5 ms·
> Whether one person should have the financial resources to make that decision by himself is a different question This implies 1) a belief that wealth accumula
by xibalba 5y ago
> Whether one person should have the financial resources to make that decision by himself is a different question
This implies 1) a belief that wealth accumulation is zero sum, which is false, and 2) a scary conception of how property rights should work.
- smt88 5y ago> a scary conception of how property rights should work I didn't interpret it to have anything to do with changing property rights. We just shouldn't have a single, unelected person who has the power to make decisions at the level of a major nation-state. Regardless of the reasons it happens, no individual should accumulate that much power. If that means we need to reduce the amount of power someone has based on the amount of property they have, fine. There are many solutions to it. It's still a problem though.
- spoonjim 5y agoWhy does “elected” make it better? If you had a problem you needed solving would you rather have Elon Musk on the case, or any of the last 4 American presidents?
- HWR_14 5y agoWait, is this a real question? With one exception, I would prefer to have any of the last four US presidents or their major party opponents solve problems instead of Elon Musk.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> If you had a problem you needed solving would you rather have Elon Musk on the case, or any of the last 4 American presidents I mean, it depends on the problem and alignment of interests, but if I had to make a blind choice knowing only that it was a public policy problem then any of the last 4 American Presidents (though Trump is a close call), any of their major party opponents, any of the top 3 primary opponents to any of them in the season in which they were nominated. Also, any of the members of the US Senate, and any but about dozen members of the US House of Representatives, and any of the 50 US Governors, any of the chief executives of US Territories, and most mayors of major American cities.
- smt88 5y agoI would vastly prefer one of the last four people who received a majority vote (Biden, Clinton, Obama, Bush) over Elon Musk. Elon Musk is a childish narcissist whose chief skills are being rich, ignoring laws, and promoting himself. I would leave the US permanently if he ran it.
- xibalba 5y agoThe implication is that your property (aka your wealth, in whatever asset form it lives) is not yours to dispose of as you choose. Rather, the GP thinks it should either be seized or managed someone else (which is really just seizure under a nicer name).
- HWR_14 5y ago> The implication is that your property (aka your wealth, in whatever asset form it lives) is not yours to dispose of as you choose. That's a bad interpretation. I said is no one should be allowed to accumulate that much wealth.
- dwaltrip 5y agoYou can’t become a billionaire living on a desert island by yourself. You need a high-functioning civilization for innovation and wealth creation. Those who contribute to wealth creation owe something to the civilization that enabled them to do so. We can debate exactly what they owe, but it is clear they owe something.
- aristus 5y agoScary for property owners, for sure. ;) And there's an important difference between wealth generation like organizing some group of people to produce value, and wealth accumulation at three-comma scales, which usually involves screwing over aforesaid people.
- davidatbu 5y agoI couldn't reply to a deeply nested comment you made in which you suggested that you'd like to see workers with more power to determine wealth distribution (after the creation is done). Aren't workers free to not take up job offers, or to change jobs (which they have been doing at record levels recently), which, in effect, would mean they are rejecting the employer's proposed wealth distribution scheme? I think Noam Chomsky would respond to my question with a resounding "no" (haven't read deeply, but I believe he supports "abolishing the Job Contract as it stands today", or something like that). I'm genuinely curious as to what you think about this.
- dcgudeman 5y agoHuh? So if a person generates the wealth in someone else’s name then the organized people are not screwed? How does that make sense?
- aristus 5y agoGenerating wealth is separate from how you divvy up the proceeds after. On that second step is where many people have an issue with how it's done today. And, not to put too fine a point on it, intentionally confusing one with the other is a basic tactic to defend unfair divvying. "Well, you must hate business, then!"