6 ms·

> Most of the wealth of billionaires is not cash, it’s locked up in their ownership of the companies they control. Elon Musk for example has 99% of his wealth i

> Most of the wealth of billionaires is not cash, it’s locked up in their ownership of the companies they control. Elon Musk for example has 99% of his wealth in shares in Tesla, SpaceX etc. Yes. But its possible to allocate a value to these assets. The point I'm making is that it if we are trying to find a solution to these problems, the easiest one would be to take the billions in wealth - more wealth that can be spent in hundreds of lifetimes - away from the people who hold it and redistribute it to those who don't. This doesn't seem to be under consideration, but this is because it doesn't suit those that run corporations and governments - the elite aren't planning to shoot themselves in the foot. As I said elsewhere, I don't think this is actually a valid solution. I only mention this as an equally invalid solution - putting the cost onto the population in general, ie the comparatively poor - is actively being implemented. Despite the obvious unfairness and greater complexity - the implementation of a technocratic system that allocates energy and resources. So the new system is also insane and will be harder 99.9999% of the world's population, but does allow the billionaires to keep their comfort. Which of these 2 insane options is better in your opinion?

simonh 5y ago
>Yes. But its possible to allocate a value to these assets. And do what with it? A value is just a number. What would you do with the assets and the value? I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious how you imagine this working and right now I honestly don't have any idea. Who would control these companies now that they're not owned by their founders and current owners? How would ownership and control work? Who would run the economy and how? I'm imagining millions (a $10m company isn't actually all that big) of founders, investors and CEOs retiring to the country with $10m retirement funds. Viva la Revolution! Who takes over? What are the world's poor going to do with a handful of shares in e.g. Microsoft, Tesla and Berkshire Hathaway each? probably you don't imagine it working that way, but you won't say how you do imagine it working. You say 2 options, but I'm not clear what you think the other one is. We have many possible options.
- verisimi 5y ago
  I'm trying to formulate the problem in broad strokes. I say we have on the one hand huge amounts of wealth in the hands of very few individuals on the one hand, and lots of people that do not have enough on the other. There is a competition for resources and something needs to be changed. I hope you accept that is a fair if broad formulation of the problem. If you are neutral in approaching this, and trying to find an answer, which of the following would be easier: a/ to find a way to take wealth from the rich (still leaving more than they can spend in a lifetime) or b/ to micro manage everyone, decreasing population and options for 99.999% of the population? As a problem, any neutral solution would say it is far more equitable and simpler to tackle the smaller billionaire group. Even though the billionaire class could lose lots of their wealth, they would have plenty to live. Trying to micromanage the world's population is much harder. Do you agree? Apparently though, taking the wealth from billionaires cannot a conceivable answer. Yes their corporations have ravaged the natural world, yes they are geared to manipulate us via psychology, indoctrination, PR, etc to separate us from our monetary tokens, but somehow it is right that the population as a whole should foot the bill. Why? But, even the question of what would be the best (fairest, equitable) allocation of resources is moot. The answer is b/ and the planned, controlled implementation has been underway for decades, and is finally materialising. Banking, the governance structure, education, technology, media, corporations, NGOs, etc are already managed by billionaires, and they do not want to give up their wealth or power. The institutions they manage have been bent in order to help them achieve their goals, in the name of serving us and the planet. What we are presently experiencing is a long planned move to greater power - it is not history unfolding naturally. We are implementing technocracy, and we will be micro-managed. We will come to see it as neo-feudalism. To the 99.999% it will feel like hard slavery. But even this has been negative outlook had been planned and managed - they want us to choose the micromanagement. If the turkeys vote for Christmas, they want to be eaten, right? We are voting to get rid of cars, constrain our use of energy, move to UBI, etc - our lack of understanding and imagination means we vote for slavery.
  - mercutio2 5y ago
    How much wealth do you think would be redistributed if governments confiscated all the assets you think are held be billionaires? There just isn’t that much wealth to be expropriated. It wouldn’t go very far. So no, I don’t think you’ll get broad agreement that confiscating wealth from the very rich is even numerically a viable strategy. Not to mention the fact that historically expropriation isn’t exactly associated with the generation of social welfare. Now, as it happens, I’m in favor of higher progressive taxes! But we can’t pretend we can create a social welfare state just by picking on billionaires. The middle class would need to be taxed generously for that to pencil out.
anamax 5y ago
> The point I'm making is that it if we are trying to find a solution to these problems, the easiest one would be to take the billions in wealth - more wealth that can be spent in hundreds of lifetimes - away from the people who hold it and redistribute it to those who don't. After you take that stock, who do you sell it to? (Simply confiscating it doesn't move resources around.) What are they not buying so they can buy this stock? More to the point, why are they going to buy that stock if they're not buying it today. I could buy Amazon, SpaceX, Facebook, Google, stock but don't. Under this system, AWS will be less expensive but what are the odds that it will appreciate significantly? I ask because I buy stock to make money. Who is better off if I buy SpaceX instead of living on that money while I work on my startup? (If I buy said stock, I'll need to get a job to cover living expenses. Maybe that stock will go up in value so I can live off it later, but I'm eating this week.)
valenterry 5y ago
You are making a mistake here though. Avoid thinking about the wealth to distribute! Because that doesn't work. As was already said, you can't take all stocks and sell them, because no one can then buy them. Rather think about money flows. How much money does e.g. Musk consume? Probably much more than the everage person. But will it be a significant boost to everyone's quality of life if Musk out only consumes as much as the average and donates the rest? Probably not. There more interesting part is his power and what he does with his money. But that's a totally different point.
helloworld11 5y ago
Aside from other complexities and negative consequences of your hypothetically proposed wealth cap, you forget that the world isn't a pie from which wealth is taken by some at the expense of others, at least not in many of the ways that create wealth on the market. These billioniares and many more millioniares worth more than 10 million dollars by and large create their fortunes through certain lucky or careful investments and in the case of many of them, their wealth is locked up directly in stock that the public values highly enough for them to be worth that much. As many here have pointed out better than I will now, creating confiscatory policies on this would lead to the wealth itself mostly evaporating as if it never were. What you propose is in this sense a tired, economically irrational and self-defeating idea that tries to be the real world equivalent of the proverbial farmer and his golden goose. Also worth mentioning that the total wealth of all the world's billioniares today amounts to 13.1 trillion dollars, give or take. The U.S. government alone spend 8 trillion just on its wars in the middle east and Asia between 2001 and and now. This is only one example out of many of government funds being spent rampantly, in amounts that dwarf the wealth or annual income of the world's billionaires but with little or sometimes even negative productive results. And you'd like to confiscate these very often useful private sources of productive wealth to government bureaucrats that already receive trillions in tax revenues annually but somehow can't seem to make them definitively improve the world?

simonh 5y ago

>Yes. But its possible to allocate a value to these assets. And do what with it? A value is just a number. What would you do with the assets and the value? I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious how you imagine this working and right now I honestly don't have any idea. Who would control these companies now that they're not owned by their founders and current owners? How would ownership and control work? Who would run the economy and how? I'm imagining millions (a $10m company isn't actually all that big) of founders, investors and CEOs retiring to the country with $10m retirement funds. Viva la Revolution! Who takes over? What are the world's poor going to do with a handful of shares in e.g. Microsoft, Tesla and Berkshire Hathaway each? probably you don't imagine it working that way, but you won't say how you do imagine it working. You say 2 options, but I'm not clear what you think the other one is. We have many possible options.

verisimi 5y ago
I'm trying to formulate the problem in broad strokes. I say we have on the one hand huge amounts of wealth in the hands of very few individuals on the one hand, and lots of people that do not have enough on the other. There is a competition for resources and something needs to be changed. I hope you accept that is a fair if broad formulation of the problem. If you are neutral in approaching this, and trying to find an answer, which of the following would be easier: a/ to find a way to take wealth from the rich (still leaving more than they can spend in a lifetime) or b/ to micro manage everyone, decreasing population and options for 99.999% of the population? As a problem, any neutral solution would say it is far more equitable and simpler to tackle the smaller billionaire group. Even though the billionaire class could lose lots of their wealth, they would have plenty to live. Trying to micromanage the world's population is much harder. Do you agree? Apparently though, taking the wealth from billionaires cannot a conceivable answer. Yes their corporations have ravaged the natural world, yes they are geared to manipulate us via psychology, indoctrination, PR, etc to separate us from our monetary tokens, but somehow it is right that the population as a whole should foot the bill. Why? But, even the question of what would be the best (fairest, equitable) allocation of resources is moot. The answer is b/ and the planned, controlled implementation has been underway for decades, and is finally materialising. Banking, the governance structure, education, technology, media, corporations, NGOs, etc are already managed by billionaires, and they do not want to give up their wealth or power. The institutions they manage have been bent in order to help them achieve their goals, in the name of serving us and the planet. What we are presently experiencing is a long planned move to greater power - it is not history unfolding naturally. We are implementing technocracy, and we will be micro-managed. We will come to see it as neo-feudalism. To the 99.999% it will feel like hard slavery. But even this has been negative outlook had been planned and managed - they want us to choose the micromanagement. If the turkeys vote for Christmas, they want to be eaten, right? We are voting to get rid of cars, constrain our use of energy, move to UBI, etc - our lack of understanding and imagination means we vote for slavery.
- mercutio2 5y ago
  How much wealth do you think would be redistributed if governments confiscated all the assets you think are held be billionaires? There just isn’t that much wealth to be expropriated. It wouldn’t go very far. So no, I don’t think you’ll get broad agreement that confiscating wealth from the very rich is even numerically a viable strategy. Not to mention the fact that historically expropriation isn’t exactly associated with the generation of social welfare. Now, as it happens, I’m in favor of higher progressive taxes! But we can’t pretend we can create a social welfare state just by picking on billionaires. The middle class would need to be taxed generously for that to pencil out.

anamax 5y ago

> The point I'm making is that it if we are trying to find a solution to these problems, the easiest one would be to take the billions in wealth - more wealth that can be spent in hundreds of lifetimes - away from the people who hold it and redistribute it to those who don't. After you take that stock, who do you sell it to? (Simply confiscating it doesn't move resources around.) What are they not buying so they can buy this stock? More to the point, why are they going to buy that stock if they're not buying it today. I could buy Amazon, SpaceX, Facebook, Google, stock but don't. Under this system, AWS will be less expensive but what are the odds that it will appreciate significantly? I ask because I buy stock to make money. Who is better off if I buy SpaceX instead of living on that money while I work on my startup? (If I buy said stock, I'll need to get a job to cover living expenses. Maybe that stock will go up in value so I can live off it later, but I'm eating this week.)

valenterry 5y ago

You are making a mistake here though. Avoid thinking about the wealth to distribute! Because that doesn't work. As was already said, you can't take all stocks and sell them, because no one can then buy them. Rather think about money flows. How much money does e.g. Musk consume? Probably much more than the everage person. But will it be a significant boost to everyone's quality of life if Musk out only consumes as much as the average and donates the rest? Probably not. There more interesting part is his power and what he does with his money. But that's a totally different point.

helloworld11 5y ago

Aside from other complexities and negative consequences of your hypothetically proposed wealth cap, you forget that the world isn't a pie from which wealth is taken by some at the expense of others, at least not in many of the ways that create wealth on the market. These billioniares and many more millioniares worth more than 10 million dollars by and large create their fortunes through certain lucky or careful investments and in the case of many of them, their wealth is locked up directly in stock that the public values highly enough for them to be worth that much. As many here have pointed out better than I will now, creating confiscatory policies on this would lead to the wealth itself mostly evaporating as if it never were. What you propose is in this sense a tired, economically irrational and self-defeating idea that tries to be the real world equivalent of the proverbial farmer and his golden goose. Also worth mentioning that the total wealth of all the world's billioniares today amounts to 13.1 trillion dollars, give or take. The U.S. government alone spend 8 trillion just on its wars in the middle east and Asia between 2001 and and now. This is only one example out of many of government funds being spent rampantly, in amounts that dwarf the wealth or annual income of the world's billionaires but with little or sometimes even negative productive results. And you'd like to confiscate these very often useful private sources of productive wealth to government bureaucrats that already receive trillions in tax revenues annually but somehow can't seem to make them definitively improve the world?