5 ms·

> question if billionaires are bad for society Inflation changes this detail daily. A billion is just a number of units of an arbitrary currency. The real is

> question if billionaires are bad for society Inflation changes this detail daily. A billion is just a number of units of an arbitrary currency. The real issue goes beyond the number and is more about generative assets vs liability / depreciating ones. IMO the real problem is money in politics. Fix that and many of these issues with billionaires will sort themselves out as the system corrects itself. EDIT: By "money in politics" I mean big money that overwhelms small distributed money. (ie money that does not look democratic) . Obviously it's always going to _take_ money to run campaigns

pc86 6y ago
This is hard to do in a legal environment where "money === speech" and you cannot, under most circumstances, abridge political speech.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Technically... you can in all but one circumstance: modern US constitutional law. I don't think any country has the same laisezz-faire approach to buying politicians... certainly not in the name of free speech. I don't think the argument has even been made. That said, even in the US there isn't a real constitutional barrier to doing something about money in politics. You could make candidates wear sponsorships on their jerseys, like racecar drivers. No free impediment. That's a joke example, but you see my point. That particular ruling is not an actual barrier, the barrier is a legislative majority.
  - pc86 6y ago
    The US is what I was talking about re: "money === speech," e.g. Citizens United. I'll less interested in sound byte-like fixes like "wear sponsorships on their jerseys" and more with what you can realistically change without overturning Supreme Court precedent or ignoring the Constitution entirely.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      > what you can realistically change without overturning Supreme Court precedent or ignoring the Constitution entirely. Not addressing the actual question that's being discussed here, but you can always amend the law
      - hypersoar 6y ago
        Citizens United was decided on extremely broad constitutional grounds. Any strong campaign finance laws are likely to be struck down.
    - dalbasal 6y ago
      I understood. Was trying to be funny, not trite. I think the joke/soundbite example demonstrates a point: The Jersey Rule would be ok constitutionally. Even with that ruling standing, there is plenty of room for legislators to fix "money in politics" practically, without contradicting the SC. Laurence Lessig has some of the best known proposals. The problem, as I see it, is status quo bias within any congress/parliament. Actually removing money from politics crashes their industry, puts all their friends out of work, and challenges their power. Every unsuccessful candidate, campaign manager, staffer, and such makes their living this way. Every successful candidate was successful at this way of doing politics. It's a similar problem to legislation (or even customs) that would enable 3rd parties to succeed. It's against the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties, so it won't happen.
    - dantheman 6y ago
      What are your thoughts about the new york times covering political issues? What about them endorsing candidates? What about people writing books about politics?
  - zeveb 6y ago
    Citizens United was not about buying politicians: it was about a group of citizens wishing to show a movie critical of a politician. How is that not legitimately-protected speech?
zentiggr 6y ago
The problem with trying to separate money and politics is that accumulating money equates to accumulating leverage/power, and that's what gets politics done. Almost the only thing that could get money out of politics is to make holding money the most shameful thing imaginable, and even that would just force the flow of capital/power underground, not actually curtail anything. As I get older, I realize more and more that the thirst for power will never go away, and these cycles of accumulation and overthrow will be the overall flavor of human existence for the foreseeable future. Unless we figure out how to shame people out of wanting power, maybe?
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  Repealing citizens united, donations limits, and low limit matching on individual donations would probably go a long way to improving it.
  - jlmorton 6y ago
    There's nothing to repeal. The aberration is not Citizens United, which has always been the law in the US. The aberration is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which Citizens United overturned. The relevant law is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. McCain-Feingold is the thing which tried to limit this, and was tossed out by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. Most countries do not have strong protections on speech. The US does. There's no way to distinguish Fox News Media, a for-profit news organization with a distinct partisan slant, from One America News, a money-losing, overtly partisan news organization, from Citizens United, a political action committee trying to air a political documentary critical of Hillary Clinton on Pay-per-View. You can't donate unlimited sums to candidates, but you can spend as much as you want on political media, including advertising. I'd love to hear how we can overturn Citizens United, but maintain things like Fahrenheit 9/11, a different political documentary critical of George W. Bush, and released right at the height of the 2004 election campaign. Lawrence Lessig has a proposal to offer political donation vouchers to each and every private citizen. I think this is a great take on public financing that would help to level the playing field, while maintaining this country's strong protections on speech.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> IMO the real problem is money in politics. Fix that You can't. Economic and political power are the exact same thing: the ability to direct other people to do your bidding. The idea that you can separate them has always been a fiction, and it's a fiction that is perpetuated for exactly one purpose, to support oligarchic capitalism by keeping people distracted by their engagement in the hunt for the “one weird trick” to make politically egalitarian democracy work without dismantling the radical economic inequality of capitalism.
- dublin 6y ago
  And yet, it is the very potential of radical economic inequality that drive the creation of new inventions and innovations that make the modern world possible. Killing that potential is killing the goose that lays all the golden eggs - that's Graham's point: even small confiscatory wealth taxes will act as a significant deterrent to people who would otherwise start great companies that improve some aspect of the world, including by providing a livelihood to their employees. I've been CTO for a dozen startups, and this sort of thing would almost certainly deter me from exerting the effort required to go through the always-grueling startup process. It's hard enough not getting screwed over as a founder without wealth taxes!
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    It's a problem of success though, right? Assuming that you are incredibly successful, you may need to contribute a bunch of money (mostly from interest, not principal) back to the common good. I really don't see Mark Zuckerberg (as an example) deciding not to create Facebook because if he was incredibly successful he'd have to pay a wealth tax. It just doesn't strike me as likely at all. This is (sadly) Paul Graham taking a valid argument and turning it into a reductio-ad-absurdam.
    - jpadkins 6y ago
      the point is Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't do it in California if there was a wealth tax. Not that he wouldn't do it all.
michaelmrose 6y ago
You can't get money out of politics. Money is power intrinsically it's like getting the stripes out of the zebra. The fix is redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality to a tolerable level.
jpadkins 6y ago
the reason why money is in politics is because policy can effect money. You have to address the root cause, or else you are just playing whack-a-mole (thought exercise: if PACs were banned, is there a difference between Bezos buying $500M in paid media vs. buying the washington post?) America needs to go through a revolution of thought, like the one that lead to the 'Separation of Church and State' principle. For many of the same reasons, we need a 'Separation of of Economy and State' movement. Only then will you get money out of politics.
- vinay_ys 6y ago
  If Economy is separated from the State, what remains?
iso1210 6y ago
> EDIT: By "money in politics" I mean big money that overwhelms small distributed money. (ie money that does not look democratic) . Obviously it's always going to _take_ money to run campaigns in the UK political donations over £500 have to be registered and be by someone on the electoral role. the Brexit Party was funded by millions of donations of £499 from Russia and US sources via paypal.

pc86 6y ago

This is hard to do in a legal environment where "money === speech" and you cannot, under most circumstances, abridge political speech.

dalbasal 6y ago
Technically... you can in all but one circumstance: modern US constitutional law. I don't think any country has the same laisezz-faire approach to buying politicians... certainly not in the name of free speech. I don't think the argument has even been made. That said, even in the US there isn't a real constitutional barrier to doing something about money in politics. You could make candidates wear sponsorships on their jerseys, like racecar drivers. No free impediment. That's a joke example, but you see my point. That particular ruling is not an actual barrier, the barrier is a legislative majority.
- pc86 6y ago
  The US is what I was talking about re: "money === speech," e.g. Citizens United. I'll less interested in sound byte-like fixes like "wear sponsorships on their jerseys" and more with what you can realistically change without overturning Supreme Court precedent or ignoring the Constitution entirely.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    > what you can realistically change without overturning Supreme Court precedent or ignoring the Constitution entirely. Not addressing the actual question that's being discussed here, but you can always amend the law
    - hypersoar 6y ago
      Citizens United was decided on extremely broad constitutional grounds. Any strong campaign finance laws are likely to be struck down.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    I understood. Was trying to be funny, not trite. I think the joke/soundbite example demonstrates a point: The Jersey Rule would be ok constitutionally. Even with that ruling standing, there is plenty of room for legislators to fix "money in politics" practically, without contradicting the SC. Laurence Lessig has some of the best known proposals. The problem, as I see it, is status quo bias within any congress/parliament. Actually removing money from politics crashes their industry, puts all their friends out of work, and challenges their power. Every unsuccessful candidate, campaign manager, staffer, and such makes their living this way. Every successful candidate was successful at this way of doing politics. It's a similar problem to legislation (or even customs) that would enable 3rd parties to succeed. It's against the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties, so it won't happen.
  - dantheman 6y ago
    What are your thoughts about the new york times covering political issues? What about them endorsing candidates? What about people writing books about politics?
- zeveb 6y ago
  Citizens United was not about buying politicians: it was about a group of citizens wishing to show a movie critical of a politician. How is that not legitimately-protected speech?

zentiggr 6y ago

The problem with trying to separate money and politics is that accumulating money equates to accumulating leverage/power, and that's what gets politics done. Almost the only thing that could get money out of politics is to make holding money the most shameful thing imaginable, and even that would just force the flow of capital/power underground, not actually curtail anything. As I get older, I realize more and more that the thirst for power will never go away, and these cycles of accumulation and overthrow will be the overall flavor of human existence for the foreseeable future. Unless we figure out how to shame people out of wanting power, maybe?

maerF0x0 6y ago
Repealing citizens united, donations limits, and low limit matching on individual donations would probably go a long way to improving it.
- jlmorton 6y ago
  There's nothing to repeal. The aberration is not Citizens United, which has always been the law in the US. The aberration is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which Citizens United overturned. The relevant law is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. McCain-Feingold is the thing which tried to limit this, and was tossed out by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. Most countries do not have strong protections on speech. The US does. There's no way to distinguish Fox News Media, a for-profit news organization with a distinct partisan slant, from One America News, a money-losing, overtly partisan news organization, from Citizens United, a political action committee trying to air a political documentary critical of Hillary Clinton on Pay-per-View. You can't donate unlimited sums to candidates, but you can spend as much as you want on political media, including advertising. I'd love to hear how we can overturn Citizens United, but maintain things like Fahrenheit 9/11, a different political documentary critical of George W. Bush, and released right at the height of the 2004 election campaign. Lawrence Lessig has a proposal to offer political donation vouchers to each and every private citizen. I think this is a great take on public financing that would help to level the playing field, while maintaining this country's strong protections on speech.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> IMO the real problem is money in politics. Fix that You can't. Economic and political power are the exact same thing: the ability to direct other people to do your bidding. The idea that you can separate them has always been a fiction, and it's a fiction that is perpetuated for exactly one purpose, to support oligarchic capitalism by keeping people distracted by their engagement in the hunt for the “one weird trick” to make politically egalitarian democracy work without dismantling the radical economic inequality of capitalism.

dublin 6y ago
And yet, it is the very potential of radical economic inequality that drive the creation of new inventions and innovations that make the modern world possible. Killing that potential is killing the goose that lays all the golden eggs - that's Graham's point: even small confiscatory wealth taxes will act as a significant deterrent to people who would otherwise start great companies that improve some aspect of the world, including by providing a livelihood to their employees. I've been CTO for a dozen startups, and this sort of thing would almost certainly deter me from exerting the effort required to go through the always-grueling startup process. It's hard enough not getting screwed over as a founder without wealth taxes!
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  It's a problem of success though, right? Assuming that you are incredibly successful, you may need to contribute a bunch of money (mostly from interest, not principal) back to the common good. I really don't see Mark Zuckerberg (as an example) deciding not to create Facebook because if he was incredibly successful he'd have to pay a wealth tax. It just doesn't strike me as likely at all. This is (sadly) Paul Graham taking a valid argument and turning it into a reductio-ad-absurdam.
  - jpadkins 6y ago
    the point is Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't do it in California if there was a wealth tax. Not that he wouldn't do it all.

michaelmrose 6y ago

You can't get money out of politics. Money is power intrinsically it's like getting the stripes out of the zebra. The fix is redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality to a tolerable level.

jpadkins 6y ago

the reason why money is in politics is because policy can effect money. You have to address the root cause, or else you are just playing whack-a-mole (thought exercise: if PACs were banned, is there a difference between Bezos buying $500M in paid media vs. buying the washington post?) America needs to go through a revolution of thought, like the one that lead to the 'Separation of Church and State' principle. For many of the same reasons, we need a 'Separation of of Economy and State' movement. Only then will you get money out of politics.

vinay_ys 6y ago
If Economy is separated from the State, what remains?

iso1210 6y ago

> EDIT: By "money in politics" I mean big money that overwhelms small distributed money. (ie money that does not look democratic) . Obviously it's always going to _take_ money to run campaigns in the UK political donations over £500 have to be registered and be by someone on the electoral role. the Brexit Party was funded by millions of donations of £499 from Russia and US sources via paypal.