The impotence of the long-distance trillionaire(antipope.org)
antipope.org
The impotence of the long-distance trillionaire
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2022/05/the-impotence-of-the-long-dist.html
90 コメント
Just make a hierarchy of businesses and control the business on top?
I don't think you'll be able to find a couple of simple rules that can't easily be dodged.
I don't think you'll be able to find a couple of simple rules that can't easily be dodged.
It's easy to verify if a subsidiary is only working for the interests of a parent company. You could quickly and promptly dissolve any company that was convicted of doing so.
What if it's only partially working for the parent company?
More generally, there's a more simple way of converting money to power: Employment. As long as you have freedom of contract, you can pay somebody money to do stuff for you.
More generally, there's a more simple way of converting money to power: Employment. As long as you have freedom of contract, you can pay somebody money to do stuff for you.
> you can pay somebody money to do stuff for you.
Yeah, but you can't tell them they can only get money from you, to do things that are in your interest. Your competitor is free to bid for their time/services/products as well.
As long as the company is not working exclusively in the interest of any single customer (in this case, the "parent" company), it's fine by me.
Yeah, but you can't tell them they can only get money from you, to do things that are in your interest. Your competitor is free to bid for their time/services/products as well.
As long as the company is not working exclusively in the interest of any single customer (in this case, the "parent" company), it's fine by me.
>> Politically, it's much easier to sell the "no one should have this much power" over "no one should be allowed to amass so much money". Left and Right could easily be united on this.
Haha. I think some of the folks in Washington have more power than the billionaires and they would be making the rules.
In terms of simple limits, let's prevent companies owning/buying/selling other companies. Or block corporate ownership or residential property. There are many other things that could reduce concentration of power. Let's ban campaign ad funding by out of state entities - including political parties.
Haha. I think some of the folks in Washington have more power than the billionaires and they would be making the rules.
In terms of simple limits, let's prevent companies owning/buying/selling other companies. Or block corporate ownership or residential property. There are many other things that could reduce concentration of power. Let's ban campaign ad funding by out of state entities - including political parties.
I agree with all the things that you are proposing - maybe I wouldn't block corporate real estate ownership, I'd rather have "progressive property taxes", as to make it impossible to have any profit from large-scale renting - but I think that they would also be impossible to pass on Washington today. So, if we are just day dreaming, we should really go for it. :)
Money can be a proxy of power, and you're right about all of this, however money alone already isn't the entirety of it. Money managers tend to have far more power than many of the otherwise richest people in our society. Society tried to deal with this in the past by the dismantling of the JP Morgan trust, but since then it seems almost as if Vanguard group and Blackrock have essentially just taken over that same exact role.
I thought Vanguard saved money by outsourcing all decision making and power to the people who chose the stocks on the S&P 500 and the market which they use to weight every stock in their funds.
> Why don't we just go straight to the source and eliminate the mechanisms that allow for the concentration of power?
Money, and it's concentration, is the mechanism that allows that.
> no individual can be a part of more than two business.
> You can have as many non-controlling/non-voting shares on any business entity, but you can only contribute directly to one.
That...seems rather contradictory. I think your simple rules are not so simple. Because your explanation of “not more than two” is that it is either “a lot more than two” or “not more than one”, depending on what kind of involvement is being referenced.
Also, just as advertisers drive advertising-dependent businesses with no direct voting stake, non-voting owners can substantially influence business decisions, especially if you set up a legal structure that means that most capital will often come from them by limiting the ability to participate in voting ownership.
Money, and it's concentration, is the mechanism that allows that.
> no individual can be a part of more than two business.
> You can have as many non-controlling/non-voting shares on any business entity, but you can only contribute directly to one.
That...seems rather contradictory. I think your simple rules are not so simple. Because your explanation of “not more than two” is that it is either “a lot more than two” or “not more than one”, depending on what kind of involvement is being referenced.
Also, just as advertisers drive advertising-dependent businesses with no direct voting stake, non-voting owners can substantially influence business decisions, especially if you set up a legal structure that means that most capital will often come from them by limiting the ability to participate in voting ownership.
I edited it to clarify, but I think given the context you could understand what I mean.
> just as advertisers drive advertising-dependent businesses with no direct voting stake, non-voting owners can substantially influence business decisions
That seems to be arguing past the point. Can you give a more concrete example?
> just as advertisers drive advertising-dependent businesses with no direct voting stake, non-voting owners can substantially influence business decisions
That seems to be arguing past the point. Can you give a more concrete example?
Your solution is interesting, but would it really work if everyone else wasn't also doing it?
I have difficulty imagining how that society could compete economically, politically, and militarily unless they were already relatively tiny and focused (like a petrostate). I think you'd be losing economy of scale while making it much more difficult logistically to pursue any large scale engineering, military, or even social projects.
I have difficulty imagining how that society could compete economically, politically, and militarily unless they were already relatively tiny and focused (like a petrostate). I think you'd be losing economy of scale while making it much more difficult logistically to pursue any large scale engineering, military, or even social projects.
Yeah, it is definitely is a game-theoretical problem for sure, like arms stockpiling. At first, like all radical changes it would certainly be a shock.
> I think you'd be losing economy of scale while making it much more difficult logistically to pursue any large scale engineering, military, or even social projects.
That, I don't agree. If software is eating the world, we can and should be using it as leverage to make individuals more productive. 150 people is a number big enough to get a good balance of specialization and coordination.
> I think you'd be losing economy of scale while making it much more difficult logistically to pursue any large scale engineering, military, or even social projects.
That, I don't agree. If software is eating the world, we can and should be using it as leverage to make individuals more productive. 150 people is a number big enough to get a good balance of specialization and coordination.
> no individual can be a part of more than two business.
Do boards count? What about non-profits?
> - no business entity can have more than 150 people.
I'd note that future businesses will be less people dependent. Many businesses have > $1M revenue per employee. Perhaps some can even hit $1B per employee, this becomes trivial if you make everyone a contractor / gig worker.
Just like in accounting, the counting for the purposes of this rule can begin to get creative.
Do boards count? What about non-profits?
> - no business entity can have more than 150 people.
I'd note that future businesses will be less people dependent. Many businesses have > $1M revenue per employee. Perhaps some can even hit $1B per employee, this becomes trivial if you make everyone a contractor / gig worker.
Just like in accounting, the counting for the purposes of this rule can begin to get creative.
Boards especially would count. My proposal is to limit the concentration of power in individuals, so they should not be able to have any influence in more than any one business.
> Many businesses have > $1M revenue per employee. Perhaps some can even hit $1B per employee.
Yeah, but by limiting the size of the corporation, we get:
- more competition, and consequently a reduction in profit margins.
- more localized/niche offerings.
- less chances from the incumbents to buy out potential competitors. (Screw you, Facebook)
- more companies trying to succeed by commoditizing their complements.
- less capital going to loss-leaders. (Screw you, Google)
> Many businesses have > $1M revenue per employee. Perhaps some can even hit $1B per employee.
Yeah, but by limiting the size of the corporation, we get:
- more competition, and consequently a reduction in profit margins.
- more localized/niche offerings.
- less chances from the incumbents to buy out potential competitors. (Screw you, Facebook)
- more companies trying to succeed by commoditizing their complements.
- less capital going to loss-leaders. (Screw you, Google)
> but by limiting the size of the corporation
Or perhaps we just get concentrated capitalization in employee reduction? If machines don't some how count they'll just approach the limit of machination .
* 1 CEO who takes 98.8% of the value
* 149 robot maintenance staff who make just above median salary
* 1 Billion robots each making $1 of profit.
Or perhaps we just get concentrated capitalization in employee reduction? If machines don't some how count they'll just approach the limit of machination .
* 1 CEO who takes 98.8% of the value
* 149 robot maintenance staff who make just above median salary
* 1 Billion robots each making $1 of profit.
What is binding the technicians to stay at "just above median salary"? Why wouldn't they be able to negotiate? If they can generate so much profit by employing capital, why can't they go to another financier and start their own companies?
This is not some philosophical puzzle of pirates sharing a treasury. There are tons of other choices for everyone involved, and none of them have to lead to such extreme concentration.
This is not some philosophical puzzle of pirates sharing a treasury. There are tons of other choices for everyone involved, and none of them have to lead to such extreme concentration.
> I can't see any good reason to let any individual claim ownership over more than a billion dollars of assets—even $100M is pushing it.
> Can you?
Yes I can. It’s called freedom. These guys are free to do whatever they want as long as they don’t break any laws.
I value my freedoms a lot. I was born in a non-free country, and I don’t want to go back to living in a non-free country.
> Can you?
Yes I can. It’s called freedom. These guys are free to do whatever they want as long as they don’t break any laws.
I value my freedoms a lot. I was born in a non-free country, and I don’t want to go back to living in a non-free country.
> These guys are free to do whatever they want as long as they don’t break any laws.
In other words, the author proposes to make laws such that it would be illegal - roughly speaking - to own a $bln.
The point, of course, is, should we consider that good enough - or not - to support with laws?
In other words, the author proposes to make laws such that it would be illegal - roughly speaking - to own a $bln.
The point, of course, is, should we consider that good enough - or not - to support with laws?
> These guys are free to do whatever they want as long as they don’t break any laws.
The main issue is that they do things that are unlawful (monopolies/duopolies, dumping, violating consumer and privacy laws, insider trading, regulatory capture, bribing, and a long etc.) even when they have enough money to last them a lifetime.
I think the only way to curtail that power concentration is forcing them to share a significant part of the profits with their employees, who did the lion's share of the work towards that goal. That way, to become a billionaire, you leave some millionaires among people who is helping you do so. I'm not talking about communism, but dividends.
I'm aware this would result in a huge financial and economic shock, but any significant change does that. Modern capitalism, while probably headed in the right direction, is showing its deficiencies after a couple of centuries. I also don't worry about the consequences, because it's not going to happen on its own, and the crisis that would force it would be much bigger.
The main issue is that they do things that are unlawful (monopolies/duopolies, dumping, violating consumer and privacy laws, insider trading, regulatory capture, bribing, and a long etc.) even when they have enough money to last them a lifetime.
I think the only way to curtail that power concentration is forcing them to share a significant part of the profits with their employees, who did the lion's share of the work towards that goal. That way, to become a billionaire, you leave some millionaires among people who is helping you do so. I'm not talking about communism, but dividends.
I'm aware this would result in a huge financial and economic shock, but any significant change does that. Modern capitalism, while probably headed in the right direction, is showing its deficiencies after a couple of centuries. I also don't worry about the consequences, because it's not going to happen on its own, and the crisis that would force it would be much bigger.
If they do unlawful things, they should be prosecuted for those things.
I live in a country where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I like this principle.
Just assuming that if someone is rich they must have broken the law somehow, that directly contradicts this principle. I stand against this, and lots of people in this country think like me.
And I'm not rich; I will never be a billionaire. And I am not paid by billionaires to advocate for their cause. I simply want to live in a country where the presumption of innocence is one of the foundational principles. Along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Do I like wealth or income inequality? I don't really care. Inequality doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that the real estate market is crazy insane. The tuition for colleges promises to be absurdly unaffordable by the time my kids finish high school. The cost of healthcare is stupidly high, and it starts to feel quite high even after the insurance pays their part. All these things bother me, and they bother many tens of millions of other Americans. But in order to fix them, you have to try to fix them. Not to point the finger at the rich and say it's because of them.
I live in a country where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I like this principle.
Just assuming that if someone is rich they must have broken the law somehow, that directly contradicts this principle. I stand against this, and lots of people in this country think like me.
And I'm not rich; I will never be a billionaire. And I am not paid by billionaires to advocate for their cause. I simply want to live in a country where the presumption of innocence is one of the foundational principles. Along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Do I like wealth or income inequality? I don't really care. Inequality doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that the real estate market is crazy insane. The tuition for colleges promises to be absurdly unaffordable by the time my kids finish high school. The cost of healthcare is stupidly high, and it starts to feel quite high even after the insurance pays their part. All these things bother me, and they bother many tens of millions of other Americans. But in order to fix them, you have to try to fix them. Not to point the finger at the rich and say it's because of them.
[deleted]
I'm not seeing any new arguments here. Summarized:
They don't need that much money.
It's not even that much money, relative to the world.
That much money doesn't make you live forever.
They didn't even build the things that they're known for.
Sometimes the old arguments are the best. Just because something has been said before doesn't make it any less valid.
Those arguments don't even seem to have been debunked yet.
There's endless discussions on the internet about these tired topics. If you don't feel they have been debunked, I don't think you ever will. There are others that feel the opposite, also strongly. That's why these are tired points, because they go around in circles and make no progress.
I don't think there's anything new (nor do I think "newness" is the best way to judge an essay), but I do think you've mis-paraphrased the first point. It's not so much "they don't need that much money" as "after a certain point, more money has vanishing small utility, so having that much money is wasting the money."
I guess if Musk will leave all except a billion dollars, he'll leave both Tesla and SpaceX decision making, which would likely significantly change companies, and I'm afraid for worse.
To respond in list
Sometimes, people haven't read the older thing before.
There was an excellent post a few months back about how overvalued creativity is.
If that's true, there should be better counterarguments than "this is unoriginal"> There was an excellent post a few months back about how overvalued creativity is.
Sounds interesting, do you have link, or may be keywords for search?
Sounds interesting, do you have link, or may be keywords for search?
Well, he's a writer. It's not so important that the arguments be new, as long as they're still valid points and provide fertile ground for discussion. It's more important that it's written well and that the examples are topical. And then we can continue the debate.
Even if the points aren't new, the level of wealth disparity we're seeing is new, so an updated discussion is warranted.
Even if the points aren't new, the level of wealth disparity we're seeing is new, so an updated discussion is warranted.
> the level of wealth disparity we're seeing is new
Is it, though?
Is it worse than between a serf and a king during the pre-industrial era? Is it worse than during the Gilded Age? I doubt it.
Is it, though?
Is it worse than between a serf and a king during the pre-industrial era? Is it worse than during the Gilded Age? I doubt it.
I should have qualified that, I meant that we ourselves are seeing. Perhaps there have been other times in history but for anyone who is alive now, this time compares to no other
One new: billionaires are de-facto kings in their small domain, because companies are authoritarian, not democratic. Such concentration of power and wealth makes monumental things possible.
If the Egyptian elite didn't have such concentration of power and wealth, only very small pyramids would exist. If Elon Musk only was allowed $100 million, he probably wouldn't have the most advanced and cost-effective rocket company in the world, the insanely cool Spaceship, and the goal of a Martian colony.
On the other hand, few billionaires are working towards a lofty goal. Most just to make even more billions by whatever means, to put their initials in the high score board.
If the Egyptian elite didn't have such concentration of power and wealth, only very small pyramids would exist. If Elon Musk only was allowed $100 million, he probably wouldn't have the most advanced and cost-effective rocket company in the world, the insanely cool Spaceship, and the goal of a Martian colony.
On the other hand, few billionaires are working towards a lofty goal. Most just to make even more billions by whatever means, to put their initials in the high score board.
My main gripe with this article is the equating of networth and marginal market value of assets with spendable currency.
1. Networth is not something you can easily spend in it's entirety 2. Instantaneous networth ignores the fact that liquidation would cause a sell pressure that would cause it's own decline in value. Just because 100 shares of XYZ stock most recently sold for $N , does not mean that the entire shares outstanding could be sold at that price. There is a curve of open interest, a normal daily volume, and it's unlikely you could divest of 100% of a mulitbillion dollar asset in any short order, especially not for the full market price at the start of the divestment. "Billionaires" rarely have close to that much cash available to them.
1. Networth is not something you can easily spend in it's entirety 2. Instantaneous networth ignores the fact that liquidation would cause a sell pressure that would cause it's own decline in value. Just because 100 shares of XYZ stock most recently sold for $N , does not mean that the entire shares outstanding could be sold at that price. There is a curve of open interest, a normal daily volume, and it's unlikely you could divest of 100% of a mulitbillion dollar asset in any short order, especially not for the full market price at the start of the divestment. "Billionaires" rarely have close to that much cash available to them.
> He didn’t found Tesla
Oh not this crap again. Perfectly good article ruined by petty pedantry.
You’ve only heard about Tesla because Elon became a co-founder.
Oh not this crap again. Perfectly good article ruined by petty pedantry.
You’ve only heard about Tesla because Elon became a co-founder.
I interpreted his saying this as trying to knock down Elon a bit from the god that people make him out to be rather than discrediting him.
And this justifies taking away his wealth? In other words, if Elon literally invented the Tesla car himself, would there be no arguments against him being extremely wealthy?
His point wasn't that Elon didn't invent Tesla so take away his wealth, his point was that "billionaires do great things" is overrated.
In an article about taking away billionaire's wealth, this doesn't support that argument? It's just a non-sequitur that has no purpose in the context of the larger argument?
I think his point was that billionaires shouldn’t exist but I think the conclusion is somewhat unclear, do we move toward a system where it is much harder to amass that much wealth or do we chop their heads off and take it all? I think it’s left open
This boils down to "eat the rich" at the end.
> I can't see any good reason to let any individual claim ownership over more than a billion dollars of assets—even $100M is pushing it. Can you?
If they got their wealth "fair and square" within the systems of rules that we all are subject to I feel it would be wrong to just take their assets by changing the rules and taxing it away (or whatever form it takes.)
> And when one person holds the purse-strings, we lose [accountability].
It seems to me that that increases accountability. We know where the buck stops.
> I can't see any good reason to let any individual claim ownership over more than a billion dollars of assets—even $100M is pushing it. Can you?
If they got their wealth "fair and square" within the systems of rules that we all are subject to I feel it would be wrong to just take their assets by changing the rules and taxing it away (or whatever form it takes.)
> And when one person holds the purse-strings, we lose [accountability].
It seems to me that that increases accountability. We know where the buck stops.
Problem with that argument is that when there are opportunities to change the rules "fair and square" through lobbying and creating loopholes that, really, only the rich can afford to take advantage of, the rich will do that.
I agree that that's a serious problem, but I don't think the best solution is to confiscate wealth just in case the wealthy misuse it.
Monarchies got their wealth "fair and square" within the systems of rules that we were all subject to at the time. We eventually decided that the system of rules themselves were not "fair and square" and changed them, often quite bloodily.
In a system where money affords power if we accept that power should be distributed at least somewhat evenly then there must be an upper bound placed on wealth. Otherwise we end up in the situation we have right now, where policy is merely a commodity that is bought and sold by those who can afford it.
In a system where money affords power if we accept that power should be distributed at least somewhat evenly then there must be an upper bound placed on wealth. Otherwise we end up in the situation we have right now, where policy is merely a commodity that is bought and sold by those who can afford it.
The comparison to monarchs doesn't move me much because most of the world's billionaires aren't also sovereign. (It seems like confiscating the wealth of sovereign billionaires with nations, armies, and maybe even nukes or WMDs would even more problematic.) Not to be crass but "we ate the rich before" isn't a reason IMO to eat them now.
I figure the way to curb excessive power concentrations is the panopticon: ubiquitous surveillance. (I'm not advocating for it, but I think it's unavoidable, so we might as well get some use out of it.)
People can have their wealth but have limited political power.
It reminds me of a story I heard about the Chinese Communists tackling their unruly billionaires. How do you take them down when they can bribe any agent or official? A special unit was formed and this was their basic M.O.: they would locate one of these billionaires and pick them up and sweat them and then offer them a deal. "You can keep all of your money, go into retirement, and promise to be good, just give us everyone in your organization." The alternative is prison (or maybe even death, who really knows?)
It's kind brilliant, eh?
Think it through.
Are you going to go to prison to protect your henchmen and underlings? Or retire to, say, Macau with all your money? You sell out your org, of course. What does that do to team morale for the other big boys' orgs when word gets around? They stop helping their bosses break laws.
I figure the way to curb excessive power concentrations is the panopticon: ubiquitous surveillance. (I'm not advocating for it, but I think it's unavoidable, so we might as well get some use out of it.)
People can have their wealth but have limited political power.
It reminds me of a story I heard about the Chinese Communists tackling their unruly billionaires. How do you take them down when they can bribe any agent or official? A special unit was formed and this was their basic M.O.: they would locate one of these billionaires and pick them up and sweat them and then offer them a deal. "You can keep all of your money, go into retirement, and promise to be good, just give us everyone in your organization." The alternative is prison (or maybe even death, who really knows?)
It's kind brilliant, eh?
Think it through.
Are you going to go to prison to protect your henchmen and underlings? Or retire to, say, Macau with all your money? You sell out your org, of course. What does that do to team morale for the other big boys' orgs when word gets around? They stop helping their bosses break laws.
So to avoid the problem of wealth leading to political power you create a system of secret police roughing up individual offenders.
It seems to me that it's vastly more effective, simpler, and safer for everyone if we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place.
It seems to me that it's vastly more effective, simpler, and safer for everyone if we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place.
> So to avoid the problem of wealth leading to political power you create a system of secret police roughing up individual offenders.
To be clear I am not advocating for the Communist model. I was just relating a story about how the CCP reigned in errant (by their criteria) wealthy. It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power.
> we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place.
Sure, the question is how?
I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today. I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.)
To be clear I am not advocating for the Communist model. I was just relating a story about how the CCP reigned in errant (by their criteria) wealthy. It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power.
> we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place.
Sure, the question is how?
I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today. I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.)
> It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power.
I don't see how that's the case. Their wealth lead to a degree of power that necessitated a specialised task force in order to keep it in check. That the power afforded by that wealth was curtailed doesn't negate it's existence. Should the task force cease to exist they would be free to exercise that power without restriction.
> I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today.
I agree but I don't see any reasonable alternative to reducing their level of influence while still maintaining a market based economy.
> I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.)
This is where we disagree. I don't think any overall good comes from any individual having more than $1bn in wealth. At that point you can buy pretty much whatever you want and your offspring will still be unfathomably wealthy for generations. As an individual you essentially have the GDP of a small island nation in your pocket.
Personally I believe the marginal utility of more wealth at this point to be effectively zero. Adding a second billion makes no material difference to your quality of life, single digit percentages represent life changing amounts of money for the majority of society.
It's at this point I feel we need to seriously interrogate how that wealth is being accumulated and whether it would be better spent elsewhere. Take our good friends the Waltons for example. In accumulating their fabulous wealth they have successfully externalised the cost of labour to the extent that many of their workers can't afford to food or healthcare without society's help. While a pretty specific case, I don't believe the Waltons should receive a single penny until they've absorbed those costs.
A wealth cap also acknowledges that society plays a huge part in providing the framework for that wealth to exist in the first place. In my opinion a low degree of inequality is a requirement for a harmonious society. Without hundreds of years of societal investment none of the resources that billionaires relied on to amass their wealth would exist. Try creating a tech startup without literate workers.
I don't see how that's the case. Their wealth lead to a degree of power that necessitated a specialised task force in order to keep it in check. That the power afforded by that wealth was curtailed doesn't negate it's existence. Should the task force cease to exist they would be free to exercise that power without restriction.
> I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today.
I agree but I don't see any reasonable alternative to reducing their level of influence while still maintaining a market based economy.
> I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.)
This is where we disagree. I don't think any overall good comes from any individual having more than $1bn in wealth. At that point you can buy pretty much whatever you want and your offspring will still be unfathomably wealthy for generations. As an individual you essentially have the GDP of a small island nation in your pocket.
Personally I believe the marginal utility of more wealth at this point to be effectively zero. Adding a second billion makes no material difference to your quality of life, single digit percentages represent life changing amounts of money for the majority of society.
It's at this point I feel we need to seriously interrogate how that wealth is being accumulated and whether it would be better spent elsewhere. Take our good friends the Waltons for example. In accumulating their fabulous wealth they have successfully externalised the cost of labour to the extent that many of their workers can't afford to food or healthcare without society's help. While a pretty specific case, I don't believe the Waltons should receive a single penny until they've absorbed those costs.
A wealth cap also acknowledges that society plays a huge part in providing the framework for that wealth to exist in the first place. In my opinion a low degree of inequality is a requirement for a harmonious society. Without hundreds of years of societal investment none of the resources that billionaires relied on to amass their wealth would exist. Try creating a tech startup without literate workers.
> I don't see how that's the case. Their wealth lead to a degree of power that necessitated a specialised task force in order to keep it in check. That the power afforded by that wealth was curtailed doesn't negate it's existence.
The power of these wealthy Chinese billionaires was broken by cutting off the head (the guys with the money) from the body (the folks that actually carried out those guys' wishes.) Money won't buy power if no one is willing to accept it. It's not a solution that would get applied in the USA, which is pretty much run by and for the wealthy, but it shows that money != power in Communist China at least.
> Should the task force cease to exist they would be free to exercise that power without restriction.
But presumably the task force would only cease to exist if the CCP changed it's policies, no?
> I don't think any overall good comes from any individual having more than $1bn in wealth. At that point you can buy pretty much whatever you want and your offspring will still be unfathomably wealthy for generations. As an individual you essentially have the GDP of a small island nation in your pocket.
> Personally I believe the marginal utility of more wealth at this point to be effectively zero. Adding a second billion makes no material difference to your quality of life,
Even if I agree with that (and I do FWIW) so what? How does that give us the right to take their money? My neighbor doesn't really need his noisy smelly leaf blower, can I take that?
The Waltons are a great example: Walmart is a fantastic store, and even if those stories about the workers on food stamps are true (which they deny) it's still legal. Maybe we increase the minimum wage rather than going after this family for being too successful?
> In my opinion a low degree of inequality is a requirement for a harmonious society.
I suspect that's true. And I'll admit these billionaires make me nervous. I just don't see it as moral to take their stuff just because we think they might misuse it or, even more tenuous, that it might not do them any good.
The power of these wealthy Chinese billionaires was broken by cutting off the head (the guys with the money) from the body (the folks that actually carried out those guys' wishes.) Money won't buy power if no one is willing to accept it. It's not a solution that would get applied in the USA, which is pretty much run by and for the wealthy, but it shows that money != power in Communist China at least.
> Should the task force cease to exist they would be free to exercise that power without restriction.
But presumably the task force would only cease to exist if the CCP changed it's policies, no?
> I don't think any overall good comes from any individual having more than $1bn in wealth. At that point you can buy pretty much whatever you want and your offspring will still be unfathomably wealthy for generations. As an individual you essentially have the GDP of a small island nation in your pocket.
> Personally I believe the marginal utility of more wealth at this point to be effectively zero. Adding a second billion makes no material difference to your quality of life,
Even if I agree with that (and I do FWIW) so what? How does that give us the right to take their money? My neighbor doesn't really need his noisy smelly leaf blower, can I take that?
The Waltons are a great example: Walmart is a fantastic store, and even if those stories about the workers on food stamps are true (which they deny) it's still legal. Maybe we increase the minimum wage rather than going after this family for being too successful?
> In my opinion a low degree of inequality is a requirement for a harmonious society.
I suspect that's true. And I'll admit these billionaires make me nervous. I just don't see it as moral to take their stuff just because we think they might misuse it or, even more tenuous, that it might not do them any good.
> I can't see any good reason to let any individual claim ownership over more than a billion dollars of assets—even $100M is pushing it. Can you?
I'm in general disagreeing with major points in the article, but it's too large topic to have a full discussion here. The idea is that billionaires can better focus resources on things they seem important than governments.
I'm in general disagreeing with major points in the article, but it's too large topic to have a full discussion here. The idea is that billionaires can better focus resources on things they seem important than governments.
> The idea is that billionaires can better focus resources on things they seem important than governments.
Stross anticipated your reply though,
> They can fund lobbying groups and politicians, rant about colonizing Mars, and buy midlife crisis toys like Twitter or weekend getaways on a space station, but their scope for effecting real change is actually tiny on a global scale. Even Putin and Xi, who are at the state-level actor end of the scale (individually they're multi-billionaires: but they also control nuclear weapons, armies, and populations in 8-9 digits) have little global leverage. Putin's catastrophic adventure in Ukraine has revealed how threadbare the emperor's suit is.
Stross anticipated your reply though,
> They can fund lobbying groups and politicians, rant about colonizing Mars, and buy midlife crisis toys like Twitter or weekend getaways on a space station, but their scope for effecting real change is actually tiny on a global scale. Even Putin and Xi, who are at the state-level actor end of the scale (individually they're multi-billionaires: but they also control nuclear weapons, armies, and populations in 8-9 digits) have little global leverage. Putin's catastrophic adventure in Ukraine has revealed how threadbare the emperor's suit is.
Right, and these words are basically wrong. It doesn't matter how big GWP is comparing to a persons' resources, it's the application of these resources, which often can't be done on government level - they are largely for different things, can't risk that much, in practice aren't very efficient etc.
Of course there are also arguments to the contrary - e.g. Apollo project was rather effective, large military operations like working during WW2 shows government can actually be quite efficient etc. That doesn't matter though, we only need to point to an example - let it be SpaceX - when a billionaire shows better results than the government.
Of course there are also arguments to the contrary - e.g. Apollo project was rather effective, large military operations like working during WW2 shows government can actually be quite efficient etc. That doesn't matter though, we only need to point to an example - let it be SpaceX - when a billionaire shows better results than the government.
> we only need to point to an example - let it be SpaceX - when a billionaire shows better results than the government.
Stross anticipated this too:
> Granting individuals enormous leverage can sometimes be socially useful. But before you point at Musk and Tesla or SpaceX, I need to remind you that he didn't found Tesla, he merely bought into it then took over: SpaceX's focus on reusability is good, but we had reusable space launchers before—the only really new angle is that it's a cost-reduction measure. Starlink isn't an original, it's merely a modern, bigger, faster version of 1990's Teledesic (which fell victim to over-ambitious technology goals and the dot-com bust). Meanwhile, billionaires can do immense damage: the Koch network has largely bankrolled climate change denial, Musk's Mars colony plan is fatally flawed, and so on.
You say "better" results than the government... but it's not obvious that a government can't make these marginal improvements... you just assert that "these words are basically wrong".
Stross anticipated this too:
> Granting individuals enormous leverage can sometimes be socially useful. But before you point at Musk and Tesla or SpaceX, I need to remind you that he didn't found Tesla, he merely bought into it then took over: SpaceX's focus on reusability is good, but we had reusable space launchers before—the only really new angle is that it's a cost-reduction measure. Starlink isn't an original, it's merely a modern, bigger, faster version of 1990's Teledesic (which fell victim to over-ambitious technology goals and the dot-com bust). Meanwhile, billionaires can do immense damage: the Koch network has largely bankrolled climate change denial, Musk's Mars colony plan is fatally flawed, and so on.
You say "better" results than the government... but it's not obvious that a government can't make these marginal improvements... you just assert that "these words are basically wrong".
Yes, and here the author also makes mistakes. Founding Tesla is irrelevant; results of Tesla are. Saying that reusable space launchers existed before SpaceX is like saying there were people in America before Columbus - technically true, but Columbus achievement is colossal, similarly the achievements of SpaceX. But we're comparing billionaires and governments :) - will you say Space Shuttle, or Buran, are comparable to Falcon 9? Author didn't provide any arguments for Mars colony's plan :) so let's not get there.
As I said, the article is very questionable - and not because billionaires couldn't use some healthy attention, just because too many statements in the article are doubtful.
As I said, the article is very questionable - and not because billionaires couldn't use some healthy attention, just because too many statements in the article are doubtful.
Can they? The US government has spent more on, and done more to advance space travel and exploration than Musk can ever hope to. The CDC completely eliminated malaria and other mosquito born illnesses in the US, amongst many other things. Gates has done nothing comparable. If you look at every billionaire’s pet projects you’ll find governments that have already done and are doing more. What billionaires lack is oversight and what they have in spades is budget and incentives to spend on PR to make themselves look good while doing little. As an average person, I’d rather governments did these things than have to put up with billionaires class who get less done while talking about it more.
This is exactly right. In huge swaths of the US, your local county's Mosquito Control department is probably a small number of full timers (maybe one or even zero), some budget for seasonal staff, and some commercial F-150s with sprayers in the bed. They probably have six-seven figures a year in budget.
They don't have a PR budget, just trucks and sprayers. But they are absolutely the reason that there isn't endemic malaria in your county.
They don't have a PR budget, just trucks and sprayers. But they are absolutely the reason that there isn't endemic malaria in your county.
there is no doubt that government employees can innovate. Anyone can innovate. Provided with the correct competitive structure (large market rewards, big prizes, etc).
And yet, the F150 was built by capitalists, the sprayers are built with capitalists. The chemicals were built by capitalists.
so yes some problems are best solved by government, but innovation isnt one of them.
And yet, the F150 was built by capitalists, the sprayers are built with capitalists. The chemicals were built by capitalists.
so yes some problems are best solved by government, but innovation isnt one of them.
> so yes some problems are best solved by government, but innovation isnt one of them.
1. I've worked in gov labs, industry labs, and academic labs. Mostly industry labs. People and culture are the most important thing. The variability in innovation between companies is often WAY higher than the variability between the public and private sector. Gov labs can be insanely innovative or quagmires. Same for industry labs. It's all about the people and culture. Good people and good culture and possible in the public and private sectors. Bad people and bad culture are also possible in the public and private sectors. Anyone telling you otherwise is trolling and/or selling an idiology (sic).
2. The whole point of the above post was that there's ENORMOUS value in the "tried and true". Getting rid of endemic malaria has been possible for the better part of a century. It's a governance problem, not an innovation problem.
1. I've worked in gov labs, industry labs, and academic labs. Mostly industry labs. People and culture are the most important thing. The variability in innovation between companies is often WAY higher than the variability between the public and private sector. Gov labs can be insanely innovative or quagmires. Same for industry labs. It's all about the people and culture. Good people and good culture and possible in the public and private sectors. Bad people and bad culture are also possible in the public and private sectors. Anyone telling you otherwise is trolling and/or selling an idiology (sic).
2. The whole point of the above post was that there's ENORMOUS value in the "tried and true". Getting rid of endemic malaria has been possible for the better part of a century. It's a governance problem, not an innovation problem.
> Anyone can innovate. Provided with the correct competitive structure (large market rewards, big prizes, etc).
Please explain why winner-take-all competitive rewards are necessary for innovation.
I mean, they seem to work today in the US. But I don't see why that means they are the only possible way forward.
Please explain why winner-take-all competitive rewards are necessary for innovation.
I mean, they seem to work today in the US. But I don't see why that means they are the only possible way forward.
> The CDC completely eliminated malaria and other mosquito born illnesses in the US
By spraying DDT over all the places mosquitoes live, which is now banned.
By spraying DDT over all the places mosquitoes live, which is now banned.
"In 2018 a whistleblower told me about a new satellite thruster that used mercury, the poisonous liquid metal, as a propellant, and that it would inevitably fall back to earth when used, thus beginning my Space Lawyer arc. The company that designed it was in the process of selling the tech to big space companies: SpaceX, OneWeb, etc., who were in the planning stages of putting new "megaconstellations" of 10,000s of satellites into orbit. Every one of these satellites has 20-100kg of propellant onboard, which is ionized and expelled over time to do orbital correction and scoot around up there. Mercury is heavy, which means that it gives you a lot of Δ(v) per unit of propellant used, it isn't explosive, you don't have to heat it as much as other fuels to stay liquid, and it's cheap because nobody wants it.
It's also a powerful bioaccumulative neurotoxin!"
https://twitter.com/KevinHBell/status/1508549006863085580
It's also a powerful bioaccumulative neurotoxin!"
https://twitter.com/KevinHBell/status/1508549006863085580
From NASA's founding to putting a man on the moon was 10 years, and that was having to invent the technology.
It’s not like the wealth of Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos is in liquid assets: their wealth is from owning shares in a corporation.
What we’re saying when we say “limit their wealth” is that we should force them to lose control of the company they founded and led to success — almost entirely!
Eg, Jeff Bezos would go from ~10% of Amazon to ~0.01% if we wanted to reduce his “wealth” below a billion dollars.
Given that neither government nor Wall St seem to show greater wisdom than these business leaders with demonstrated success, I’m strongly against forcing corporate leaders to cede more power to those groups.
What we’re saying when we say “limit their wealth” is that we should force them to lose control of the company they founded and led to success — almost entirely!
Eg, Jeff Bezos would go from ~10% of Amazon to ~0.01% if we wanted to reduce his “wealth” below a billion dollars.
Given that neither government nor Wall St seem to show greater wisdom than these business leaders with demonstrated success, I’m strongly against forcing corporate leaders to cede more power to those groups.
I'm sure it's by design. I don't know the author's stance on nationalizing, but people who make similar arguments about "you don't need that much money!" also like to propose nationalizing all wealthy companies.
Isn't this argument entirely defeated by the existence of share classes though? Forgive me if I'm incorrect but aren't founders already free to maintain control of the company by holding all voting shares while issuing separate non voting shares.
It seems supremely unimaginative to believe that we couldn't easily come up with a situation where Jeff Bezos owns 0.01% of Amazon but still maintains full control of the company.
Personally I think affording that level of control to an individual is supremely irresponsible once a corporation has reached a size that it's failure would cause severe harm to society. Especially since the people responsible, more often than not, remain extremely well off while the rest of us get to pick up the pieces.
It seems supremely unimaginative to believe that we couldn't easily come up with a situation where Jeff Bezos owns 0.01% of Amazon but still maintains full control of the company.
Personally I think affording that level of control to an individual is supremely irresponsible once a corporation has reached a size that it's failure would cause severe harm to society. Especially since the people responsible, more often than not, remain extremely well off while the rest of us get to pick up the pieces.
> Especially since the people responsible, more often than not, remain extremely well off while the rest of us get to pick up the pieces.
This is equally true of Wall St and the government, except that neither has shown they’re capable of managing the company — while the founder has.
I’m not seeing what the benefit is in removing control from someone successful to give it to people who are routinely not - eg, Wall St running Boeing into the ground, to the point their planes self-crash (737), can’t be certified because the doors blow off (777), or be manufactured to spec (787).
> supremely unimaginative to believe that we couldn't easily come up with a situation where Jeff Bezos owns 0.01% of Amazon but still maintains full control of the company
Your only argument for really complicated legal structures, including having to constantly change the ownership structure, is that you don’t like people who are wildly successful can parlay that success into other efforts?
Okay — but I think that’s dumb.
Why is it a problem that Jeff Bezos can try his hand at rockets now that he’s demonstrated success at leading Amazon? — or that Elon Musk can try fixing Twitter now that helps demonstrated success at Tesla?
This is equally true of Wall St and the government, except that neither has shown they’re capable of managing the company — while the founder has.
I’m not seeing what the benefit is in removing control from someone successful to give it to people who are routinely not - eg, Wall St running Boeing into the ground, to the point their planes self-crash (737), can’t be certified because the doors blow off (777), or be manufactured to spec (787).
> supremely unimaginative to believe that we couldn't easily come up with a situation where Jeff Bezos owns 0.01% of Amazon but still maintains full control of the company
Your only argument for really complicated legal structures, including having to constantly change the ownership structure, is that you don’t like people who are wildly successful can parlay that success into other efforts?
Okay — but I think that’s dumb.
Why is it a problem that Jeff Bezos can try his hand at rockets now that he’s demonstrated success at leading Amazon? — or that Elon Musk can try fixing Twitter now that helps demonstrated success at Tesla?
Bezos and Musk take far too much credit. Most of the work, including the intellectual work, the vast majority in fact, was done by other people.
Those are the people who should be celebrated, not the guy who happens to own the organisation, and nudges it now and again like some tinkering monarch.
Those are the people who should be celebrated, not the guy who happens to own the organisation, and nudges it now and again like some tinkering monarch.
A system that can arbitrarily take away all assets over 1 billion, will arbitrarily take assets of less than a billion. When the government has that much power, someone will come along and abuse it.
Also no matter how much money the government is given, it will never have enough.
Also no matter how much money the government is given, it will never have enough.
That argument seems flawed to me. The government already does have the power to tax, and could arbitrarily take away all your assets, but in developed nations, it doesn't.
Yeah it's interesting considering he cited individuals like Xi and Putin who essentially are the government of their respective countries getting horrible value for their wealth. And it's not just limited to dictatorships; the US didn't get shit for the $2 trillion it spent on the Afghan wars, and still lingers behind some smaller countries in QoL. While it's nice to extoll of efficiencies of scale, it's hard to say they work in practice. Maybe it would be a better idea to say any entity shouldn't have control over X amount of assets, whether individual, corporation, or government.
> and still lingers behind some smaller countries in QoL.
I hear this all the time and it’s a silly comparison. Some small homogenous country in Western Europe with citizens who subscribe to an empowering philosophy and share the same culture will obviously have a higher QoL.
It’s way easier to get the ship where you want it to go when most everyone is actually rowing and agrees on the direction.
I hear this all the time and it’s a silly comparison. Some small homogenous country in Western Europe with citizens who subscribe to an empowering philosophy and share the same culture will obviously have a higher QoL.
It’s way easier to get the ship where you want it to go when most everyone is actually rowing and agrees on the direction.
That supports my argument though. A highly populated country is much more likely to have citizens with clashing philosophies or cultures. Subdividing it to smaller states results in a state having less citizen "worth" but more efficient application of that worth overall.
Looking at the US specifically, what do you think about the Federal govt ceding power to groups “closer” to the individuals?
Dedicating more budget and leaving more laws up to localities like States, municipalities, etc.
Dedicating more budget and leaving more laws up to localities like States, municipalities, etc.
I've always been a fan of state over federal, but I don't think a lot of our states are "rich" enough to balance out the others. I'd imagine an optimal balance would be several of the lower population states be merged together based on culture until we have ~10 states with the wealth of Germany or some such, but then dumping a lot of the federal powers to before Wickard v. Filburn. The thing is that the impotence seems to kick in on the "super-large" continent sized countries, but that doesn't mean there isn't a minimum size too, of which a Vermont or Kentucky doesn't really meet compared to a Texas or California.
It should also be noted these changes would only practically be achieved with a time machine, because the social/economic/military cost of changing anything involving the foundation of the US nowadays would be apocalyptic
It should also be noted these changes would only practically be achieved with a time machine, because the social/economic/military cost of changing anything involving the foundation of the US nowadays would be apocalyptic
> it's too large topic to have a full discussion here.
It's not a large topic at all. There's a belief that there should be no upper limit to wealth accumulation for an individual. It's nonsensical in extreme cases.
In practice, even the ultra wealthy know to split the wealth over multiple individuals/companies, which provides stability and splits accountability[1]. The IRS failure to audit the wealthy is both a testament to how effective wealth hiding is (making most attempts to curtail it, futile in the short term), but how ingrained the idea of limitless capitalism is with the current US Government as anything but a net-negative.
While the poor eventually try to "eat" the rich, statistically, it's unlikely that any given wealthy individual will be the unlucky one over time. So the idea of uncapped wealth as a virtue persists.
[1] It also introduces wasteage and grifting, to a degree.
It's not a large topic at all. There's a belief that there should be no upper limit to wealth accumulation for an individual. It's nonsensical in extreme cases.
In practice, even the ultra wealthy know to split the wealth over multiple individuals/companies, which provides stability and splits accountability[1]. The IRS failure to audit the wealthy is both a testament to how effective wealth hiding is (making most attempts to curtail it, futile in the short term), but how ingrained the idea of limitless capitalism is with the current US Government as anything but a net-negative.
While the poor eventually try to "eat" the rich, statistically, it's unlikely that any given wealthy individual will be the unlucky one over time. So the idea of uncapped wealth as a virtue persists.
[1] It also introduces wasteage and grifting, to a degree.
I'm not sure how he proposes to limit people to less than a billion dollars (or $100m as he also suggests) without completely overhauling the financial system. Seems like the harms of that are greater than the harms of having some extremely wealthy people (most of whose wealth is tied up in their businesses).
> how he proposes to limit people to less than a billion dollars (or $100m as he also suggests) without completely overhauling the financial system.
I mean, "there is a wealth tax that kicks in at $1,000,000,000 at 100%" is a one-line change. I don't see much issue. I mean, Bezos and Musk would have to sell some stock. And? That certainly is a possibility.
I mean, "there is a wealth tax that kicks in at $1,000,000,000 at 100%" is a one-line change. I don't see much issue. I mean, Bezos and Musk would have to sell some stock. And? That certainly is a possibility.
Sure that's one line. What about all the other changes you have to make as a consequence?
- You've now changed corporate governance, since companies can only grow to $2bn before a majority shareholder can no longer exist.
- You've created an opportunity for market manipulation since speculators can drive the price up to force a large shareholder to have to liquidate part of their position.
- What do you do in the event of a takeover? The acquirer buys the company for stock, the previous owner now has to liquidate some of that stock to pay for his increase in net worth. Situations like these are going to create problems for the legal and regulatory system.
Maybe some of those are unimportant or even desirable, my point is that it's not a simple change. It has large, far-reaching effects.
- You've now changed corporate governance, since companies can only grow to $2bn before a majority shareholder can no longer exist.
- You've created an opportunity for market manipulation since speculators can drive the price up to force a large shareholder to have to liquidate part of their position.
- What do you do in the event of a takeover? The acquirer buys the company for stock, the previous owner now has to liquidate some of that stock to pay for his increase in net worth. Situations like these are going to create problems for the legal and regulatory system.
Maybe some of those are unimportant or even desirable, my point is that it's not a simple change. It has large, far-reaching effects.
> You've now changed corporate governance, since companies can only grow to $2bn before a majority shareholder can no longer exist.
The vast majority of companies worth over $2bn don't have a majority shareholder. Do you think if Elon Musk didn't have a majority share of Tesla they would boot him. (BTW, he doesn't). I actually don't see any examples where that couldn't happen nor do I see any negative consequences.
> You've created an opportunity for market manipulation since speculators can drive the price up to force a large shareholder to have to liquidate part of their position.
To what end? But sure, market fluctuations happen, and we would need to prevent that.
> What do you do in the event of a takeover? The acquirer buys the company for stock, the previous owner now has to liquidate some of that stock to pay for his increase in net worth. Situations like these are going to create problems for the legal and regulatory system.
I don't understand how that's different from "what happens when stocks go up".
Obviously, the effects are far reaching, I'm pretty sure that's the goal. And I think a naive wealth cutoff isn't a good idea. But the idea that we couldn't deal with the fallout seems a bit crazy to me.
The vast majority of companies worth over $2bn don't have a majority shareholder. Do you think if Elon Musk didn't have a majority share of Tesla they would boot him. (BTW, he doesn't). I actually don't see any examples where that couldn't happen nor do I see any negative consequences.
> You've created an opportunity for market manipulation since speculators can drive the price up to force a large shareholder to have to liquidate part of their position.
To what end? But sure, market fluctuations happen, and we would need to prevent that.
> What do you do in the event of a takeover? The acquirer buys the company for stock, the previous owner now has to liquidate some of that stock to pay for his increase in net worth. Situations like these are going to create problems for the legal and regulatory system.
I don't understand how that's different from "what happens when stocks go up".
Obviously, the effects are far reaching, I'm pretty sure that's the goal. And I think a naive wealth cutoff isn't a good idea. But the idea that we couldn't deal with the fallout seems a bit crazy to me.
Tl;dr
Even if you are #1 of 8,000,000,000 , you are still just 1 in 8,000,000,000
To be perfectly fair I think many of the leaders cited in this piece know perfectly well that they are easily replaced.
Like, take the most traumatic instances such as JFK or Lincoln being shot. Yes there were a couple of days of sorrow (or better yet fake sorrow) but after a couple of days everybody moved on.
Pyramids were supposed to be monuments to the Pharoahs, but after a while the fame of structure managed to surpass the fame of the person buried underneath.
When there are so many humans the marginal value of any human plummets to record lows.
Take Jesus, he's unrivaled at #1, but if we are being honest what's really the % of waking hours that humanity as a whole spends thinking about him during a fiscal year?
It gets diluted into almost insignificant levels of attention.
Even if you are #1 of 8,000,000,000 , you are still just 1 in 8,000,000,000
To be perfectly fair I think many of the leaders cited in this piece know perfectly well that they are easily replaced.
Like, take the most traumatic instances such as JFK or Lincoln being shot. Yes there were a couple of days of sorrow (or better yet fake sorrow) but after a couple of days everybody moved on.
Pyramids were supposed to be monuments to the Pharoahs, but after a while the fame of structure managed to surpass the fame of the person buried underneath.
When there are so many humans the marginal value of any human plummets to record lows.
Take Jesus, he's unrivaled at #1, but if we are being honest what's really the % of waking hours that humanity as a whole spends thinking about him during a fiscal year?
It gets diluted into almost insignificant levels of attention.
I always think that many people overthink things and tend to make them more complicated than they really are.
If you live in NYC you get to see all leaders come around for the General Assembly, you'd see Presidents , Prime Ministers etc. Including people who have been in public office for 20 years.
It's not like servers at NOBU get on their knees to worship them when they take their order.
It's people like the author of this piece who make a big deal about it or even Lex Fridman who see such figures and would become a doormat for the privilege of an interview with Putin or Musk, interview during which they'd just repeat over and over again the same talking points they have been fed by their PR managers or lawyers.
So I don't see the need for a numerical ceiling to wealth, at least in the US the ceiling is provided by the self-respect of the avg. citizen. Americans are very proud and don't allow anybody to buy them out easily.
Like when Musk tried to bribe that kid tracking his jet with 5,000$ . The kid asked him 50,000$. Had Musk accepted 50,000$ , he'd have asked 500,000$. Had Musk accepted 500,000$ he'd asked 5,000,000$...
There might be some crazy people who easily fall into cults, but by and large they are the minority and the halo effect vanishes very early.
If you live in NYC you get to see all leaders come around for the General Assembly, you'd see Presidents , Prime Ministers etc. Including people who have been in public office for 20 years.
It's not like servers at NOBU get on their knees to worship them when they take their order.
It's people like the author of this piece who make a big deal about it or even Lex Fridman who see such figures and would become a doormat for the privilege of an interview with Putin or Musk, interview during which they'd just repeat over and over again the same talking points they have been fed by their PR managers or lawyers.
So I don't see the need for a numerical ceiling to wealth, at least in the US the ceiling is provided by the self-respect of the avg. citizen. Americans are very proud and don't allow anybody to buy them out easily.
Like when Musk tried to bribe that kid tracking his jet with 5,000$ . The kid asked him 50,000$. Had Musk accepted 50,000$ , he'd have asked 500,000$. Had Musk accepted 500,000$ he'd asked 5,000,000$...
There might be some crazy people who easily fall into cults, but by and large they are the minority and the halo effect vanishes very early.
I'm anti-capitalist too, but I think the capitalist argument is that wealth is the incentive to innovate in the marketplace - it doesn't matter whether it's actually useful, but that it motivates hard work. I think this argument is easily debunked by pointing to the comparative innovation of businesses versus state-funded research, or that wealth is created by the work of the employees moreso than the founders, but that's the argument.
it is incomprehensible to me that people can be "anti capitalists" when capitalism has reduced poverty and suffering to the lowest level in human history.
Socialist countries routinely nationalize food production and immediately create shortages. This happens over and over.
Capitalism isnt just the innovation of the kernel of a product, it is marketing, selling, manufacturing, distributing, and supporting a product.
That takes capital and it requires risk. Capital is constantly being squandered on ideas that go nowhere, but some are successful and the overall system is more productive.
The key point is that no one can predict in advance which ideas and teams will be successful. Capital backs them all and the market determines which ones succeed.
It is human nature to try to acquire more, when that is rewarded, people respond (by working harder, more efficiently, or with innovation).
Labor usually thinks management is useless or dumb. And most managers are bad. But you can look at world class leaders and see that they do matter and can make or break an organization. Look at the bulls under phil jackson, then when he left for the lakers. And then when he left the lakers.
Socialist countries routinely nationalize food production and immediately create shortages. This happens over and over.
Capitalism isnt just the innovation of the kernel of a product, it is marketing, selling, manufacturing, distributing, and supporting a product.
That takes capital and it requires risk. Capital is constantly being squandered on ideas that go nowhere, but some are successful and the overall system is more productive.
The key point is that no one can predict in advance which ideas and teams will be successful. Capital backs them all and the market determines which ones succeed.
It is human nature to try to acquire more, when that is rewarded, people respond (by working harder, more efficiently, or with innovation).
Labor usually thinks management is useless or dumb. And most managers are bad. But you can look at world class leaders and see that they do matter and can make or break an organization. Look at the bulls under phil jackson, then when he left for the lakers. And then when he left the lakers.
> Socialist countries routinely nationalize food production and immediately create shortages. This happens over and over.
Socialist countries are routinely embargoed by capitalist countries, severely limiting their access to global markets. That's if they're lucky, if they're unlucky they're destabilised through targeted assassination of their leaders[0].
If you're even less lucky you'll be captured by the people the U.S. think are the good guys[1] instead of whatever socialist party was gaining traction. I sure hope the torture centre the U.S. military helped set up was built with private capital:
> The United States backed Alfredo Stroessner's anti-communist military dictatorship and played a "critical supporting role" in the domestic affairs of Stroessner's Paraguay. For instance, U.S. Army officer Lieutenant Colonel Robert Thierry was sent to help local workmen build a detention and interrogation center named "La Technica" as part of Operation Condor. La Technica was also a well known torture centre. Stroessner's secret police, headed by Pastor Coronel, bathed their captives in tubs of human vomit and excrement and shocked them in the rectum with electric cattle prods. They dismembered the Communist party secretary, Miguel Ángel Soler , alive with a chainsaw while Stroessner listened on the phone. Stroessner demanded the tapes of detainees screaming in pain to be played to their family members.
> That takes capital and it requires risk. Capital is constantly being squandered on ideas that go nowhere, but some are successful and the overall system is more productive.
Government funded research through universities and the military do so much of the foundational work here that it seems crazy to attribute it to private capital.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fide... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
Socialist countries are routinely embargoed by capitalist countries, severely limiting their access to global markets. That's if they're lucky, if they're unlucky they're destabilised through targeted assassination of their leaders[0].
If you're even less lucky you'll be captured by the people the U.S. think are the good guys[1] instead of whatever socialist party was gaining traction. I sure hope the torture centre the U.S. military helped set up was built with private capital:
> The United States backed Alfredo Stroessner's anti-communist military dictatorship and played a "critical supporting role" in the domestic affairs of Stroessner's Paraguay. For instance, U.S. Army officer Lieutenant Colonel Robert Thierry was sent to help local workmen build a detention and interrogation center named "La Technica" as part of Operation Condor. La Technica was also a well known torture centre. Stroessner's secret police, headed by Pastor Coronel, bathed their captives in tubs of human vomit and excrement and shocked them in the rectum with electric cattle prods. They dismembered the Communist party secretary, Miguel Ángel Soler , alive with a chainsaw while Stroessner listened on the phone. Stroessner demanded the tapes of detainees screaming in pain to be played to their family members.
> That takes capital and it requires risk. Capital is constantly being squandered on ideas that go nowhere, but some are successful and the overall system is more productive.
Government funded research through universities and the military do so much of the foundational work here that it seems crazy to attribute it to private capital.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fide... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
It seems to me that except for a small group of crazy persons on the internet fascinated with the imagery of the Soviet Union and a "US bad justifies anything" hard line on the internet and some sectarian self-proclaimed marxist-[leninist] groups no modern anti-capitalist will seriously defend any of the self-proclaimed "socialist" state. (I very much hope that) the consensus in the Left seems to be that a state-owned economy + no democracy = Horror.
One of the hard part is trying to understand what capitalism even is. In that endeavour, Marx has only laid out the basis for an analysis at the end of his life in The Capital. It's an unfinished work, hindered by a philosophical education he did his best to shake off. Most social sciences did not exist or weren't well established to help him then.
You are only seeing the good sides of capitalism because you are on the good side of the stick if I may say. But without regulations, capitalism incentives are to brutally exploit all living workforce at hand, and this has been very from the beginning of capitalism. It is true that scientific advances in production (and especially the algricultural revolutions) have enabled to production of a incredibly well (in terms of calories available) and cheaply fed workforce which in the end also benefits the working class but this might well be a relatively recent development in the history of capitalism and may have with the fact that investing in mechanization may have seem the best of option in times of working people unrest. Plus you have to factor in the competition that took place with the USSR to be the most prosperous for all state/model.
Maybe the solution is capitalism with regulations/better incentives, maybe it is democratic governance inside of corporations, maybe something else I don't know but history has shown times and times again that unregulated capitalism is awful for most of humankind. I am ready to acknowlegde that market mechanisms have their usefulness but that usefulness must be harnessed for greater good, it should not be turned into a religion.
Whether there exists or not a "human nature", trying to derive social phenomenas directly from it seems a deeply unscientific approach to understanding social systems that does not seem fit for the 21st century.
One of the hard part is trying to understand what capitalism even is. In that endeavour, Marx has only laid out the basis for an analysis at the end of his life in The Capital. It's an unfinished work, hindered by a philosophical education he did his best to shake off. Most social sciences did not exist or weren't well established to help him then.
You are only seeing the good sides of capitalism because you are on the good side of the stick if I may say. But without regulations, capitalism incentives are to brutally exploit all living workforce at hand, and this has been very from the beginning of capitalism. It is true that scientific advances in production (and especially the algricultural revolutions) have enabled to production of a incredibly well (in terms of calories available) and cheaply fed workforce which in the end also benefits the working class but this might well be a relatively recent development in the history of capitalism and may have with the fact that investing in mechanization may have seem the best of option in times of working people unrest. Plus you have to factor in the competition that took place with the USSR to be the most prosperous for all state/model.
Maybe the solution is capitalism with regulations/better incentives, maybe it is democratic governance inside of corporations, maybe something else I don't know but history has shown times and times again that unregulated capitalism is awful for most of humankind. I am ready to acknowlegde that market mechanisms have their usefulness but that usefulness must be harnessed for greater good, it should not be turned into a religion.
Whether there exists or not a "human nature", trying to derive social phenomenas directly from it seems a deeply unscientific approach to understanding social systems that does not seem fit for the 21st century.
Utterly disingenuous characterization of the impact of Musk in his capacity as Tesla's first major investor, first chairman and 14 year long CEO, and of SpaceX on commercial space flight:
But before you point at Musk and Tesla or SpaceX, I need to remind you that he didn't found Tesla, he merely bought into it then took over: SpaceX's focus on reusability is good, but we had reusable space launchers before—the only really new angle is that it's a cost-reduction measure. Starlink isn't an original, it's merely a modern, bigger, faster version of 1990's Teledesic (which fell victim to over-ambitious technology goals and the dot-com bust).
I sometimes wonder what kind of psychopathology motivates this kind of mindset and ideology, that prioritizes the demonization of the most financially successful over even basic integrity and truth.
But before you point at Musk and Tesla or SpaceX, I need to remind you that he didn't found Tesla, he merely bought into it then took over: SpaceX's focus on reusability is good, but we had reusable space launchers before—the only really new angle is that it's a cost-reduction measure. Starlink isn't an original, it's merely a modern, bigger, faster version of 1990's Teledesic (which fell victim to over-ambitious technology goals and the dot-com bust).
I sometimes wonder what kind of psychopathology motivates this kind of mindset and ideology, that prioritizes the demonization of the most financially successful over even basic integrity and truth.
A lot of people look at everything in simple, reductionist way. Musk is either a god or he's a charlatan who stole companies and contributes nothing. Some people do this to influence a view point and others do this because they are simpletons echoing sentiments that feel good to them, this is how it has always been.
I'd like to propose two very simple rules:
You can have as many non-controlling/non-voting shares on any business entity, but you can only contribute directly to one.
Put those in place, and you destroy corporatism and with it you destroy the concentration of power. Politically, it's much easier to sell "no one should have this much power" over "no one should be allowed to amass so much money". Left and Right could easily be united on this.