchs, wh…

Just because hoarding is popular doesn't mean it hurts society any less. We all pay for the inefficiencies it produces, whether or not it's distributed. (Granted, distributed hoarding is better than centralized hoarding as demonstrated by the likes of De Beers et al.)

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#655

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 4:39 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #167

cosmojg wrote: post #75

Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…

> Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. They're not wealth if they're hoarded. Undeveloped land, or gold and oil in the ground, are no use to anybody. They're only wealth if they're used. And that requires lots of productive effort to develop the land, or to get the gold and oil out of the ground and into productive use. I agree that unproductive wealth is th…

Maybe I'm getting my terms mixed up, but wealth includes anything with value, no? So long as somebody else wants to develop that land, or mine that gold, or tap that oil, it is wealth. At least, that's my understanding.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#656

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 4:43 PM UTC

RGamma wrote: post #118

cosmojg wrote: post #75

Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…

"Funny" things will happen, when the labor factor is removed from the three factors of production by AGI. ~Jeff can finally have the planet all for himself.

Indeed, but only insofar as he can accumulate military power. Relevantly, incompletely taxed land ownership is a means of renting such power from the state, hence my gesturing toward a land value tax and universal basic income.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#657

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 5:13 PM UTC

dogman144 wrote: post #164

cosmojg wrote: post #75

Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil. I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public…

If you’ve got elastic liquid assets, go forth and grow. If you’ve got property, as in, the asset most normal folks own end to end and drives their wealth - negative externality. Interesting take.

My take becomes a lot more interesting when you consider that only 77 million Americans own land[1] while more than double that number, 158 million, own stocks[2] (and millions more own other elastic liquid assets).

Yes, it's a wildly popular and literally ancient meme that land ownership is the path to wealth, but people aren't stupid. When the structure of the economy changes, human behavior follows. Current landowners don't even get screwed over, they just stop accumulating additional wealth from hoarding land. More likely than not, they'll sell that land for roughly whatever it was worth when the tax came into effect to enterprising developers who will buy it and attempt to turn it into something more productive for a profit. After all, land value taxes only apply to the space occupied by the land itself, not any improvements on that land like apartments or offices. Coupled with zoning reforms, we'd see apartment complexes replace single-family housing and train stations replace parking lots as suburban sprawl transformed into walkable paradise.

[1] https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-we...

[2] https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#658

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 5:28 PM UTC

Draiken wrote: post #630

latency-guy2 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Am I going to be back in those times where that capital was a lot? Where what we have today isn't there? Will I have access to the contacts and his network? Let me guess: no? What an odd request. This is such a lazy argument. > So why didn't they? The truth of the matter is: they couldn't. Bezos, Musk and Bill Gates were perfectly positioned to do what they did. You don't even hear about the hundreds of others that h…

You're right that the hero worship doesn't make much sense as the economy for successful megaenterprise is a bit of a lottery. However, you very well could build the next big thing today. We're literally having this discussion on a website owned and operated by a startup accelerator, the entire purpose of which is to provide a network for making business connections and accessing capital. Like Bezos and Musk, however, you're going to have to risk some of your own time and money if you want to get anywhere, and like their thousands of contemporaries who were trying to accomplish the same things they did, you're more likely to fail than succeed. It is truly a lottery, but that isn't what makes it unfair.

> In today's society, previous capital is the best predictor of success there is. Not intelligence. Not hard work.

Absolutely! However, those latter two things help a lot with generating the former, if not for yourself, then maybe for your children. Who knows, you might raise the next Bezos or Musk! Probably not, but maybe! At the very least, you'll throw money away helping your kid do something they enjoy.

Alas, it is inescapably true that money begets money, but that's why I emphasize a tax on zero-sum harm and hoarding (e.g., burning coal, buying land) to the benefit of positive-sum productive investment (e.g., taking risks, paying salaries).

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#659

Post by cosmojg » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 5:37 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #518

devbent wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think GP is saying that the people who choose to work directly as philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, and doctors and the people who choose to take the risk of hiring other philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, and doctors for some greater endeavor have importantly different skill sets, nevermind if the risk taker is a philosopher, mathematician, scientist, or doctor themself.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#660

Post by tunesmith » Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 11:50 PM UTC

fouronnes3 wrote: post #278

tunesmith wrote: post #271

I think it would be great for someone or some think tank to devise a very well thought out publicized plan of how an ultra-rich person could efficiently redistribute their wealth to do a lot of good. Seems like most of what people recommend now is just "give it to charity!" but that's not exactly well-vetted advice. Or like the snarky advice downthread to just write a check to the Treasury, that's not what I'm talkin…

Isn't the thorough, extensive and open-source research that GiveWell does exactly what you're asking for? The amount of evidence you'd have to give to argue against "give everything following GiveWell's recommendation" as the objective and data-driven best option is extremely high.

I think the one conceptual point I'd make against this is that GiveWell seems oriented toward the person that wants to give a few hundred or few thousand here and there. Note that in their top offerings, there's no indication of how much money would be enough to solve the problem, or too much. For instance, malaria nets are about managing an existing problem rather than solving it.

A billionaire could target their money differently, like funding research or setting up labs to target their money toward solving pressing problems rather than managing them. I don't really know much about the big problems, like maybe they are all already at the point of being at the edge of unknown unknowns, where you just have to throw money at them to do exploratory research. But I'd imagine there are others that are along the lines of "we know how to solve this, it just needs funding", funding beyond what could be crowd-sourced or from your average charitable giver, and I'd like to see those opportunities in some sort of ordered list.