3 ms·

I find it a very interesting question to ponder. It may not play well with the crowd here, but ask what sort of society allows an individual to accumulate tens

by Smoosh 5y ago

I find it a very interesting question to ponder. It may not play well with the crowd here, but ask what sort of society allows an individual to accumulate tens of billions of dollars while others have none? Now, I'm not (yet) advocating that we eat the rich, but isn't something fundamentally wrong when so much money (and power) can be held by an individual? What does that mean for a well-functioning economy? Or politics? Can you truly have a democracy with such wealth discrepancy?

jonathan-adly 5y ago
You are confusing taxation with monetary policy. Given the context, this is more about stimulating spending/forcing investment into something other than “cash”. Something like that would have 0 effects on bezos or musk (where all the wealth in stocks). It’s about a tool to stimulate the economy by Keynesian logic. (Savings bad, spending good!)
fleddr 5y ago
You're right that there's a point where somebody's wealth becomes unnatural or perverse. I think some people don't appreciate the difference between somebody rich and the ultra wealthy. They tend to be lumped together into one group, but they're not. In my small town there's a construction company that has been there for 50 years, and typically providing some 60 jobs to locals. The owner works day and night, carries all risk, is well connected in the community. Everybody loves him and people take no issue with him having the largest house in town or a more expensive car. This is reasonable wealth and well deserved, few would disagree. That romantic idea of wealth does not apply to billionaires. The idea that you worked harder, took more risk or had a good idea breaks down morally in light of such numbers. It is wealth typically accumulated by financial instruments, speculation, rent-seeking and underpaying armies of people. It's a complex discussion, but the way I see it, globalization is most responsible for enabling it. Globalization allows in particular big business to fully leverage the race to the bottom in wages, fully leverage favorable deregulation and tax avoidance by cherry picking nations most favorable, and dodge responsibilities, for example by externalizing environmental costs. They get all the upsides, the typical population of any country all the downsides, with no negotiation power.

by Smoosh 5y ago

jonathan-adly 5y ago

You are confusing taxation with monetary policy. Given the context, this is more about stimulating spending/forcing investment into something other than “cash”. Something like that would have 0 effects on bezos or musk (where all the wealth in stocks). It’s about a tool to stimulate the economy by Keynesian logic. (Savings bad, spending good!)

fleddr 5y ago

You're right that there's a point where somebody's wealth becomes unnatural or perverse. I think some people don't appreciate the difference between somebody rich and the ultra wealthy. They tend to be lumped together into one group, but they're not. In my small town there's a construction company that has been there for 50 years, and typically providing some 60 jobs to locals. The owner works day and night, carries all risk, is well connected in the community. Everybody loves him and people take no issue with him having the largest house in town or a more expensive car. This is reasonable wealth and well deserved, few would disagree. That romantic idea of wealth does not apply to billionaires. The idea that you worked harder, took more risk or had a good idea breaks down morally in light of such numbers. It is wealth typically accumulated by financial instruments, speculation, rent-seeking and underpaying armies of people. It's a complex discussion, but the way I see it, globalization is most responsible for enabling it. Globalization allows in particular big business to fully leverage the race to the bottom in wages, fully leverage favorable deregulation and tax avoidance by cherry picking nations most favorable, and dodge responsibilities, for example by externalizing environmental costs. They get all the upsides, the typical population of any country all the downsides, with no negotiation power.