4 ms·

What about this alternative: Capitalism where you can't amass more personal wealth than $100M. The only reason I would think you would need more money than th

What about this alternative: Capitalism where you can't amass more personal wealth than $100M. The only reason I would think you would need more money than that is if you wanted to push ideas that the population would not vote for. I have much more faith in people closer to issues solving them with more good faith and efficiency than unelected billionaires being effectively philanthropic. I would rather see more rich people relaxing with their wealth than trying to outmaneuver every last civil liberty we have for an extra dollar. Even better if they use their wealth to make their local community better. That way, there are actual human interactions between those making suggestions and voters. Makes a good environment for natural competition as well. Would we have a worse quality of life because of this? Important question, but my gut says no. I'm all for civil liberties, but uber rich people can get away with weird things because they can ignore all the "no's" and essentially bribe decision makers.

sudosysgen 6y ago
How do you distribute personal wealth after that 100 million? If you distribute it to the workers that create it and make it 20 million instead of 100 I think you'd be on to something.
- briefcomment 6y ago
  Something like that. Obviously the specifics are important, but I think the main advantage from this is the limiting of amassed wealth.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In that case can I interest you to market socialism? It is almost exactly that, except that you immediately start sharing your wealth as soon as you have a employees, in different amounts.
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      Market socialism sounds like what China does rather than preventing amassed wealth, but sure any system that accomplishes the goal of not letting individuals unreasonably impose their will on anyone else sounds good. Votes are powerful, but uber rich people can undermine voting.
      - danemorgan 6y ago
        China has "social markets", but this really just means capitalism with a communist party oversite. They allow billionaires and will soon have more of them than the US.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        China does not have market socialism, sadly. Market socialism directly prevents wealth accumulation. Indeed, the idea of market socialism is that we keep the free market and low government control over industrial matters, and instead make all companies owned by their employees. This would slow down accumulation of wealth substantially, as I don't know of any company you could work at that would make you accumulate more than 100 million dollars as a lowly worker, without any investment. The closest thing we have to market socialism right now would be worker co-ops, which do not allow massive wealth accumulation, as all wealth created would be shared equally among employees of a given firm. (Investment would also largely be impossible, because you would not be able to own stocks in such a system. Instead, interest would have to be accumulated via financing, which is much fairer to distribution of power and prevents accumulation of wealth.)
        briefcomment 6y ago
        Well that sounds great. I think it would be better to have a somewhat hierarchical compensation system instead of a flat compensation structure. Who's going to want to do hard and impressive work if the .5x intern is getting rich as fast as you are?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
voisin 6y ago
What if you started a company, grew it and went public and in the ensuing years the markets pushed its value up such that your share was suddenly, and temporarily, worth more than $100m? Are you forced to sell the excess and be forced to pay a capital gains tax and reduce your control over your company?
- briefcomment 6y ago
  I think the increased competition would limit huge valuations, but maybe any overflow could go to other employees. Beyond that though, it's hard to see what would make the most sense. My guess is that we would have a system different than owning stock in a random company. There's probably no reason we need to be tied to what we currently do.

sudosysgen 6y ago

How do you distribute personal wealth after that 100 million? If you distribute it to the workers that create it and make it 20 million instead of 100 I think you'd be on to something.

briefcomment 6y ago
Something like that. Obviously the specifics are important, but I think the main advantage from this is the limiting of amassed wealth.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In that case can I interest you to market socialism? It is almost exactly that, except that you immediately start sharing your wealth as soon as you have a employees, in different amounts.
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    Market socialism sounds like what China does rather than preventing amassed wealth, but sure any system that accomplishes the goal of not letting individuals unreasonably impose their will on anyone else sounds good. Votes are powerful, but uber rich people can undermine voting.
    - danemorgan 6y ago
      China has "social markets", but this really just means capitalism with a communist party oversite. They allow billionaires and will soon have more of them than the US.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      China does not have market socialism, sadly. Market socialism directly prevents wealth accumulation. Indeed, the idea of market socialism is that we keep the free market and low government control over industrial matters, and instead make all companies owned by their employees. This would slow down accumulation of wealth substantially, as I don't know of any company you could work at that would make you accumulate more than 100 million dollars as a lowly worker, without any investment. The closest thing we have to market socialism right now would be worker co-ops, which do not allow massive wealth accumulation, as all wealth created would be shared equally among employees of a given firm. (Investment would also largely be impossible, because you would not be able to own stocks in such a system. Instead, interest would have to be accumulated via financing, which is much fairer to distribution of power and prevents accumulation of wealth.)
      - briefcomment 6y ago
        Well that sounds great. I think it would be better to have a somewhat hierarchical compensation system instead of a flat compensation structure. Who's going to want to do hard and impressive work if the .5x intern is getting rich as fast as you are?
        sudosysgen 6y ago

voisin 6y ago

What if you started a company, grew it and went public and in the ensuing years the markets pushed its value up such that your share was suddenly, and temporarily, worth more than $100m? Are you forced to sell the excess and be forced to pay a capital gains tax and reduce your control over your company?

briefcomment 6y ago
I think the increased competition would limit huge valuations, but maybe any overflow could go to other employees. Beyond that though, it's hard to see what would make the most sense. My guess is that we would have a system different than owning stock in a random company. There's probably no reason we need to be tied to what we currently do.