3 ms·

Why stop at 100M? Why not 50M? Why not 10M? Why not 250k? Trying to control the amount of wealth one "should" have is misguided. We should have ways to limit t

Why stop at 100M? Why not 50M? Why not 10M? Why not 250k? Trying to control the amount of wealth one "should" have is misguided. We should have ways to limit the amount of power that can be concentrated. If we did that, we would have a better shot at having a more equitable society: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641

Arrath 4y ago
In that case we will need to decouple money from power, somehow. Starting by no longer equating giving money to politicians as an exercise in free speech would be as good a place as any to start.
- rglullis 4y ago
  There is a much easier way to do it [0], we just need to be willing to get rid of Corporativism. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641
  - Arrath 4y ago
    "- no business entity can have more than 150 people." How is that supposed to work with any labor intensive process? E.g. I work on a construction project where there are over 220 field craft workers on day shift alone. Office staff and inspectors are another 100 or so. Night shift adds yet more. Should each of those be its own business entity?
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Yes, or your company will have to invest in automation. Both alternatives are good. Third option, we stop working on such large projects, and focus our collective efforts on making our societies and our environments more human-scaled. Again, it is an option that I see as good.
      - Arrath 4y ago
        At first brush, it seems that any gains in automation will immediately be offset by duplication of administrative minutiae in all these new, smaller business entities. Administration, payroll, regulatory compliance, safety programs, training programs etc etc this is the absolute opposite of improved productive ability, is it not? As to the third option, 'human scale' is just cresting 8 billion individuals. We will never escape the need for massive infrastructure projects.
        rglullis 4y ago
        > Administration, payroll, regulatory compliance, safety programs, training programs... These can be outsourced, automated and/or reduced in scope. Each company would be a lot more specialized in their function, so it wouldn't make sense to keep the same set of regulations and policies that we use for larger corporations. > We will never escape the need for massive infrastructure projects. Au contraire, I think that we only push for "massive infrastructure projects" because we are addicted to growth. Governments push for growth as a way to keep financing their debts, corporations push for growth as a way to justify their existence. If we were limited in our ability to grow and established that things needed to be settled organically, cities would be more dispersed but still dense and suburbia would not exist. Global trade would be impacted, but we would be forced to re-learn how to manufacture things locally. Governments would have to figure out ways to sustain the populations with tighter constraints, but we would not get things like the European dependency on Russian gas, etc.
pkulak 4y ago
Just because you can't immediately pinpoint where a line should be, doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist at all.
- rglullis 4y ago
  True, but my argument is that this is the wrong metric to be regulated. I don't care that there are people richer than me, I care that there are people with too much power on their hands.
  - pkulak 4y ago
    I'm okay with a poor, powerful person. That means they have their power through some means other than wealth accumulation; popular election or something. People who are powerful because of money usually didn't even get the money themselves. It's the new hereditary monarchy. Get rid of all the money, and you get rid of the undue power as well.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      > Get rid of all the money, and you get rid of the undue power as well. That's philosophically, historically and biologically incorrect. Not to mention that it is incredibly naive. Fights for power happen everywhere in nature. Occasional imbalances are not the problem. The problem is when a certain group or individual manages to concentrate so much power that they get control over groups. > That means they have their power through some means other than wealth accumulation; popular election or something. Although I could challenge you on this idea (quick, tell me one "poor" politician who was elected and continued poor after taking office), this is not the type of "power" that we are talking about, is it? In any reasonable democracy, the only "power" from an elected officer is the one vested by the people, for the people. Any elected officer that abuses their position for their own personal gain should be removed from office. The "power" we are talking about here is the power to do things uncontested, or to get other people to act in ways that are against their own interests and values. This is more visible with rich businessmen like Bezos and Musk, but it also happens via conglomerates like Disney that use their media and news properties to openly mold society in ways that serve them, or the Union leader who puts any of their opponents on a no-work list.

Arrath 4y ago

In that case we will need to decouple money from power, somehow. Starting by no longer equating giving money to politicians as an exercise in free speech would be as good a place as any to start.

rglullis 4y ago
There is a much easier way to do it [0], we just need to be willing to get rid of Corporativism. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641
- Arrath 4y ago
  "- no business entity can have more than 150 people." How is that supposed to work with any labor intensive process? E.g. I work on a construction project where there are over 220 field craft workers on day shift alone. Office staff and inspectors are another 100 or so. Night shift adds yet more. Should each of those be its own business entity?
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Yes, or your company will have to invest in automation. Both alternatives are good. Third option, we stop working on such large projects, and focus our collective efforts on making our societies and our environments more human-scaled. Again, it is an option that I see as good.
    - Arrath 4y ago
      At first brush, it seems that any gains in automation will immediately be offset by duplication of administrative minutiae in all these new, smaller business entities. Administration, payroll, regulatory compliance, safety programs, training programs etc etc this is the absolute opposite of improved productive ability, is it not? As to the third option, 'human scale' is just cresting 8 billion individuals. We will never escape the need for massive infrastructure projects.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        > Administration, payroll, regulatory compliance, safety programs, training programs... These can be outsourced, automated and/or reduced in scope. Each company would be a lot more specialized in their function, so it wouldn't make sense to keep the same set of regulations and policies that we use for larger corporations. > We will never escape the need for massive infrastructure projects. Au contraire, I think that we only push for "massive infrastructure projects" because we are addicted to growth. Governments push for growth as a way to keep financing their debts, corporations push for growth as a way to justify their existence. If we were limited in our ability to grow and established that things needed to be settled organically, cities would be more dispersed but still dense and suburbia would not exist. Global trade would be impacted, but we would be forced to re-learn how to manufacture things locally. Governments would have to figure out ways to sustain the populations with tighter constraints, but we would not get things like the European dependency on Russian gas, etc.

pkulak 4y ago

Just because you can't immediately pinpoint where a line should be, doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist at all.

rglullis 4y ago
True, but my argument is that this is the wrong metric to be regulated. I don't care that there are people richer than me, I care that there are people with too much power on their hands.
- pkulak 4y ago
  I'm okay with a poor, powerful person. That means they have their power through some means other than wealth accumulation; popular election or something. People who are powerful because of money usually didn't even get the money themselves. It's the new hereditary monarchy. Get rid of all the money, and you get rid of the undue power as well.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > Get rid of all the money, and you get rid of the undue power as well. That's philosophically, historically and biologically incorrect. Not to mention that it is incredibly naive. Fights for power happen everywhere in nature. Occasional imbalances are not the problem. The problem is when a certain group or individual manages to concentrate so much power that they get control over groups. > That means they have their power through some means other than wealth accumulation; popular election or something. Although I could challenge you on this idea (quick, tell me one "poor" politician who was elected and continued poor after taking office), this is not the type of "power" that we are talking about, is it? In any reasonable democracy, the only "power" from an elected officer is the one vested by the people, for the people. Any elected officer that abuses their position for their own personal gain should be removed from office. The "power" we are talking about here is the power to do things uncontested, or to get other people to act in ways that are against their own interests and values. This is more visible with rich businessmen like Bezos and Musk, but it also happens via conglomerates like Disney that use their media and news properties to openly mold society in ways that serve them, or the Union leader who puts any of their opponents on a no-work list.