6 ms·

He's definitely right about problems. The state has too much power, and it abuses it to curtail the liberties of its citizens and enforce a crony-capitalist st

He's definitely right about problems. The state has too much power, and it abuses it to curtail the liberties of its citizens and enforce a crony-capitalist structure. But his solutions are wrong, and furthermore, beyond small critiques of his policies, I take broad issue with his vision. The world which he imagines - a world in which everyone is more or less equal, with some a little richer but not too much so, is not one in which I want to live. He also seems to enumerate the many wrongs of state force, then conveniently omit the sort of force that would be necessary to seize all this property. He mentions that all land would be held in common - this wouldn't just be taking the wealth of a few billionaires and giving everyone a few extra bucks. I am glad we do not live in such as society, and hope America will never head in such a direction. Edit: I cannot reply to comments on this thread for some reason, so I will reply to 'uxcolumbo's response here. You ask why, say, $100m is not enough. Perhaps it is - it's probably enough for most of the things I could think to do, though not all. That said, the article implies that very rich people would have much less than $100m. And finally, I don't believe it's moral to cap wealth. It's a poor attempt to address the symptom rather than the disease - taking away their wealth won't fix it. Perhaps under a government with less corruption it would be difficult or impossible to amass the levels of wealth we see today, and I'd have no issues with that occurring under those circumstances.

uxcolumbo 6y ago
Can you provide more details why you don’t want to live in a world where everyone is more or less equal? I think Varoufakis is trying to paint a future where the gap between rich and poor isn’t as wide as it is now. Do we need billionaires for our society to function? Is having 100,000,000 USD not enough?
- scollet 6y ago
  Even just assets in general or access to resources. He makes a good point about equality in merit but people often misread the scales on what a meritocracy should be. It's not what you do produce, it's what you can produce. And in this egalitarian world, people who need access to resources should not have to hurdle to get them.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > Do we need billionaires for our society to function? Is having 100,000,000 USD not enough? Nobody knows. Maybe yes. Maybe no. Notice that billionaires can't spend all their money on themselves. They can't exactly buy a billion dollars worth of cheese and eat it all. They can sink whatever they like in to property but realistically they probably only spend a few million dollars on property and the vast bulk of their wealth goes in to directing the economy via shares and real estate. So if all the billions of dollars was removed from the billionaires they will experience a very modest (potentially no) change in quality of life and there will be far reaching economic consequences because the control structure was just reworked. It is totally unclear if it would be a win or a loss for most people.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Do we need billionaires for our society to function? I think so. Since antiquity, the advantages and disadvantages of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy have been mooted. The Founding Fathers vested the efficiency of monarchy in the executive and its long-term orientation in the Supreme Court. But there is unique strength in the union of long-term orientation and efficiency. It enables a portfolio of moonshots. Musk, Ford, Edison, Bezos and Gates each pursued long-term non-commercial (or semi-commercial) projects that benefited the public. The government could have done some of these things. But it didn’t. And it couldn’t have done all—there isn’t enough political bandwidth. As long as that money doesn’t turn into military power, and its effects on our politics are checked, the existence of billionaires is a net positive.
  - the-smug-one 6y ago
    There is a certain irony in you describing what billionaires have done but govt has not as "moon shots". You really have no proof that the govt could not have done these things, especially as govts has funded a lot of technology which has benefitted industry enormously (DARPANET, GPS, essential parts of Wi-fi). Could you please account for all of the negatives that billionaires have caused and show us your arithmetic for how they come out as net positive. >Since antiquity, the advantages and disadvantages of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy have been mooted. No idea what this means to be honest.
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  >Do we need billionaires for our society to function? Definitely not. They're exploiters, not producers.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Can you provide more details why you don’t want to live in a world where everyone is more or less equal? Because every time someone tries this to create a world like this... it ends up a living nightmare. Creating equality usually ends up involving taking away freedom and oppressing people. Maybe it's inherently not such a hot idea for some social reason we don't yet fully understand? I don't know but I'm not sure we should keep trying as millions of people end up dead every time someone gives it another whirl.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    > Because every time someone tries this to create a world like this... it ends up a living nightmare. How would you describe the US now, out of curiosity?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      For all the complex and serious problems the US has, I think it's still generally a stable and safe place with plenty of opportunity and nice people. I'd feel safer there than many other historical places that had aimed more aggressively at more-or-less equal societies. Few people seem to risk their lives to defect from the US. And they wouldn't even have to because the US lets you leave!
      - claudeganon 6y ago
        > I'd feel safer there than many other historical places that had aimed more aggressively at more-or-less equal societies. ...but almost every developed country with greater social safety nets and less inequality performs above the US on all measures of “safety,” whether you’re talking about actual violence or more abstract things like infant mortality. How do you square that material reality with the current state of the US?
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        I think in general moving towards allowing people to achieve equality themselves is good. I think going hell-bent on more-of-less-equal starts to bring out the monsters in people.
rutledge87 6y ago
Who should have more power then? Mobs of open carrying "poll watchers" or folks in white hoods? Corporations? Uninformed voters who are easily convinced by targeted FB ads? Old, wise people with nothing to gain or lose?
- nine_k 6y ago
  If we want democracy, it should be voters. If we want a working democracy, voters should care. Currently a lot of them don't, and thus stay uninformed, or take the elections as a sports event where they need to take a side and root.
  - rutledge87 6y ago
    I don't think you understand what's going on. There is no democracy, it's a pantomime theater where the rich and their lackeys hold veto over the people's pseudo-choice. Being informed is futile if the system is rigged against the people.

uxcolumbo 6y ago

Can you provide more details why you don’t want to live in a world where everyone is more or less equal? I think Varoufakis is trying to paint a future where the gap between rich and poor isn’t as wide as it is now. Do we need billionaires for our society to function? Is having 100,000,000 USD not enough?

scollet 6y ago
Even just assets in general or access to resources. He makes a good point about equality in merit but people often misread the scales on what a meritocracy should be. It's not what you do produce, it's what you can produce. And in this egalitarian world, people who need access to resources should not have to hurdle to get them.
roenxi 6y ago
> Do we need billionaires for our society to function? Is having 100,000,000 USD not enough? Nobody knows. Maybe yes. Maybe no. Notice that billionaires can't spend all their money on themselves. They can't exactly buy a billion dollars worth of cheese and eat it all. They can sink whatever they like in to property but realistically they probably only spend a few million dollars on property and the vast bulk of their wealth goes in to directing the economy via shares and real estate. So if all the billions of dollars was removed from the billionaires they will experience a very modest (potentially no) change in quality of life and there will be far reaching economic consequences because the control structure was just reworked. It is totally unclear if it would be a win or a loss for most people.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Do we need billionaires for our society to function? I think so. Since antiquity, the advantages and disadvantages of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy have been mooted. The Founding Fathers vested the efficiency of monarchy in the executive and its long-term orientation in the Supreme Court. But there is unique strength in the union of long-term orientation and efficiency. It enables a portfolio of moonshots. Musk, Ford, Edison, Bezos and Gates each pursued long-term non-commercial (or semi-commercial) projects that benefited the public. The government could have done some of these things. But it didn’t. And it couldn’t have done all—there isn’t enough political bandwidth. As long as that money doesn’t turn into military power, and its effects on our politics are checked, the existence of billionaires is a net positive.
- the-smug-one 6y ago
  There is a certain irony in you describing what billionaires have done but govt has not as "moon shots". You really have no proof that the govt could not have done these things, especially as govts has funded a lot of technology which has benefitted industry enormously (DARPANET, GPS, essential parts of Wi-fi). Could you please account for all of the negatives that billionaires have caused and show us your arithmetic for how they come out as net positive. >Since antiquity, the advantages and disadvantages of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy have been mooted. No idea what this means to be honest.
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
>Do we need billionaires for our society to function? Definitely not. They're exploiters, not producers.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> Can you provide more details why you don’t want to live in a world where everyone is more or less equal? Because every time someone tries this to create a world like this... it ends up a living nightmare. Creating equality usually ends up involving taking away freedom and oppressing people. Maybe it's inherently not such a hot idea for some social reason we don't yet fully understand? I don't know but I'm not sure we should keep trying as millions of people end up dead every time someone gives it another whirl.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  > Because every time someone tries this to create a world like this... it ends up a living nightmare. How would you describe the US now, out of curiosity?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    For all the complex and serious problems the US has, I think it's still generally a stable and safe place with plenty of opportunity and nice people. I'd feel safer there than many other historical places that had aimed more aggressively at more-or-less equal societies. Few people seem to risk their lives to defect from the US. And they wouldn't even have to because the US lets you leave!
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      > I'd feel safer there than many other historical places that had aimed more aggressively at more-or-less equal societies. ...but almost every developed country with greater social safety nets and less inequality performs above the US on all measures of “safety,” whether you’re talking about actual violence or more abstract things like infant mortality. How do you square that material reality with the current state of the US?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        I think in general moving towards allowing people to achieve equality themselves is good. I think going hell-bent on more-of-less-equal starts to bring out the monsters in people.

rutledge87 6y ago

Who should have more power then? Mobs of open carrying "poll watchers" or folks in white hoods? Corporations? Uninformed voters who are easily convinced by targeted FB ads? Old, wise people with nothing to gain or lose?

nine_k 6y ago
If we want democracy, it should be voters. If we want a working democracy, voters should care. Currently a lot of them don't, and thus stay uninformed, or take the elections as a sports event where they need to take a side and root.
- rutledge87 6y ago
  I don't think you understand what's going on. There is no democracy, it's a pantomime theater where the rich and their lackeys hold veto over the people's pseudo-choice. Being informed is futile if the system is rigged against the people.