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

41–50 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#41

Post by medo-bear »

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.

Wealth caps of 15M is certainly not communism

> Ambition and envy are basic human traits

No they are not

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#42

Post by dingnuts »

jdiff wrote: post #26
eej71 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your usage of the word "hoarding" implies a Scrooge McDuck view of wealth where its just stashed away in some vault - never put to use. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

My mental image is one of unelected, untouchable oligarchs taking actions that they're accountable to nobody for. That's far worse than Scrooge McDuck.

So you're imagining President Xi and the House of Saud, I take it? As long as you aren't imagining someone like Elon Musk who is certainly accountable to his debtors and shareholders and Boards, then this can be viewed as a realistic take.

If you're talking about people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates who have giant wealth because of their investments in businesses, then arguing that they should have that wealth taken away would literally take money out of the coffers of businesses that are currently using that money for things like payroll.

The GP is correct -- these people are not sitting around on a vault of gold like McDuck. Their money is in the economy, doing stuff. That's what investments are. That's why investors exist, and why they get a cut of the profit for taking a risk and lending their money to industry.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#43

Post by FredPret »

dbingham wrote: post #21
FredPret wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we allow the state to dictate wealth ceilings, we hand it absolute power.

The state is democratic, not absolute. When the state implements policies like this it is acting as a democratic expression of the community's will. We as a community are saying "We're not going to allow individuals within our community to accumulate undo influence over it."

> The state is democratic, not absolute.

Laughable - the state has been growing on a one-way trajectory: ever larger, ever more powerful. It is run by bureaucrats who look after their own interests first, and who have no feedback loop between their own performance and reality.

Think about this next time you go to the DMV or have to wait in line to see a doctor or deal with some kafkaesque snarl of paperwork. Your democratic will counts for nothing in the face of limitless state power.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#45

Post by jdiff »

golemotron wrote: post #38
dbingham wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state is democratic, not absolute. When the state implements policies like this it is acting as a democratic expression of the community's will. We as a community are saying "We're not going to allow individuals within our community to accumulate undo influence over it."

The power of that community is absolute.

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

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#46

Post by sackfield »

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…

Whenever people talk about how much wealth is comfortable (or ethical) to have, its usually just a notch above their own (well within their social class status).

To be fair I don't know your wealth at all but its just an observation I've had from talking with others about this. The end result of this would be to make these people some of the wealthiest in the country by dragging the wealth curve to just above their level. It sounds like a moral hazard to me.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#47

Post by epistasis »

tehjoker wrote: post #7

What about having a rationally planned democratic society instead of people chasing dollars at the expense of everything? No rich people, just democratic processes accessible to all incl. in production.

This general vague concept could be implemented in details in thousands upon thousands of ways, and has not resulted in better or more fair outcomes.

For example, my California city has "democratic" control of how many homes are allowed to be built, and therefore some control over the number of people allowed into the city. The city has decided not to build enough to meet the needs of the general population, but instead pays attention to a tiny minority of city constituents that profit from housing scarcity. They may profit in financial terms from their home valuations, but for some it's not about the money, it's just about keeping people out. It is an intensely unfair system, yet touted as "democratic" control of the means of production of housing.

So color me skeptical that democratic control won't result in even worse outcomes. If we had market control of the amount of housing, at least housing would be cheaper and we wouldn't be kicking people onto the streets continuously due to housing scarcity.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#48

Post by thinkski »

dbingham wrote: post #3
golemotron wrote: post #2

> The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you. It won't cure envy. Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living. Absolute stand…

It doesn't have to. The point isn't a perfect society, the point is to prevent resource hoarding and the accumulation of totalitarian power. When we allow wealth to accumulate we are also allowing power to accumulate.

And the answer to that is totalitarian control on wealth accumulation?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#50

Post by theragra »

I wonder if this book have a solution how to motivate people working more and creating companies if it does not make you rich.

Certainly a lot of people among most driven would work less or emigrate. If I can't earn more, I would work that's most joyful and relaxed. So, no banking or any other demanding job where there are a lot of rules.

Post reply on HN