11 ms·

philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing. it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with.

by exit 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
MikeCapone 16y ago
Who decides how much wealth it is okay to accumulate? (said another way: who decides how economically productive a person can be?)
- Ardit20 16y ago
  We, the People! We decide who to lock up, so why not put a limit on how much wealth one can accumulate, say something like no more than 1000% of the average wage, all other income taxed at 100%, or 90% or 80%. They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair!
  - MikeCapone 16y ago
    > They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair! I can't tell if this is serious or parody. Honestly.
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      I think I was being fairly serious. Do you have any reason to think that the part you quoted was a parody?
      - MikeCapone 16y ago
        Because I thought that of all places, a site dedicated to entrepreneurship would attract people who understand that it isn't true that the only way to make money is to "exploit the proletariat", but rather that the proletariat would be a lot worse off without successful entrepreneurs.
        MikeCapone 16y ago
        Addendum: Maybe this has something to do with it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2gd/fight_zerosum_bias/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2gd/fight_zerosum_bias/
        Ardit20 16y ago
        Well, if Mr Gates charges me 500 rather than 400 then well his gain is my loss. So too if he pays me 11k rather than 12k, keeping that extra k as profit for himself, his gain is my loss.
  - MikeCapone 16y ago
    > We, the People! Which, in practice, means: People who are thirsty enough for power to go into politics (you have to really want power to endure that kind of life), and groups with political clout (farmers, unions, big corps, rent-seekers of all kinds, etc).
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      Yes, that might be what it means, but in all fairness, those same people decide if you go to jail for killing someone or not. There is nothing technically to prevent the legislature from legalising murder. Or torture as effectively they did during Bush years. So if they are an evil to be endured in such very fundamental matters, why not when it comes to a very serious matter too, the exploitation of people. These ideas are of course very unconventional, hence why they get downvoted so freely without any counter argument, but does anyone in this website thing seriously that the rich do not have such tight control over the government that they are at liberty to legitimise theft pure and simple. If not, then does anyone in here possibly think that any person in the rich list is so marvellously superior to any of us to deserve having the wealth of an entire country? If so, do enlighten me. I will change my opinion entirely that there is a deep flow in our society which is fundamentally unfair and affords much cruelty to many.
      - whatusername 16y ago
        If by superior then you mean much smarter, luckier and older -- then yes. I believe that many of them are.
- angstrom 16y ago
  Why, the Star Fleet Federation of course. ;) Seriously, even if wealth were capped such that you could only attain a multiple of the median income or some other bench mark it would only serve as a straight jacket for productivity. Distributing those gains back to society directly would only serve inflation as the relative cost of goods and services would seek equilibrium with demand and the existing money supply. The only thing I can imagine is having excess productivity siphoned off via a tax or general fund that reinvests back into society...which is the goal of philanthropic efforts. Instead of giving their children the trust fund, it becomes a resource for society to focus on the things the free market neglects.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    You are missing a great and fundamental point. You see Bill Gates was one guy. Clever perhaps, very clever maybe indeed, lucky also let us say for the sake of the argument. But he is only one guy! He has the wealth of millions of people. How many have gone insane and started feeding pigeons like Telsa, how many have been unable to afford higher education, how many people were denied the opportunity to contribute to the world because they were not born in a middle upper class family as Gates was. By the way, inflation would not go up, nor as you speculate will things even out and be once more as they are now but Bill be denied of his billions. The world is a zero sum game, it costs that much to produce a certain something and unless people want to make excessive profits like Mr Gates then it would costs just as much. Maybe I am arguing against the wind, but so too maybe people have forgotten that they could have been born in any environment, that they could be right now starving for food in Africa, that they could be that loony man in the corner of the shop begging for money. We are lucky that we are not, but for how long. People accepted feudalism in the 16th century too. Without acceptance and a legitimate expectation from society that it is acceptable for someone to exploit you to death while they live in luxury feudalism would not be a fact, without the cultural acceptance that it is fine to enslave others and treat them as inferior slavery would not be a fact. What make us think that now it is different, what makes you think or anyone reading this that accumulation of such great wealth for no rational reason whatever is justifiable?
philk 16y ago
philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing You're wrong. The Gates Foundation has pledged $10 billion to vaccine research and I can't think of how that could be considered "patronizing". it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with. I disagree. The most productive people in society should be rewarded accordingly, and encouraged to keep producing. If you put a cap on rewards you'll put a cap on productivity.
- sbov 16y ago
  I don't agree with a wealth cap, but: How do you define productivity, the one who makes the most money? Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. Some businesses (see: credit cards) are most profitable when they siphon billions from the poor, which is then placed in the hands of the rich. Then, after doing so, they are lauded for donating that money to philanthropic causes. I don't know how this can be viewed as anything other than patronizing.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. In my experience, this isn't how the vast majority of wealthy people operate. It's how it's portrayed in the movies, but it doesn't really jive with the real world. People love stories of the evil geniuses so those get spread around, but the vast majority of wealthy people deliver pretty well, keep their promises, work extremely hard, are fair and even-handed, and make the world a better place. Generally speaking, the higher up you go in wealth, the more likely you are to get a fair shake by that person in business. It's hard to get wealthy without people trusting you and building a good reputation as a reliable and effective person. You're much more likely to have someone try to screw you over if they're poor or middle class - which is why those people remain poor and middle class. It's quite hard to get wealthy if you're leaving a trail of carnage behind you (it's been done, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder).

philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing. it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with.

by exit 16y ago

philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing. it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

MikeCapone 16y ago

Who decides how much wealth it is okay to accumulate? (said another way: who decides how economically productive a person can be?)

Ardit20 16y ago
We, the People! We decide who to lock up, so why not put a limit on how much wealth one can accumulate, say something like no more than 1000% of the average wage, all other income taxed at 100%, or 90% or 80%. They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair!
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  > They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair! I can't tell if this is serious or parody. Honestly.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    I think I was being fairly serious. Do you have any reason to think that the part you quoted was a parody?
    - MikeCapone 16y ago
      Because I thought that of all places, a site dedicated to entrepreneurship would attract people who understand that it isn't true that the only way to make money is to "exploit the proletariat", but rather that the proletariat would be a lot worse off without successful entrepreneurs.
      - MikeCapone 16y ago
        Addendum: Maybe this has something to do with it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2gd/fight_zerosum_bias/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2gd/fight_zerosum_bias/
        Ardit20 16y ago
        Well, if Mr Gates charges me 500 rather than 400 then well his gain is my loss. So too if he pays me 11k rather than 12k, keeping that extra k as profit for himself, his gain is my loss.
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  > We, the People! Which, in practice, means: People who are thirsty enough for power to go into politics (you have to really want power to endure that kind of life), and groups with political clout (farmers, unions, big corps, rent-seekers of all kinds, etc).
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    Yes, that might be what it means, but in all fairness, those same people decide if you go to jail for killing someone or not. There is nothing technically to prevent the legislature from legalising murder. Or torture as effectively they did during Bush years. So if they are an evil to be endured in such very fundamental matters, why not when it comes to a very serious matter too, the exploitation of people. These ideas are of course very unconventional, hence why they get downvoted so freely without any counter argument, but does anyone in this website thing seriously that the rich do not have such tight control over the government that they are at liberty to legitimise theft pure and simple. If not, then does anyone in here possibly think that any person in the rich list is so marvellously superior to any of us to deserve having the wealth of an entire country? If so, do enlighten me. I will change my opinion entirely that there is a deep flow in our society which is fundamentally unfair and affords much cruelty to many.
    - whatusername 16y ago
      If by superior then you mean much smarter, luckier and older -- then yes. I believe that many of them are.
angstrom 16y ago
Why, the Star Fleet Federation of course. ;) Seriously, even if wealth were capped such that you could only attain a multiple of the median income or some other bench mark it would only serve as a straight jacket for productivity. Distributing those gains back to society directly would only serve inflation as the relative cost of goods and services would seek equilibrium with demand and the existing money supply. The only thing I can imagine is having excess productivity siphoned off via a tax or general fund that reinvests back into society...which is the goal of philanthropic efforts. Instead of giving their children the trust fund, it becomes a resource for society to focus on the things the free market neglects.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Ardit20 16y ago
  You are missing a great and fundamental point. You see Bill Gates was one guy. Clever perhaps, very clever maybe indeed, lucky also let us say for the sake of the argument. But he is only one guy! He has the wealth of millions of people. How many have gone insane and started feeding pigeons like Telsa, how many have been unable to afford higher education, how many people were denied the opportunity to contribute to the world because they were not born in a middle upper class family as Gates was. By the way, inflation would not go up, nor as you speculate will things even out and be once more as they are now but Bill be denied of his billions. The world is a zero sum game, it costs that much to produce a certain something and unless people want to make excessive profits like Mr Gates then it would costs just as much. Maybe I am arguing against the wind, but so too maybe people have forgotten that they could have been born in any environment, that they could be right now starving for food in Africa, that they could be that loony man in the corner of the shop begging for money. We are lucky that we are not, but for how long. People accepted feudalism in the 16th century too. Without acceptance and a legitimate expectation from society that it is acceptable for someone to exploit you to death while they live in luxury feudalism would not be a fact, without the cultural acceptance that it is fine to enslave others and treat them as inferior slavery would not be a fact. What make us think that now it is different, what makes you think or anyone reading this that accumulation of such great wealth for no rational reason whatever is justifiable?

philk 16y ago

philanthropic donations are only ever patronizing You're wrong. The Gates Foundation has pledged $10 billion to vaccine research and I can't think of how that could be considered "patronizing". it shouldn't be possible to accumulate that much wealth to begin with. I disagree. The most productive people in society should be rewarded accordingly, and encouraged to keep producing. If you put a cap on rewards you'll put a cap on productivity.

sbov 16y ago
I don't agree with a wealth cap, but: How do you define productivity, the one who makes the most money? Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. Some businesses (see: credit cards) are most profitable when they siphon billions from the poor, which is then placed in the hands of the rich. Then, after doing so, they are lauded for donating that money to philanthropic causes. I don't know how this can be viewed as anything other than patronizing.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > Theres also this mentality that pretty much anything goes in businesses, which I find a bit interesting. Hence the phrase: it's not personal, it's business. So people are allowed to screw you over and be complete a-holes when it comes to business. In my experience, this isn't how the vast majority of wealthy people operate. It's how it's portrayed in the movies, but it doesn't really jive with the real world. People love stories of the evil geniuses so those get spread around, but the vast majority of wealthy people deliver pretty well, keep their promises, work extremely hard, are fair and even-handed, and make the world a better place. Generally speaking, the higher up you go in wealth, the more likely you are to get a fair shake by that person in business. It's hard to get wealthy without people trusting you and building a good reputation as a reliable and effective person. You're much more likely to have someone try to screw you over if they're poor or middle class - which is why those people remain poor and middle class. It's quite hard to get wealthy if you're leaving a trail of carnage behind you (it's been done, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder).