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

101–110 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#101

Post by jszymborski »

FredPret wrote: post #96
jszymborski wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But even in your family hypothetical, the overall inequality is still much less than between billionaires and the middle-class (nothing said of the truly destitute). > Or worse still, the super-rich will realise that they can spend many times the wealth cap per year consumable/disposable items (so long as they stay under the cap, or get back there by year-end), and become more wasteful. "Might as well spend a few mil…

Ah yes, here come the arguments for "monitoring". Next come regulations about having to "cooperate". Then the question will be raised as to what happens to those rich people who don't cooperate, or middle class / poor people who, god forbid, don't agree with this plan for society. Pretty soon, you've got your jackboots and your re-education camps.

I don't know how this is different from filing income taxes.

When you are convicted of committing tax fraud, you may get incarcerated in a prison. Most often, you pay a fine.

Call the prisons re-education camps or the tax people jackboots, if you like.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#102

Post by golemotron »

jdiff wrote: post #45
golemotron wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power of that community is absolute.

As it should always be. Not that it is currently, not with these pesky billionaires.

Look up the history of democracy in 20th Century Europe.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#103

Post by yedava »

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 circumvent knee jerk reactions like "I work hard, I deserve to be rich". The question to ask is how are you, as an owner of capital, treating your labor? Like do they get to have a life after work? Have dignity at work? Do you use your wealth to circumvent democratic will and weaken labor protections? The answers to those questions should determine whether you deserve your wealth or not.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#104

Post by lostlogin »

FredPret wrote: post #99
lostlogin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the description ’mini-Mao’ fits both the ambition to blocking others from excess wealth and the behaviour we are seeing from some billionaires. Extremes promote extremes. Getting lots of people to make lots of small decisions is not easy and the masses are not necessarily that sensible. Delegating decision making to a chosen representative is the least bad system seen so far, but has a way to go.

I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but > the masses are not necessarily that sensible is an absolutely toxic sentiment. "We, the smart ones, will decide for them" has led to disaster every time.

That’s not quite what I meant but is exactly what I said. I include myself in the masses. I want smart people to decide things for me. I don’t know how to negotiate trade deals, infrastructure projects and a fleet of other things. Short term leaders and changed objectives mess with progress.

I want someone to who understands to make good decisions, and the ability to remove them if they start failing. How that’s best done from my perspective is with an electoral cycle that’s fine tuned such that results can be achieved, but that incumbents can’t rest.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#105

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

lostlogin wrote: post #95
fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people go for the money. If you were to walk into any undergrad bio 101 class and announce: "sorry guys, but you can only make 80k a year," 95% of the students would leave immediately.

I’m not a doctor, but work with lots. I’m extrapolating what I see and that’s always dangerous, but there isn’t a single colleague whose primary motivation is money. Maybe someone did come in and state an earnings cap, and I’ve been left with the 5%?

It's possible that once people start, they gain satisfaction from the job by helping people. But that doesn't mean that they began that profession because of that. Also consider that many doctors were pushed by their parents into become so. I don't think students spend their childhood chasing "A"s and extra circulars in order to help people.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#106

Post by lebean »

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…

[dead]

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#107

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

hackererror404 wrote: post #52
dbingham wrote: post #6

Adding this to my reading list. I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million. Because that's the point at which you have enough wealth to live a comfortably middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life, still pass down a substantial chunk to your children, and never have to earn another cent. I've argued we should combine this with a move towards a worker o…

Some things cost way more than 10 or 15 million in terms of investment. Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined? Also almost all of super wealthy people's "wealth" is tied up in assets that are funding entire economies. This money is creating jobs, allowing for affordable loans, the money is working for many other people…

> Why shouldn't a billionaire be capable of starting a genetics lab to fund cancer research and pay for it in cash, if they are so inclined?

The answer might be "they should be able to"

But are you open to the possibility of the answer being "Despite the apparent potential benefits, it isn't beneficial overall to society or humanity to have extremely rich individuals starting research projects, and perhaps not beneficial overall to even have extremely rich individuals at all" ?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#108

Post by lostlogin »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #105
lostlogin wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a doctor, but work with lots. I’m extrapolating what I see and that’s always dangerous, but there isn’t a single colleague whose primary motivation is money. Maybe someone did come in and state an earnings cap, and I’ve been left with the 5%?

It's possible that once people start, they gain satisfaction from the job by helping people. But that doesn't mean that they began that profession because of that. Also consider that many doctors were pushed by their parents into become so. I don't think students spend their childhood chasing "A"s and extra circulars in order to help people.

I don’t think children chase high grades for money.

I’ve been hunting around but can’t find any decent journal article with new students polled on motivations - it would be interesting to see.

The things I’m readying are broadly around a want to help people, often after a health scare of their own or a close family member/friend. I’d prefer something a bit more objective than the puff pieces I’m finding.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#109

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

glitchc wrote: post #31
dbingham wrote: post #6

Adding this to my reading list. I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million. Because that's the point at which you have enough wealth to live a comfortably middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life, still pass down a substantial chunk to your children, and never have to earn another cent. I've argued we should combine this with a move towards a worker o…

Any solutions that are in conflict with human nature will never be successful. Ambition and envy are basic human traits. At a deeper level, we are beings that measure everything (including light, sound, smell, touch and taste) by way of comparison. Communism fails because no one has anything left to aspire to and everyone is therefore equally miserable.

This presupposes there is some way to know what human nature is.

The best definition I've ever found is "altruistic and cooperative with an in-group, competitive and aggressive towards out-groups".

And that doesn't say much at all on this particular point.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#110

Post by Voultapher »

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…

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.
Post reply on HN