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

571–580 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#571

Post by samatman »

vonjuice wrote: post #405
samatman wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be, without bothering to argue why that might be. I don't see why that would be true, and abundant evidence that both large and small corporations add value to the world.

Just want to highlight that the way you phrased it, someone doing 99% harm and providing 1% value can be said to be providing value.

I consider it a trivial lemma of the concepts of harm and value, that something which is causing more harm than they are creating value, is producing net negative value.

Although you gave me an opportunity to clarify that, which isn't nothing, I suppose.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#572

Post by samatman »

crotchfire wrote: post #299
samatman wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be, without bothering to argue why that might be. I don't see why that would be true, and abundant evidence that both large and small corporations add value to the world.

This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be No, in fact, it doesn't. Please re-read the comment you're replying to. There is no cutoff, limit, or threshhold. It doesn't prescribe a naturally-right size any more than a graduated income tax "prescribes a naturally-right amount of income".

Yes, in fact, it does. The objection just flies directly into the blindspot which leads you to make the proposal in the first place, which produces cognitive dissonance. You postulate, incorrectly, that "too large" is a coherent concept for corporations, and propose to "fix" your imaginary problem by punishing people who grow corporations larger than your imagined ideal.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#573

Post by u32480932048 »

kagakuninja wrote: post #315
asadotzler wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The individual wants his class to be taxed. Telling the individual they can simply pay more does nothing for everyone else in the class. Your reply is unserious.

Not only do I want everyone in my "class" to contribute more to society, everyone significantly above me should be contributing a larger share. This is the basis of progressive taxation.

Begging for a tax increase as a proxy for societal contribution is something else.

I work 60 hours a week and volunteer for 20 more.

Not only do I want everyone in my "class" to contribute at least as much as I do, I want them to actually contribute something, not just voidposting about how they have too much money and wish the government would take more of it.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#574

Post by smsm42 »

NegativeK wrote: post #128
sackfield wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> its usually just a notch above their own (well within their social class status). I'm a tech worker in the public sector. To be blunt: tax me more, please.

I'll make you a deal in which both of us come ahead - pay my taxes for this year. I'll even go for federal only. If you're in, I can accept venmo, cash, btc or anything commonly accepted. Think about it - you get less money, as you wanted, the money go to the taxman, as you wanted, and I get a little bit for helping you.

Unless, of course, you, as usual, meant that it's me that is going to be taxed more? While you are already getting paid from my money?

Another way would be to ask for pay reduction. Same effect on the public money, much less friction and transactional expenses. I'm sure your boss can find a way to make it happen.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#575

Post by smsm42 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #486
the_optimist wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, this is how it works. Are Elon’s rocket and car company infringing on your well-being? What about the pensioners holding Tesla shares? Are they stifling your ability to come up with some funds for the public good?

They infringe if they don't pay their share of what is needed to provide for the common welfare, defense, etc.

It's not "their share", it's your fantasy of getting part of their money that you're trying to impose. None of that money is yours to decide the fate of it.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#576

Post by u32480932048 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #498
gottorf wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who instead should be capable of doing such a thing?

Groups of many people working together. Historically, this has proven far less likely to produce bad results.

What exactly do you think a research lab or think tank is? A single-person effort?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#577

Post by infinitecost »

briHass wrote: post #436
sackfield wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

"Everyone driving slower than me is a slowpoke, everyone driving faster is a maniac" This was on full display back in 2017-2018 when tax code was changed to limit the amount of State and Local taxes (SALT) that could be deducted from your Federal tax liability. The original SALT deduction, before the change, clearly benefited the wealthy, with large mortgages and living in high-tax (read: expensive) areas. Cue articl…

> Cue articles like this one [1], which shows just how out of touch the wealthy can be

Cue comments like these that show just how out of touch people can be I guess.

These people are not meaningfully wealthy. They have no more power than the next 5% down the ladder. Even among the top 1%, 90% are not meaningfully wealthy in terms of the power they can exert.

The idea that some poor bozo with a mortgage on an $800k house is wealthy for any useful definition of the term is nonsense.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#578

Post by smsm42 »

Explain to me please - how millionaire is "extreme wealth"? Median household income in the US is about 75K. If you retire at 65 and plan to live to 85 (some live longer), you already need over a million to sustain that. That's not counting medical and care costs, and anything you want to live to your kids or charity, and anything you may spend on some fun activities like travel in those 20+ years. So how somebody who has $1M at retirement is "extremely wealthy" and "nobody deserves" it? Surely, I wouldn't call such a person poor, but "extreme" to the point that it implies some kind of deep wrongness that warrants confiscation and other extreme measures? That sounds like complete nonsense. How does it make sense?

I know there's social security, and other welfare payments, and various adjustments, but I don't see how these calculations would be so mismatched as to warrant the moniker of "extreme wealth".

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#579

Post by helpcatscary »

arp242 wrote: post #351
helpcatscary wrote: post #229

There’s a lot of comments in here straw manning a book that I would guess very few have actually read. I don’t know if it’s a good argument or not but I’m sure the author is intelligent enough to have considered incentives and the case of central planning in the USSR and it’s not dunking on the author to just blindly bring these cases up as if they disqualify their whole argument. If this three paragraph summary of a…

Approximately no one commenting here has read the book; it's only been out for a day, and while I'm a big fan of "actually read the fucking article before commenting", expecting people to purchase and read an entire book before commenting is a bit much. IMHO this is a bad submission; not because the book or the premise of it is good or bad, but because all most of us can do is discus the title and (very) brief premis…

Yeah that’s a fair point. It would be much more valuable to at least wait until someone in the world has had a chance to read the book and post a more detailed review of it. As it stands right now there’s nothing to talk about now other than the boogeymen we invent in our mind of the people who have the opposite stance on this than us.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if someone involved with marketing the book posted this knowing that it would provoke some kind of response from the community.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#580

Post by u32480932048 »

mynjin wrote: post #542
gottorf wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems likely that the only way to become a billionaire is through worker exploitation, collusion, cheating the system through tax evation and asset laundering, etc. What workers did J.K. Rowling exploit to become a billionaire? Did Stephen King only cheat half as much to arrive at his half-billion net worth? They produced something that people wanted to buy that previously did not exist, and everyone in the chai…

JK Rowling exploiting workers is a straw man and sidesteps the point. To some people what I wrote will be a truism and to others it will beg the question. I see what side that fell on for you and that's good, I'm not citing anything, so definitely question my reasoning. But don't think for a second that producing a handful of books people ended up wanting can generate that amount of value. In the case of Rowling, she…

It doesn't sidestep the point, it shows the value of your truism, particularly in a 21st century globalized, internet-scale economy.

Who's being exploited if I upload a song (or ringtone, or wallpaper) to an app store for $0.99 and it gets millions - perhaps even billions - of downloads?

(Answer: me, because of the app stores' rapacious policies)

Post reply on HN