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

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#101

Post by [deleted] »

voidUpdate wrote: post #86
deepsummer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Tesla without Musk isn't worth much. It's not that profitable. Tesla's P/E ratio is 350 or so - absolutely crazy. Ford's and Toyota's are about 10. The largest Chinese electric car maker's (BYD) PE/ratio is 20. People are buying Tesla shares because they believe in Musk. The moment he announces that he is out, his wealth is going down by 90% or more.

If he wanted to get out and sell his stocks, why would he care if it collapses after he leaves? He sells his stocks when the value of the company is still high

[deleted]

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#102

Post by Gud »

Literally no single person has produced "a billion dollars value".

99.999% of the times, the people who reach billions come from a privileged position in society and are using their position to gain wealth for themselves.

We live in a society built for the powerful. It is paramount that we decentralize and democratize the power. Look at Switzerlands system of governance. Tear down the giant empires(USA, EU, China, Russia, etc). Build small to medium sized nation states, subdivided into commune with self governance(cantons in Switzerland as an example).

My country Sweden is having an election this September. I am voting for direktdemokraterna(https://direktdemokraterna.se/).

https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/political-syste...

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#103

Post by AlecSchueler »

papaver-somnamb wrote: post #72
oulipo2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about the stock price. They should be forced to split their companies in smaller, competing companies, so that: 1. there's not a huge asshole controlling enormous companies (and then also buying all the media and ruining the public information) 2. we have more competition and lower prices (that's EXACTLY why capitalism was supposed to have anti-concentration laws) 3. you spread the wealth. Now there are mor…

I feel this is closer, but still not equitable. More people owning less, but what about the vision that holds the ship together and leads the org to the goal? In the case of SpaceX, it's Elon and to a lesser extent Gwynn by way of osmosis that hold the light aloft. We force division of wealth, then what about the leadership and direction? SpaceX is what it is because the vision is much less tyranny of the masses, and…

Do they really need however many billions to encourage their vision?

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#104

Post by _DeadFred_ »

storus wrote: post #50
voidUpdate wrote: post #22

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…

95% income tax would remove any incentive to go above and beyond and you end up with collapsing economy where everybody is doing the bare minimum. See Soviet economy outcome and tofu dreg buildings.

There are plenty of hungry people with under 20 million dollars that will continue to start businesses.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#105

Post by qaq »

dm_ wrote: post #23
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 argum…

if you look at actual proposals like in CA they focus on taxing based on control %

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#106

Post by bikelang »

storus wrote: post #50
voidUpdate wrote: post #22

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…

95% income tax would remove any incentive to go above and beyond and you end up with collapsing economy where everybody is doing the bare minimum. See Soviet economy outcome and tofu dreg buildings.

On the contrary - forced retirement may be a healthy prophylactic to those suffering from wealth addiction.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#107

Post by RetroTechie »

slashdev wrote: post #73
shrubby wrote: post #13

Human being, with very few exceptions, is corrupted by power. And a billion dollars is immense amount power. You can make your opponent's life a living hell with a hundred thousand and buy or figure out a way to frame extortion material from almost any decision maker with a million. See how wars are being started tweeting from the toilet seat by a man who has never known anything but power to harm others. See the man…

Suppose you add a very high tax (it would have to be a wealth tax, not income, because they don’t have much income.) Zuckerberg just moved to Florida for a tiny wealth tax in California. These people would just leave the state or leave the country. It’s been happening in Norway with just a small wealth tax. It’s not impossible, but it’s also not that simple to do. These kind of policies are risky, because you may dri…

As you said a wealth tax would be needed, as opposed to income tax.

Taxes always have some optimum level: a point where benefit to society as a whole is maximized. Too high, and indeed investors / entrepreneurs could move away. Too low, and society leaves money on the table that could be better used elsewhere.

The simple fact that a society allows individuals to amass $100B+ (or even a 'mere' $1B) shows that wealth taxes are below what's optimal. If existing at all. It doesn't matter if wealth is stuck in assets, it's still society-distorting / corrupting power. There's no benefit to society to have individuals sit on say, >100x the wealth of average folks. Let alone 1000x, 100,000x or even higher.

So why is there no such wealth tax? Answer that question (in depth!), and you're getting closer to fixing the problem.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#108

Post by kd0amg »

papaver-somnamb wrote: post #72
oulipo2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about the stock price. They should be forced to split their companies in smaller, competing companies, so that: 1. there's not a huge asshole controlling enormous companies (and then also buying all the media and ruining the public information) 2. we have more competition and lower prices (that's EXACTLY why capitalism was supposed to have anti-concentration laws) 3. you spread the wealth. Now there are mor…

I feel this is closer, but still not equitable. More people owning less, but what about the vision that holds the ship together and leads the org to the goal? In the case of SpaceX, it's Elon and to a lesser extent Gwynn by way of osmosis that hold the light aloft. We force division of wealth, then what about the leadership and direction? SpaceX is what it is because the vision is much less tyranny of the masses, and…

> SpaceX is what it is because the vision is much less tyranny of the masses, and much more damn the torpedoes no one can stop me.

Apple did not need to be controlled by a majority shareholder in order to follow an ambitious, cohesive vision.

Re: Do we need billionaires?

#109

Post by storus »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #104
storus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% income tax would remove any incentive to go above and beyond and you end up with collapsing economy where everybody is doing the bare minimum. See Soviet economy outcome and tofu dreg buildings.

There are plenty of hungry people with under 20 million dollars that will continue to start businesses.

Subsistence agriculture is not going to help economy.
Post reply on HN