3 ms·

Monarchies got their wealth "fair and square" within the systems of rules that we were all subject to at the time. We eventually decided that the system of rule

by Jochim 4y ago

Monarchies got their wealth "fair and square" within the systems of rules that we were all subject to at the time. We eventually decided that the system of rules themselves were not "fair and square" and changed them, often quite bloodily. In a system where money affords power if we accept that power should be distributed at least somewhat evenly then there must be an upper bound placed on wealth. Otherwise we end up in the situation we have right now, where policy is merely a commodity that is bought and sold by those who can afford it.

carapace 4y ago
The comparison to monarchs doesn't move me much because most of the world's billionaires aren't also sovereign. (It seems like confiscating the wealth of sovereign billionaires with nations, armies, and maybe even nukes or WMDs would even more problematic.) Not to be crass but "we ate the rich before" isn't a reason IMO to eat them now. I figure the way to curb excessive power concentrations is the panopticon: ubiquitous surveillance. (I'm not advocating for it, but I think it's unavoidable, so we might as well get some use out of it.) People can have their wealth but have limited political power. It reminds me of a story I heard about the Chinese Communists tackling their unruly billionaires. How do you take them down when they can bribe any agent or official? A special unit was formed and this was their basic M.O.: they would locate one of these billionaires and pick them up and sweat them and then offer them a deal. "You can keep all of your money, go into retirement, and promise to be good, just give us everyone in your organization." The alternative is prison (or maybe even death, who really knows?) It's kind brilliant, eh? Think it through. Are you going to go to prison to protect your henchmen and underlings? Or retire to, say, Macau with all your money? You sell out your org, of course. What does that do to team morale for the other big boys' orgs when word gets around? They stop helping their bosses break laws.
- Jochim 4y ago
  So to avoid the problem of wealth leading to political power you create a system of secret police roughing up individual offenders. It seems to me that it's vastly more effective, simpler, and safer for everyone if we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place.
  - carapace 4y ago
    > So to avoid the problem of wealth leading to political power you create a system of secret police roughing up individual offenders. To be clear I am not advocating for the Communist model. I was just relating a story about how the CCP reigned in errant (by their criteria) wealthy. It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power. > we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place. Sure, the question is how? I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today. I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.)
    - Jochim 4y ago
      > It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power. I don't see how that's the case. Their wealth lead to a degree of power that necessitated a specialised task force in order to keep it in check. That the power afforded by that wealth was curtailed doesn't negate it's existence. Should the task force cease to exist they would be free to exercise that power without restriction. > I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today. I agree but I don't see any reasonable alternative to reducing their level of influence while still maintaining a market based economy. > I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.) This is where we disagree. I don't think any overall good comes from any individual having more than $1bn in wealth. At that point you can buy pretty much whatever you want and your offspring will still be unfathomably wealthy for generations. As an individual you essentially have the GDP of a small island nation in your pocket. Personally I believe the marginal utility of more wealth at this point to be effectively zero. Adding a second billion makes no material difference to your quality of life, single digit percentages represent life changing amounts of money for the majority of society. It's at this point I feel we need to seriously interrogate how that wealth is being accumulated and whether it would be better spent elsewhere. Take our good friends the Waltons for example. In accumulating their fabulous wealth they have successfully externalised the cost of labour to the extent that many of their workers can't afford to food or healthcare without society's help. While a pretty specific case, I don't believe the Waltons should receive a single penny until they've absorbed those costs. A wealth cap also acknowledges that society plays a huge part in providing the framework for that wealth to exist in the first place. In my opinion a low degree of inequality is a requirement for a harmonious society. Without hundreds of years of societal investment none of the resources that billionaires relied on to amass their wealth would exist. Try creating a tech startup without literate workers.

by Jochim 4y ago

carapace 4y ago

The comparison to monarchs doesn't move me much because most of the world's billionaires aren't also sovereign. (It seems like confiscating the wealth of sovereign billionaires with nations, armies, and maybe even nukes or WMDs would even more problematic.) Not to be crass but "we ate the rich before" isn't a reason IMO to eat them now. I figure the way to curb excessive power concentrations is the panopticon: ubiquitous surveillance. (I'm not advocating for it, but I think it's unavoidable, so we might as well get some use out of it.) People can have their wealth but have limited political power. It reminds me of a story I heard about the Chinese Communists tackling their unruly billionaires. How do you take them down when they can bribe any agent or official? A special unit was formed and this was their basic M.O.: they would locate one of these billionaires and pick them up and sweat them and then offer them a deal. "You can keep all of your money, go into retirement, and promise to be good, just give us everyone in your organization." The alternative is prison (or maybe even death, who really knows?) It's kind brilliant, eh? Think it through. Are you going to go to prison to protect your henchmen and underlings? Or retire to, say, Macau with all your money? You sell out your org, of course. What does that do to team morale for the other big boys' orgs when word gets around? They stop helping their bosses break laws.

Jochim 4y ago
So to avoid the problem of wealth leading to political power you create a system of secret police roughing up individual offenders. It seems to me that it's vastly more effective, simpler, and safer for everyone if we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place.
- carapace 4y ago
  > So to avoid the problem of wealth leading to political power you create a system of secret police roughing up individual offenders. To be clear I am not advocating for the Communist model. I was just relating a story about how the CCP reigned in errant (by their criteria) wealthy. It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power. > we focus on preventing people from amassing that much power in the first place. Sure, the question is how? I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today. I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.)
  - Jochim 4y ago
    > It's an example that wealth doesn't automatically lead to power. I don't see how that's the case. Their wealth lead to a degree of power that necessitated a specialised task force in order to keep it in check. That the power afforded by that wealth was curtailed doesn't negate it's existence. Should the task force cease to exist they would be free to exercise that power without restriction. > I agree that individual people should not have as much power as many of them seem to have today. I agree but I don't see any reasonable alternative to reducing their level of influence while still maintaining a market based economy. > I don't agree that the answer is a universal cap on personal wealth. I especially don't agree that we should confiscate the existing (legally-gained and legally-spent) wealth of private individuals, people who are not criminals. (At least not automatically criminal just because they're rich.) This is where we disagree. I don't think any overall good comes from any individual having more than $1bn in wealth. At that point you can buy pretty much whatever you want and your offspring will still be unfathomably wealthy for generations. As an individual you essentially have the GDP of a small island nation in your pocket. Personally I believe the marginal utility of more wealth at this point to be effectively zero. Adding a second billion makes no material difference to your quality of life, single digit percentages represent life changing amounts of money for the majority of society. It's at this point I feel we need to seriously interrogate how that wealth is being accumulated and whether it would be better spent elsewhere. Take our good friends the Waltons for example. In accumulating their fabulous wealth they have successfully externalised the cost of labour to the extent that many of their workers can't afford to food or healthcare without society's help. While a pretty specific case, I don't believe the Waltons should receive a single penny until they've absorbed those costs. A wealth cap also acknowledges that society plays a huge part in providing the framework for that wealth to exist in the first place. In my opinion a low degree of inequality is a requirement for a harmonious society. Without hundreds of years of societal investment none of the resources that billionaires relied on to amass their wealth would exist. Try creating a tech startup without literate workers.