Live data from Hacker News

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

hive.co.uk

641–650 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we simplify away the personal issue of 'that's my truck; you'll have to pay me to use it' - we forget property rights and the psychological attachment to property, which I don't think is realistic or wise. (Also, I've recently been reading about 'cultural universals' - behaviors in all/most/many unrelated cultures through time and geography that are not biologically determined (as far as we know) - and property is…

To your question on property: The claim that the idea of private property ownership is universal is just incorrect. Proudhon famously deconstructed the concept mathematically: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudho... (You can ignore the fact that it's on a Marxist site - Proudhon and Marx were not friends and had bitter disagreements - but unfortunately and unsurprisingly Marx's "Communism" got…

Thank you! I may not agree, but I learned a lot about your position.

You may be interested:

In the study of cultural universals, there are four leading anthropologists going back ~100 years afaik, and all four say private property is universal, based on the evidence. Some caveats: Generally speaking, they say it; there's detail there that I don't have time to look into now. Also, defining and classifying the behaviors of all cultures, current and past, and associating them with some modern English words, yields uncertain definitions - as those anthropologists will tell you. Certainly how a 'cultural universal' is expressed can look very different in different cultures.

* Clark Wissler, Man and Culture (1923)

* George Murdock, "The Common Denominator of Cultures", in The Science of Man in the World Crisis ed Ralph Linton. New York: Columbia University Press. 123-142. (1945)

* Charles Francis Hockett, Man's Place in Nature, McGraw-Hill (1973)

* Donald E. Brown, Human Universals (1991)

These are seminal works in that field - the seminal works as I understand it (I'm not an expert). You can find all/most at the Internet Archive, as far as I know.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#642
post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's about both. I agree. But then why would we ever worship the few lucky ones and allow them to have basically unlimited power? We could even claim intelligence is mostly about genetic luck. But if we really wanted to reward people for hard work, then there wouldn't be billionaires, we'd have many, many more millionaires. Why do they deserve that disproportionate amount of power? I simply cannot believe a system t…

> I agree. But then why would we ever worship the few lucky ones and allow them to have basically unlimited power? Because hero worship is an evolved instinct that we're trying to confabulate a post-hoc justification for, rather than a coherent predictive framework. And because our monkey brains, being only numerate by evolutionary luck, have an emotional reaction to "a billion" approximately as if it was "two millio…

> Because hero worship is an evolved instinct that we're trying to confabulate a post-hoc justification for, rather than a coherent predictive framework.

But that's not why I'm posing the question. Maybe my phrasing wasn't great.

We are all about becoming more than just monkeys, so perpetuating a silly tendency especially on such a serious topic with enormous consequences should be avoided at all costs. I argue we should not worship lucky rich folks.

> I bet they invested their money in something like this after being paid

Yeah, probably. But once again, I posed a question of why should they be rewarded in such a way. There's no answer to that here. I'm not arguing people shouldn't be rewarded, but as it stands the proportions are simply insane.

Part of the issue is that when you have capital you can literally change the rules of the game. So they don't just get rewarded with capital, they now can generate capital more easily too. It's a double advantage that breaks the system, in my view.

> Their monopolies don't remain indefinitely.

I honestly hope you are right, but I have serious doubts here. Rules that applied back in IBM days were different and companies and individuals simply got way better at retaining power. Monopolies are basically impossible to be broken in a globalized world, and companies know that. They also no longer leave room for the small guy. You won't ever have the Yahoo/Google situation again. If any company starts to show any threat to any monopoly, they get acquired immediately.

In theory regulators could try to enforce some of these rules but I don't see it happening. Even the latest Apple app store debacle shows how little they actually care. They can get away with pretending to do something about it because they have too much power and money.

> Then don't use him as the example.

Fair, I guess. My point is that for every one guy that gets arrested, you have all the hundreds/thousands of people around them that also profited from these scams. Those are almost never arrested and end up profiting without consequences.

For a high-profile example, you have famous influencers like Jake Paul scamming millions out of people and thriving. I watched a recent Netflix documentary Bitconned [1] which also shows another perfect example of someone scamming, getting caught, getting "punished" and still living their best lives.

For every SBF with hundreds of years in prison, you have dozens/hundreds of others that get a slap on the wrist. Fines, for example, could just be written off as cost of business.

I won't go searching for more because the topic doesn't interest me as much, but I am absolutely sure there are many, many more stories like these. But to your point, I can't prove the existence of those hundreds of millionaires that didn't get caught without going deep into it, so I won't try to. Guess you're a glass half-full kind of guy. I can't see how they don't exist.

> It assumes that any worker who is not treated fairly will switch jobs because someone else will want to out-bid their current employer. Etc.

Which would be true, in the utopia Capitalists believe in, where everyone has a choice. The reality, monopolies and lobbying exist, so workers always get fucked. Work or starve.

> I currently believe that it would be good for governments to directly control

I 100% agree that many parts of the national production should be owned by the people. Companies can simply exploit natural resources today basically for free, without consequences.

> If

Looking at what we have today, there's barely an "if" there. Take any company above a certain size and a lot of its profit comes from exploitation: underpaying workers because they target vulnerable communities, bad working conditions because they lobbied for no worker rights, cheap materials/manufacturing from poorer countries that in turn exploit their workers even more, exploiting/overworking young talent because of their naivety, overcharging due to monopolies, and the list goes on.

I take it back, there is definitely an "if", but it is only a matter of capital. Once the company gets enough capital, it turns up its dials of exploitation. If they don't do that, they don't survive.

Maybe there are examples of companies that grow and don't become an exploitation center, but I have never seen one. The system rewards exploitation, because that's the best way to extract profit out of human resources. And since companies are not people, they can and will do anything regardless of morality, leading to the current state of affairs.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitconned

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#643
post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive my naïveté, but if it’s riskless, how are you getting interest from investing in it?

If I have 10 pounds of blueberries and you have 10 pounds of strawberries there will be a natural price for one in terms of the other based on our different marginal preferences for the two commodities. Think of a dollar today as one commodity and a dollar tomorrow as a separate and distinct one. There is a difference in our marginal preferences and that is where the interest rate comes from. Just as both of us can b…

Thank you for an example with fruit. I am not trying to be thick, but your last paragraph confuses me. My point of reference is, say, lending $1,000 to a sibling who will pay me back within 2 weeks when he gets his paycheck. I gave him $1,000 and he will return me $1,000 so when and how would interest arise here? What axiom am I missing that makes his debt increase? Is it a choice by me to demand it?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am against taxes in general. For a tax to exist, there must be a justification. And even after that, I doubt it is fully legitimate: what if someone does not want or use the public schools system or health system? It must pay for it? So yes, a government that taxes people against their will for a service they do not use, from my perspective, is theft to tax payers. A different story is wether we want to support to…

> So yes, a government that taxes people against their will for a service they do not use, from my perspective, is theft to tax payers. Fortunately, that ain't the case for a land value tax as alluded to above. The government provides landowners a service (enforcement of their land deeds), and any "tax" on it is a payment for that service. As it stands, landowners have successfully lobbied the government such that th…

I would need careful analysis of your explanation before having an opinion since I admit to not have read, thought or known about this very concrete topic, feasibility, etc. in depth.

Thanks for this very positive exchange.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#645
post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it’s accurate, but you said “these social justice warriors,” which made me figure you were doing more than referring to the author. It seems like the goal of invoking the term was to aid in your dismissal of the author’s positions by linking them to a derided stereotype of activists. If I’m wrong then I apologize.

If you think about it, Social Justice is objectively a good thing. Being "Woke" means to be aware the United States is a white supremacist society. These terms are used as if they were Ad Hominems, but they're kind of the opposite. The people complaining about these things are literally self-identifying themselves as the bad guy. We're not making you use these words. We're not making you self-identify as the bad guy.…

They’d probably argue social justice isn’t inherently good because it’s collectivist or something but yeah I agree with you.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you agree. A robust government regulatory agencies with effective enforcement is required to ensure the protection of the environment and workers' safety and dignity. I'm glad we see that the inevitable outcome of free market deregulation is destruction.

Do you think communist industry has a better track record of safety? BTW, dignity comes from within. It is not imposed by external influences. The power the workers have in a free market is the power to say "no" and walk away.

Is there a communist government with a robust worker and environmental safety regime? None I’m aware of.

Guess what? The free market didn’t provide one either. It doesn’t actually provide a lot of things needed for a robust society.

It’s almost as if Wall Streets communism vs capitalism is a giant canard to distract from very basic, proven, and effective socioeconomic reforms.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#648
post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think about it, Social Justice is objectively a good thing. Being "Woke" means to be aware the United States is a white supremacist society. These terms are used as if they were Ad Hominems, but they're kind of the opposite. The people complaining about these things are literally self-identifying themselves as the bad guy. We're not making you use these words. We're not making you self-identify as the bad guy.…

They’d probably argue social justice isn’t inherently good because it’s collectivist or something but yeah I agree with you.

Social justice isn't good because you have as many social justices as there are individuals.

Take for example the aforementioned grandparent: It's justice to redistribute wealth from those above some arbitrary line to those below (grandparent is presumably below it). That's only justice for him, it's bullshit to everyone else.

And you know what happens when differing senses of justice collide? Possibly made worse by fervor? Very Unpleasant Things(tm).

This is why we use legal justice rather than social justice: There is one and only one standard of justice that we all agree to accept after much deliberation.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a lot of faith, it seems, in the ability of the already rich to somehow make better decisions (by some metric) than an arbitrary political process A key advantage of leaving it to the rich is that when rich people fail, they tend to end up losing their wealth and power, hurting mostly themselves — while even a political process that isn’t being corrupted or gamed by someone powerful is badly incentivized t…

What? You're ignoring all the lives he ruined to play with that company. Sure, he lost money, but he has plenty to lose. He wrecked a company and thousands of lives. They pay the price, not him. It's always the workers that pay the price.

If getting laid off from a six-figure salaried job is what people are calling "life-ruining" in this day and age, then we're clearly doing something right as a society! Sadly, I've had the misfortune of living through far deeper traumas, and I can't help but laugh at the suggestion that getting laid off from my current tech job would somehow "ruin my life" by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, it might cause some temporary distress, but my rainy day fund would be able to tide me over until something else came along.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#650
post #35

How about we just don’t empower a central planning body to make monetary decisions that devalue wages & salaries while inflating asset prices? QE & LIRP have literally been “rich get richer, poor get poorer: the policy”. People educated enough in finance to follow the effect tend to be in the asset-holding camp so there is less complaint. I’m not advocating high rates as good for the poor; I’m championing shaping the…

Market monetarism with nominal GDP targeting based on a robust futures market is the way.
Post reply on HN