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

The worst possible antitrust outcome

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#31

Post by JKCalhoun »

jmward01 wrote: post #5
frogperson wrote: post #2

Americans have allowed the rich to become too wealthy. The kind of power that comes with billions of dollars just doesnt work with justice or democracy.

I have nothing against rich. I have everything against a single person having a megaphone for themselves and a gag for everyone else and still calling it a democracy. We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Having said that, the practical implication is that money needs to loose power and there are very few ways to truly do that other than just take it away. So, I agr…

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals.

Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#32

Post by JKCalhoun »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #24
saulpw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's rich, and then there's 10x rich, and 100x rich, and 1000x rich, and 10000x rich, and now even 100000x rich. Millionaires are fine, billionaires are bad, and hectobillionaires are supremely terrible. I think once someone gets to a billion dollars net worth, they should get an AmEx black card, and 99% of their assets moved into a sovereign public wealth fund. They can have anything they want, they lose the powe…

So if your business is extremely successful, your reward is losing control if it? To who, politicians? Leaving the large business intact and just changing the leader doesn’t seem like it changes anything.

Society?

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#33

Post by culopatin »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #31
jmward01 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nothing against rich. I have everything against a single person having a megaphone for themselves and a gag for everyone else and still calling it a democracy. We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Having said that, the practical implication is that money needs to loose power and there are very few ways to truly do that other than just take it away. So, I agr…

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#34

Post by nielsbot »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #31
jmward01 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nothing against rich. I have everything against a single person having a megaphone for themselves and a gag for everyone else and still calling it a democracy. We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Having said that, the practical implication is that money needs to loose power and there are very few ways to truly do that other than just take it away. So, I agr…

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

Agreed. (I'm all in on confiscatory taxation.) No one person should be allowed to accumulate so much power and wealth.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#35

Post by guyzero »

I generally like Doctorow's writing and agree with a lot of what he says here, but:

"Google has stolen every fact about our lives, in service to propping up a monopoly that lets it steal our money, too."

I still have all the facts about my life and I don't think any money has been stolen. I get that this is rhetorical, but he's gone over the edge here.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#36

Post by Yizahi »

pdonis wrote: post #23
idle_zealot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing between ideological opposition to rich people existing and opposition to disproportionately powerful people existing. In what hypothetical world are these not the exact same thing? Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it, and is just another way of saying "power over others". A world where being rich doesn't grant power…

> Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action Not in a free market. In a free market, people have the option to refuse to accept your money if they don't want to give you what you want to buy from them with it.

It is theoretically and practically impossible that free market could exist. Every unregulated market will be quickly monopolized by a biggest player and it will stop being free by definition.

It's like saying that humans can fly unassisted. Sure, we can jump in the air and for a few milliseconds remain completely in the air. But we can hardly call that process a flight, if it can last for extremely short period of time. Same with free market.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#37

Post by spongebobstoes »

culopatin wrote: post #33
JKCalhoun wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?

why do you think that will happen? how could that scenario be prevented, while still taxing money?

if you put more effort into making your point, I'm sure you could get better engagement

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#38

Post by nielsbot »

culopatin wrote: post #33
JKCalhoun wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?

I say "see ya!" and wave goodbye.

You think people living in NYC, for example, the financial (and one of the major cultural capitals) of the entire world (not to mention all the other benefits of US residency) are going to bother with packing up their lives and moving overseas because the taxes are too high? Not to mention these people will still have obscene wealth in all likelihood.

Some might, but I don't think we should wring our hands over it.

Rather than worrying about "capital flight" let's instead imaging all the good that could come of us having a more more equal wealth and income distribution.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#39

Post by hollerith »

nielsbot wrote: post #38
culopatin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?

I say "see ya!" and wave goodbye. You think people living in NYC, for example, the financial (and one of the major cultural capitals) of the entire world (not to mention all the other benefits of US residency) are going to bother with packing up their lives and moving overseas because the taxes are too high? Not to mention these people will still have obscene wealth in all likelihood. Some might, but I don't think we…

Maybe the reason it is the financial capital of the entire world is that historically the tax regime let people keep most of the money they earned.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#40

Post by nielsbot »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #30
idle_zealot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing between ideological opposition to rich people existing and opposition to disproportionately powerful people existing. In what hypothetical world are these not the exact same thing? Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it, and is just another way of saying "power over others". A world where being rich doesn't grant power…

> A world where being rich doesn't grant power over others is one where money isn't money. First off, my money doesn't grant me power over anybody and it's still money. That leaves only one logically possible version of your statement and the correction looks like this: "A world where being rich doesn't grant power over others is one where big money isn't big money" In that form, your statement is perfectly logical,…

> First off, my money doesn't grant me power over anybody and it's still money

That's not true. Depends on your wealth bracket of course, but money certainly is the power to compel.

Let's say you have a neighbor whose dog is a nuisance barker. With money you can hire an attorney to go after them. If you don't have money, you have to suffer. There are millions of examples... this is just one not-particularly-good one.

Post reply on HN