Live data from Hacker News

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

hive.co.uk

61–70 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#61
post #18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This system doesn't eliminate people. It eliminates the pointless and harmful hoarding of wealth.

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.

It's put to use by making the other person go in debt. Happy?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#64
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…

I agree with this except just to point out

> Because that's the point at which you have enough wealth to live a comfortably middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life

15M is far from middle class by any measure. 15M affords you a big city place, a place for winter holidays, and a place for summer holidays. With still left to have spoiled little kids (and possibly spoiled grand children).

Also, 15M is not static money. If you have that much money you will certainly gain an income from just having that much money.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#65

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.

I think most Americans would be plenty motivated by the prospect of home ownership, let alone being a multi-millionaire.

I don't spend much time worrying about what we'll do without billionaires working towards their next billion.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think people will go to medical school for 4 years because they are "bored of chilling?"

Do you think people go just for the money? There are a lot of healthcare systems where the wages aren’t that impressive and the hours are very long. There are benefits beyond money. Job satisfaction, societal standing, caring about people, etc etc.

I think most people go for the money. If you were to walk into any undergrad bio 101 class and announce: "sorry guys, but you can only make 80k a year," 95% of the students would leave immediately.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#67
post #14
post #9

We should place a hard cap on political ambitions like these. These utopians will be the end of us with their ridiculous schemes involving always what other people should do.

But the billionaire utopians and their ridiculous schemes, those are totally cool and will save humanity.

When you say "billionaire utopian" a couple of people spring to mind:

- Bezos

- Musk

- et al

These can be removed by market power, even during their own lifetimes. I bet you anything that in a generation or two, their fortune will be mostly dissipated.

The vast majority of rich people are much less rich than these two; their money will dissipate even quicker. Most of them made their fortunes in their own lifetimes; many will lose it in the same timeframe. They have to keep performing economically (work + investment) to keep their money.

But: I will also bet you anything that in a generation or two, the state will be larger than it is today, and will have assigned to itself more rights and prerogatives, and will somehow have inserted itself into our daily lives in an even more intimate way, whether anybody likes it or not.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#68

I'm wondering if people understand that almost all the pleasures/comforts in modern life were created by people who wouldn't exist in this system.

Those things were created by working people, most of whom are not wealthy.

Organized by an employer, capital, and management. The orchestration, decision making, done well, is the difference between a highly valuable well functioning company, and dysfunctional paralysis. There are now multiple examples in history (pre-1989 Poland, Soviet Union, DPRK, etc.) that show the communal ownership of industry by labor does not create a high standard of living, enabled by plentiful goods, services, and innovation.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#70
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 l…

These arguments nearly always come back to the fundamental desire (greed) for "Giev moniez pl0x.", as you say the limit is above their own wealth as to not be an inconvenience to themselves while siphoning monies from those around (and presumably above) them.

It would make for better discussion if these social justice warriors were at least honest about what they actually want.

Post reply on HN