3 ms·
personally i'd be ok starting with a 10% haircut. that leaves a cool nearly-$8T with its "rightful" (hah) owners, and would be a token step forward towards retu
by maximente 7y ago
personally i'd be ok starting with a 10% haircut. that leaves a cool nearly-$8T with its "rightful" (hah) owners, and would be a token step forward towards returning the assets gained from monopolistic, exploitative, and rent-seeking treatment of those without capital. no need to play the "good" zillionaire card - i'm not interested.
that measly $870B would give a lot of people opportunities to invest capital in things like:
- food safety/anti-hunger efforts. somehow the whole "efficient allocation of resources" capitalism approach hasn't fixed this one yet, so seems reasonable to empower those who need food with cash directly
- financial infrastructure for under/unbanked that isn't sleezy and exploitative for shareholders' sake
- health basics e.g. medicines, birth control
- local infra e.g. roads, power that we know pays dividends but our benevolent trillionaire overlords won't do due to decades-long horizons
- marcoperaza 7y agoIt's just not true that those things are problems because of some lack of money. Those things are problems because of corruption, crime, and bad government. Regimes that get it right, e.g. the Asian Tigers, experience rapid growth.