4 ms·

Your argument is the same as saying "but they don't have any money, they only have 65238 metric tons of gold". Money doesn't have any intrinsic value either. Yo

by j-pb 6y ago

Your argument is the same as saying "but they don't have any money, they only have 65238 metric tons of gold". Money doesn't have any intrinsic value either. You might as well say "societal power" instead of "wealth", and you get the same outcome. These people have a grotesque amount of influence over everything. As I said, even if you'd just destroy all their wealth/power, you'd still get a better society, because politicians wouldn't constantly try to do the bidding of these people and instead tackle the real problems that we have.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> You might as well say "societal power" instead of "wealth", and you get the same outcome. These people have a grotesque amount of influence over everything. Yes, I’m not arguing against redistribution of wealth (or power or influence or whatever you want to call it). I’m interested in the details of how it can be accomplished. Money is simply the most technologically advanced way we have of moving “power” around, but exactly how power gets converted to money is a big question, and one that frequently involves winners and losers. > As I said, even if you'd just destroy all their wealth/power, you'd still get a better society, I agree, and typically this has been accomplished with violence/war. I’m just trying to see if anyone has any good (and “fair”) ideas on how to accomplish it without violence. I have an aunt and uncle in SF Bay Area who worked their whole life and saved for retirement, but didn’t assume that the land under their house would be worth $2.5M in their old age. What should happen to them? They certainly don’t have the cash flow to afford a proportionate property tax without having to move away. I don’t know a good answer either, maybe some people just have to end up screwed.
- j-pb 6y ago
  We're not talking about old people here that acidentally stumbled upon something that has really sentimental value to them but is also worth 150 billion. Stop mixing billionaires and millionaires. Having billions is unfair by definition.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    All I’m asking for is some specifics. Is someone with $999M “worth” of assets not forced to sell than someone with $1B? Is it setup marginally so anyone over $x is forced to sell y%? What are x and y? That is what I’m interested in. What if the sale price doesn’t match up with the valuation amount? What happens if a majority shareholder is forced to sell and it results in them becoming a minority shareholder? Does that mean one is forced to give up control of their business after a certain size? Yeah, we all agree extreme income inequality is bad. That’s the easy part.
    - j-pb 6y ago
      > What if the sale price doesn’t match up with the valuation amount? Then you don't have to sell as much as you thought. > What happens if a majority shareholder is forced to sell and it results in them becoming a minority shareholder? Works as intended. Companies this size should be broken up under monopoly laws anyways. > Does that mean one is forced to give up control of their business after a certain size? Now you're getting the spirit! Also, monopoly laws.

by j-pb 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> You might as well say "societal power" instead of "wealth", and you get the same outcome. These people have a grotesque amount of influence over everything. Yes, I’m not arguing against redistribution of wealth (or power or influence or whatever you want to call it). I’m interested in the details of how it can be accomplished. Money is simply the most technologically advanced way we have of moving “power” around, but exactly how power gets converted to money is a big question, and one that frequently involves winners and losers. > As I said, even if you'd just destroy all their wealth/power, you'd still get a better society, I agree, and typically this has been accomplished with violence/war. I’m just trying to see if anyone has any good (and “fair”) ideas on how to accomplish it without violence. I have an aunt and uncle in SF Bay Area who worked their whole life and saved for retirement, but didn’t assume that the land under their house would be worth $2.5M in their old age. What should happen to them? They certainly don’t have the cash flow to afford a proportionate property tax without having to move away. I don’t know a good answer either, maybe some people just have to end up screwed.

j-pb 6y ago
We're not talking about old people here that acidentally stumbled upon something that has really sentimental value to them but is also worth 150 billion. Stop mixing billionaires and millionaires. Having billions is unfair by definition.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  All I’m asking for is some specifics. Is someone with $999M “worth” of assets not forced to sell than someone with $1B? Is it setup marginally so anyone over $x is forced to sell y%? What are x and y? That is what I’m interested in. What if the sale price doesn’t match up with the valuation amount? What happens if a majority shareholder is forced to sell and it results in them becoming a minority shareholder? Does that mean one is forced to give up control of their business after a certain size? Yeah, we all agree extreme income inequality is bad. That’s the easy part.
  - j-pb 6y ago
    > What if the sale price doesn’t match up with the valuation amount? Then you don't have to sell as much as you thought. > What happens if a majority shareholder is forced to sell and it results in them becoming a minority shareholder? Works as intended. Companies this size should be broken up under monopoly laws anyways. > Does that mean one is forced to give up control of their business after a certain size? Now you're getting the spirit! Also, monopoly laws.