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

171–180 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#171

Post by pdonis »

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…

> a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public over one which does not.

The problem is that this kind of society, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would be preferable, is not really achievable politically. The only way to implement it is to have a government that has the power to coercively tax people, and all history shows that governments will not use that power to redistribute wealth to the public at large; instead they will use it to enrich themselves and their preferred special interests.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#172

Post by jayd16 »

smeeth wrote: post #72
jayd16 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure? Its not like Edison was born hyper rich.

Are you suggesting Edison would have invented everything he did if he wasn't allowed to get rich? You chose an extremely funny example if that's what you're trying to say. Edison was famous for caring about money more than other inventors. One of his most famous quotes was “Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success.” The guy helped found some of the largest…

And even so his net worth was not near billions in today's dollars. Seems like being uber rich isn't necessary to achieve those things.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#173

Post by laserlight »

simonh wrote: post #148
laserlight wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Can you expand? What did Bezos contribute to society?

He built a company employing over a million people, created novel goods and services, including services my job depends on (AWS). The wealth of a man like Bezos isn't a pile of gold he wallows in like Scrooge McDuck, it exists in his shareholder control of a vast set of companies full of employees and doing productive work. These companies would not exist without his ability to identify new markets, build efficient c…

> He built a company employing over a million people, created novel goods and services, including services my job depends on (AWS).

And if Bezos had not founded Amazon, you and others would have been unemployed and poor?

> Take away the ability to do that, and who is going to found the new companies?

Other people. There are many people who are driven by their non-financial passions that would benefit society. History is full of philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, doctors who weren't after money, yet managed to contribute more than Bezos ever could.

PS: I have no problems with Bezos, to clarify.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#174

Post by yellowapple »

NegativeK wrote: post #126
FredPret wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You made quite a few significant leaps there.

"The slippery slope is a fallacy!" quoth those actively greasing the slope.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#175

Post by yellowapple »

lostlogin wrote: post #20
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…

> 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. Wouldn’t a tax system that steeply ramps up, includes property and tends to it’s loopholes (family trusts, property etc) achieve most of this?

A land value tax alone would address the vast majority of this, considering that virtually all wealth derives from land access/ownership.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#176

Post by api »

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.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#177

Post by poncho_romero »

WalterBright wrote: post #166
Voultapher wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Communist societies tend to be a lot more destructive of their environments. The reason is straightforward - people take care of things that they own, they don't take care of things they don't. For example, which is threatened with extinction - ocean fish, or cows? Are you more careful with your boss's money, or your money? And so on.

Who said anything about communism? This is a false dichotomy.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#178

Post by max_ »

We should have regulations to limit the price of such books and how much royalties the author is receiving to make the books accessible and not make his income deviate too far from the rest of his fellow authors that don't make any money.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#179

Post by missedthecue »

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.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#180

Post by rufus_foreman »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #86
sudden_dystopia wrote: post #19

Nobody should even be a millionaire it says. A small house in California is a million dollars ffs. The irony of charging 20 pounds for this is palpable.

Yeah, the blurb does literally say, "No-one deserves to be a millionaire." That threshold is the wrong choice, at least with prices where they are today. If you do the math, millionaire is just about where your assets start to balance your liabilities. By liabilities, I mean the cost of a modest and frugal life. In that fuller accounting, the millionaire is merely the freedman, the person who has climbed out of the d…

ACA subsidies or, in most states, expanded Medicaid would be available for health insurance for someone living off $1 million in assets.

You can get an apartment in a cheap city for under $800 a month. In a cheaper city it will most likely be downtown, and that will be a bad thing.

Post reply on HN