6 ms·

I hate this shit. It's kind of unbelievable that this kind of wealth concentrated with such few people is allowed to exist. If it could realistically be capped

I hate this shit. It's kind of unbelievable that this kind of wealth concentrated with such few people is allowed to exist. If it could realistically be capped at, say, $10mil or something, why not? Nobody needs more than that. Yes, you could say the same for one million or a hundred, but you have to start somewhere. It makes me sick that this is the society we live in. This pathetic striving for maximum wealth, in an eternal competition over who has a bigger ficitious number attached to their family emblem, no matter what the societal, ethical and global consequences, is close to the root of all evil in my opinion.

lend000 8y ago
What system do you suggest that has a track record of lifting more people out of poverty than capitalism? On average, people tend to efficiently manage their productive capacities in the pursuit of wealth.
- falcolas 8y ago
  A benevolent dictatorship; there are many individual examples of dictators bettering everyone's lives. The problem is that they can't ever last more than one generation, and it takes only one self-centered dictator (which I would argue is the norm) to undo all the good. I'd also argue that capitalism is on a downward trend when it comes to lifting people out of poverty. One doesn't have to look much further than Wallmart or McDonalds to see the cracks in the "uplifting from poverty" walls (paying salaries that must be supplemented by federal aid or second/third jobs).
- throwaway77384 8y ago
  Actually, that is an excellent point. I do not suggest another system. I guess there is this strange notion that Capitalism is this "all or nothing" system, where you either get a free market with its invisible hand or nothing. This sort of "Everything else is communism" thinking. We all know that this is not true. Capitalist societies have all sorts of schemes that are "un-capitalistic". Take public healthcare. In some ways that's a very socialist idea. At the same time, you could argue it supports the capitalist system by taking various burdens off the workforce, enabling them to spend more time generating more money than it cost to implement the socialist health care. My theory is that concentration of wealth is incredibly dangerous to society because it gives disproportionate power to very few individuals. The control these people exert over policy, their workers, our entire culture leaves us at their whim. This results in things like Brexit and the insane clusterfuck that's the current US government and the populist right-wing uprising in Europe. I don't care whether someone has tons of money so they can wank themselves to sleep over their financial portfolio. I do care when society as a whole, human progress, everyone's actions are filtered through the lens of a few rich people's actions and desires. I hate this notion that the population-at-large is just a sideshow on this rich-people's playground we call earth. It is sickening. The wealth that these people amass does not trickle down and is not used for more useful things than it would be if this wealth was somehow capped and re-distributed for the benefit of society. (And believe me, I know that on the flipside this would be a breeding ground for bloated institution wasting money with their inefficiency. This would also not be a 'perfect' system by any means, but I do believe it would be better than whatever it is we are currently steering towards.) To quickly touch on people being lifted out of poverty. I am all for it. But under what conditions? Is a Foxconn factory worker someone who was lifted out of poverty? Is a quasi-slave working on the Qatari football stadium lifted out of poverty? In exchange for what? Is the ever-decreasing quality of life people on disability benefits in the UK, being harassed by the DWP 24/7 and stripped of all agency and freedom worth it, because they are not considered "below the red line poor"? Would the reinvigoration of public services by capping wealth (or introducing profit sharing in companies, or 20:1 pay ratios / stock option ratios for companies) be so devastating to all of society that it would indeed be worse than the current destruction of democracy by your Murdochs, Kochs, Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Rothchilds and whomever else super-rich acting in their own interests?
  - lend000 8y ago
    I also agree for progressive measures to prevent huge wealth inequality, which is not the sign of a healthy free market economy. The wealth distribution of the mid 20th century is much more in line with what I and some economists believe to be 'optimal inequality.' Interesting link here: http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/is-there-an-ideal-amount-of-income-inequality http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/is-there-an-ideal-amount-... However, I have very different ideas about why it exists and how to fix it. In my opinion, over-regulation, taxes, and nanny-state-ism have caused both financial problems and culture problems. Our heavy handed government continues to further disincentivize risk-taking, a hallmark of a free society, it entrenches wealth (both private individuals and big companies) by preventing average folks from taking risks in the financial system in the name of protecting them, and by adding thousands of pages of regulations to big industries (be it cable, credit reporting, banking, and soon social media) making them inaccessible to startups without both deep pockets and connections. We also have a government that prefers an inflationary currency for the illusion of growth and questionable long-term benefits, even though the poorest are least able to translate their cash into cash-flow producing assets and the wealthiest have capital gains taxes capped at a lower rate than a relatively low-income earner's taxes, which is indeed a regressive system. Not to mention all of this is done with a nearly regressive tax system (on top of the existing inflation tax, which hits low income earners hardest). > Is a Foxconn factory worker someone who was lifted out of poverty? Is a quasi-slave working on the Qatari football stadium lifted out of poverty? In exchange for what? I would counter by asking whether these workers living in free market societies? Clearly not, both are working in dictatorships and are not free at all. Even the US is far from a free market system due to many points, some of which I touch on in this thread. > Would the reinvigoration of public services by capping wealth (or introducing profit sharing in companies, or 20:1 pay ratios / stock option ratios for companies) be so devastating to all of society that it would indeed be worse than the current destruction of democracy by your Murdochs, Kochs, Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Rothchilds and whomever else super-rich acting in their own interests? Yes I think that's the wrong way to go about it. I don't believe in forceful, direct wealth distribution against people who committed no crimes, nor hard, arbitrary caps determined by bureaucrats. Ask questions about how it happened and how to make it better. How about we start with updated income tax brackets for the super-rich or a negative income tax? Right now the highest brackets hit people who are really not that rich (making 470k as the top bracket pays the same rate as someone who made 50m, and probably more considering higher amounts are usually capital gains), where really these brackets should be spread out way further up to 100 million, and perhaps there should be discounts for wealth factored into the income tax -- e.g. if you sold your first startup for 5 million you should pay a bit less than a CEO worth 100m who makes 5m every year. Combining that with a graduated capital gains system that is updated for the modern world (where 470k isn't considered the 'richest class') would go a long way, especially if rates are reduced for people making less than 400k in the current system.

lend000 8y ago

What system do you suggest that has a track record of lifting more people out of poverty than capitalism? On average, people tend to efficiently manage their productive capacities in the pursuit of wealth.

falcolas 8y ago
A benevolent dictatorship; there are many individual examples of dictators bettering everyone's lives. The problem is that they can't ever last more than one generation, and it takes only one self-centered dictator (which I would argue is the norm) to undo all the good. I'd also argue that capitalism is on a downward trend when it comes to lifting people out of poverty. One doesn't have to look much further than Wallmart or McDonalds to see the cracks in the "uplifting from poverty" walls (paying salaries that must be supplemented by federal aid or second/third jobs).
throwaway77384 8y ago
Actually, that is an excellent point. I do not suggest another system. I guess there is this strange notion that Capitalism is this "all or nothing" system, where you either get a free market with its invisible hand or nothing. This sort of "Everything else is communism" thinking. We all know that this is not true. Capitalist societies have all sorts of schemes that are "un-capitalistic". Take public healthcare. In some ways that's a very socialist idea. At the same time, you could argue it supports the capitalist system by taking various burdens off the workforce, enabling them to spend more time generating more money than it cost to implement the socialist health care. My theory is that concentration of wealth is incredibly dangerous to society because it gives disproportionate power to very few individuals. The control these people exert over policy, their workers, our entire culture leaves us at their whim. This results in things like Brexit and the insane clusterfuck that's the current US government and the populist right-wing uprising in Europe. I don't care whether someone has tons of money so they can wank themselves to sleep over their financial portfolio. I do care when society as a whole, human progress, everyone's actions are filtered through the lens of a few rich people's actions and desires. I hate this notion that the population-at-large is just a sideshow on this rich-people's playground we call earth. It is sickening. The wealth that these people amass does not trickle down and is not used for more useful things than it would be if this wealth was somehow capped and re-distributed for the benefit of society. (And believe me, I know that on the flipside this would be a breeding ground for bloated institution wasting money with their inefficiency. This would also not be a 'perfect' system by any means, but I do believe it would be better than whatever it is we are currently steering towards.) To quickly touch on people being lifted out of poverty. I am all for it. But under what conditions? Is a Foxconn factory worker someone who was lifted out of poverty? Is a quasi-slave working on the Qatari football stadium lifted out of poverty? In exchange for what? Is the ever-decreasing quality of life people on disability benefits in the UK, being harassed by the DWP 24/7 and stripped of all agency and freedom worth it, because they are not considered "below the red line poor"? Would the reinvigoration of public services by capping wealth (or introducing profit sharing in companies, or 20:1 pay ratios / stock option ratios for companies) be so devastating to all of society that it would indeed be worse than the current destruction of democracy by your Murdochs, Kochs, Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Rothchilds and whomever else super-rich acting in their own interests?
- lend000 8y ago
  I also agree for progressive measures to prevent huge wealth inequality, which is not the sign of a healthy free market economy. The wealth distribution of the mid 20th century is much more in line with what I and some economists believe to be 'optimal inequality.' Interesting link here: http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/is-there-an-ideal-amount-of-income-inequality http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/is-there-an-ideal-amount-... However, I have very different ideas about why it exists and how to fix it. In my opinion, over-regulation, taxes, and nanny-state-ism have caused both financial problems and culture problems. Our heavy handed government continues to further disincentivize risk-taking, a hallmark of a free society, it entrenches wealth (both private individuals and big companies) by preventing average folks from taking risks in the financial system in the name of protecting them, and by adding thousands of pages of regulations to big industries (be it cable, credit reporting, banking, and soon social media) making them inaccessible to startups without both deep pockets and connections. We also have a government that prefers an inflationary currency for the illusion of growth and questionable long-term benefits, even though the poorest are least able to translate their cash into cash-flow producing assets and the wealthiest have capital gains taxes capped at a lower rate than a relatively low-income earner's taxes, which is indeed a regressive system. Not to mention all of this is done with a nearly regressive tax system (on top of the existing inflation tax, which hits low income earners hardest). > Is a Foxconn factory worker someone who was lifted out of poverty? Is a quasi-slave working on the Qatari football stadium lifted out of poverty? In exchange for what? I would counter by asking whether these workers living in free market societies? Clearly not, both are working in dictatorships and are not free at all. Even the US is far from a free market system due to many points, some of which I touch on in this thread. > Would the reinvigoration of public services by capping wealth (or introducing profit sharing in companies, or 20:1 pay ratios / stock option ratios for companies) be so devastating to all of society that it would indeed be worse than the current destruction of democracy by your Murdochs, Kochs, Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Rothchilds and whomever else super-rich acting in their own interests? Yes I think that's the wrong way to go about it. I don't believe in forceful, direct wealth distribution against people who committed no crimes, nor hard, arbitrary caps determined by bureaucrats. Ask questions about how it happened and how to make it better. How about we start with updated income tax brackets for the super-rich or a negative income tax? Right now the highest brackets hit people who are really not that rich (making 470k as the top bracket pays the same rate as someone who made 50m, and probably more considering higher amounts are usually capital gains), where really these brackets should be spread out way further up to 100 million, and perhaps there should be discounts for wealth factored into the income tax -- e.g. if you sold your first startup for 5 million you should pay a bit less than a CEO worth 100m who makes 5m every year. Combining that with a graduated capital gains system that is updated for the modern world (where 470k isn't considered the 'richest class') would go a long way, especially if rates are reduced for people making less than 400k in the current system.