Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do we need billionaires?

bjhess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 144 posts

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#21

Post by alpinisme »

lucamark wrote: post #7

> risk-takers who are badly needed But at what point does marginal private incentive stop helping innovation and start damaging democracy? For sure risk-taking deserves reward but the size of the reward matters

Totally. Those conversations often also overlook the fact that some people are just driven and curious and risk taking by personality (especially after they’ve made it to adulthood and have entrenched work habits that may have been partly the result of economic incentives along the way). Even if you start having diminishing (personal financial) returns on added effort at some point, or even hit a ceiling, there are plenty of people who will keep pushing just because it’s all they know how to/want to do. Or because they get a thrill out of knowing that they’re on top of a still growing product (how much bigger can I make this?). Or because they are vying for non-financial social status.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#22

Post by voidUpdate »

I heard a while back that the average person will see about a million of their currency over their lifetime. So we can take a million dollars to be about 1 lifetime's worth of money. Elon is currently sitting on 817,000 lifetimes worth of money.

I feel like we could have like a >95% income tax when you are worth more than like $20 million and it wouldnt actually matter too much to the people who would cap it out? Of course, its a 4000x decrease in wealth for some people, but at that level, when you're getting over 10 million, its basically infinite money anyway. There is no real gain from having 800 billion over having 20 million. What are you going to do with 800 billion dollars? Buy a thousand mega-mansions?

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#23

Post by dm_ »

qaq wrote: post #12

We need competent people to remain in control of companies they have created.

What's ironic about your statement is that it's this exact belief--that founders should remain in control--that has led to the widespread adoption of dual class shares, in which founders maintain control while ceding a majority of equity.

And the irony here is, by that same token, founders could maintain in control while not having such large equity stakes, and not becoming so rich.

So I do not think this is an argument for billionaires.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#25

Post by paulcole »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #20

Every conversation about the existence of billionaires misses the point: Its not about whether or not billionaires should exist. Its about whether they should exist at the same moment in time when there are people cannot get healthcare or have a decent roof over their head, or a number of other basic things.

I think this misses the point as well.

If we eliminated billionaires would everyone have healthcare, a decent roof over their head, and other basic things?

I generally believe that to not be the case. The government misspends (to an extent) the money it has now. So the solution is to give them more money to misspend?

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#26

Post by js8 »

ggm wrote: post #11

It's very unlikely any mainstream political class is going to take serious action anywhere to forbid them, but a few take action to limit them. Too few I think. The (mis-attributed to Lenin and Stalin) quote "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." is quite big in this. A little humility and a lot more tax-paying could save the trillionaire classes from the tumbrils but they lack the emot…

> A little humility and a lot more tax-paying could save the trillionaire classes from the tumbrils but they lack the emotional intelligence to see it

I think there is some research which shows that as you get rich, you lose emotional intelligence (empathy towards others). So maybe we should consider being rich a health hazard.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#27

Post by prawn »

ggm wrote: post #11

It's very unlikely any mainstream political class is going to take serious action anywhere to forbid them, but a few take action to limit them. Too few I think. The (mis-attributed to Lenin and Stalin) quote "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." is quite big in this. A little humility and a lot more tax-paying could save the trillionaire classes from the tumbrils but they lack the emot…

Many people would've seen the tweet:

"Ok how about this: No more billionaires. None. After you reach $999 million, every red cent goes to schools and health care. You get a trophy that says, “I won capitalism” and we name a dog park after you."

If there isn't the political will to ramp up taxes on extreme wealth, I'd be interested to know how much effort there is in pitching legacy projects (more exciting than dog parks) to those with the means to execute them. Like crowd-funding, but for major developments and with further tax incentives if necessary.

It wasn't pitched to him, but in Australia, a wealthy individual put Hobart (more) on the map with a now famous contemporary art gallery complex which is an excellent drawcard for the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Old_and_New_Art

That is an extraordinary development for sub-$100m. Supposedly Australia has 150+ billionaires. Build us some crazy things.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#28

Post by olalonde »

Sure. Having billionaires allocate their own capital driven by profit motive and market feedback results in more efficient allocation than having some random bureaucrats do it. That's what it's really about. For example, Elon Musk probably doesn't personally consume much more than the average American. He perhaps consumes 10x or 100x more, whereas his net worth is actually 5,000,000x. There are likely millionaires who live more lavish lives than him. The bulk of his fortune is actually just resources allocated in the economy.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#29

Post by sschueller »

lucamark wrote: post #7

> risk-takers who are badly needed But at what point does marginal private incentive stop helping innovation and start damaging democracy? For sure risk-taking deserves reward but the size of the reward matters

But when they fail, they fail upwards. These risks are always on the backs of everyone else.

For example, they take risks by using chemicals (that they know) can kill people, by the time people get cancer they are retired, there are no claw-backs.

More recently you commit actual fraud, get convicted but then get a pardon and somehow end up with money again running the next "scam".

These people never take real risks.

DOGE resulted in the death of over 100k people [1] and will result in many people dying of Ebola. It was a huge failure yet the "risk" Elon took is not his.

[1] https://healthpolicy-watch.news/the-human-cost-one-year-afte...

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#30

Post by ggm »

prawn wrote: post #27
ggm wrote: post #11

It's very unlikely any mainstream political class is going to take serious action anywhere to forbid them, but a few take action to limit them. Too few I think. The (mis-attributed to Lenin and Stalin) quote "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." is quite big in this. A little humility and a lot more tax-paying could save the trillionaire classes from the tumbrils but they lack the emot…

Many people would've seen the tweet: "Ok how about this: No more billionaires. None. After you reach $999 million, every red cent goes to schools and health care. You get a trophy that says, “I won capitalism” and we name a dog park after you." If there isn't the political will to ramp up taxes on extreme wealth, I'd be interested to know how much effort there is in pitching legacy projects (more exciting than dog pa…

He's a contrarian and it's gambling money not tech bro entrepreneur. Mind you MONA is fantastic. Two time visitor and hope to be there within a year or two again.
Post reply on HN