We Should Own the Economy

I reject the phrasing of the OP. It's not compulsion. As a human being, I need food, shelter, etc. to live. To acquire these things, I must labor. Where's the compulsion in that? This is a category mistake.

"If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump."

That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.

Been listening to All-In podcast and they've been talking like this - its really amusing to see them (and this author) get excited by what are essentially taxes with a different narrative (i.e. US sovereign wealth fund, give cash to US citizens to invest in S&P, NASDAQ, crypto to give them skin in the game).

The infrastructure for this is already there, it just needs to be rebranded and given a new narrative to make it acceptable for both the billionaire class. Instead of calling it taxes and social security, redistributive policies should be rebranded as patriotic profit sharing with the US government.

The US government's job would still be to pool resources to provide educated employees for companies to hire, well functioning transportation systems for companies to use, rule of law for companies to benefit from and pensions systems/basic healthcare for company employees/retirees.

In exchange for access to this US infrastructure, US and foreign corporations operating in the US would contribute to the US Freedom Dividend which will be shared across Americans to provide a baseline standard of living and allow them to invest to have skin in the game.

To get companies and wealthy individuals to willing participate in redistributive policies it seems we just need to avoid messaging it as punitive and/or as retribution for being successful (i.e. the Elizabeth Warren/AOC approach). We need to reframe it in language they speak - patriotism and profit sharing - and reframe them as the heroes for funding all the infrastructure and not the enemies.

I think there would be mind shift among the populace if they actually had more of a clear map as well from S&P500 companies winning and their own pocketbooks benefitting.

>Those of us who have experienced startups know just how important it is to have your employees aligned with the interests of the company in the form of equity grants.

I actually experienced two successful startups (one YC funded even), stayed few years past acquisition in both, seen those rsu and such, and also seen communism with my eyes a little bit. I had some close relatives who paid party fees to soviet communist party for about half a century too, true believers if you can say so. Heard the stories, recognize the pitch.

It does sound very much familiar to me. Maybe RSU grants work a little better compared to having a trade union or a literal commune, more transactional maybe, more appropriate for inherently bourgeoise knowledge work as opposed to working on a steel mill, but I have a deep suspicion it's all the same both in intent and sometimes in the end results too.

> I understand the risk of falling on the deaf ears, but where from comes the idea that communism is the opposite (or less of) capitalism and not an unattainable global maximum of it instead?

From literally every piece of communist theory/philosophy ever (okay, well, “opposite” is too strong, “radical response against and rejection of the basic premsies of", though...)

I mean, communism can be envisioned as sort of the maximum endpoint of a direction of change away from feudalism where capitalism is the first step, but...