3 ms·

Elon Musk doesn't have 300 billion dollars. He owns 17% of a company that, if all the stock got sold at its current price, would be worth 743 billion dollars (p

by marvin 4y ago

Elon Musk doesn't have 300 billion dollars. He owns 17% of a company that, if all the stock got sold at its current price, would be worth 743 billion dollars (plus similar for SpaceX, so I think your estimate is too high). Similar situations are true for most billionaires. They're not hoarding money. They have built and own organizations that produce very valuable goods and services. Hacker News is a forum for entrepeneurs. The idea that successful entrepeneurship results in valuable companies shouldn't be foreign. Nor the knowledge that societies that confiscate the fruits of successful entrepeneurship, will soon not have any entrepeneurship at all. Maybe the consequences of that in terms of individual wealth ownership are unpalatable to you, but the alternative would result in an option that is net significantly worse for society.

titzer 4y ago
> confiscate the fruits of successful entrepeneurship I don't accept this framing. That framing is what I thought 20 years ago. It's been the root of a major realignment of my thinking in realizing that these people more accurately have been successful at creating large organizations of people that instead do that fruit production, fight to keep themselves on top of that organization and channel the majority of the profits of those organizations to themselves. How else could you explain the massive, some would call obscene increase of CEO pay ratios over the past four decades? Are CEOs 10x or 100x more productive or good at making decisions than four decades ago? Do they do 10x or 100x more work? It's completely implausible. CEOs continue to be compensated insanely well, even when they make bad decisions and their companies go under. The real answer is such titans have been more successful at changing the culture to make it acceptable to channel a larger and larger portion of their organization's profit to themselves. It's all mathematically impossible that these people could have done anything to produce so much more "entreprenurial" fruits themselves. Rather, they are the ones confiscating those fruits from their employees and their companies and are benefiting from the casino-like nature of speculative investment markets fueled ultimately by money created out of thin air by debt. And on top of that, they tell us that they are being stolen from! Gaslighting horseshit.
craftsman 4y ago
> Maybe the consequences of that in terms of individual wealth ownership are unpalatable to you, but the alternative would result in an option that is net significantly worse for society. The alternative? Surely there are more than two ways of organizing society: (i) one with successful entrepreneurship but large wealth inequality, and (ii) presumably one without successful entrepreneurship along with various other characteristics that make that society clearly "net" worse than it would be in (i). For example, I could imagine a tax regime which resulted in a cap on individual wealth at, say, 1% of GDP. Or 5%. Or 0.1%. Or ... It's not clear to me that there's an unambiguous demarcation between only two types of societies, and one which is observed across all possible policy or economic schemes.

by marvin 4y ago

titzer 4y ago

> confiscate the fruits of successful entrepeneurship I don't accept this framing. That framing is what I thought 20 years ago. It's been the root of a major realignment of my thinking in realizing that these people more accurately have been successful at creating large organizations of people that instead do that fruit production, fight to keep themselves on top of that organization and channel the majority of the profits of those organizations to themselves. How else could you explain the massive, some would call obscene increase of CEO pay ratios over the past four decades? Are CEOs 10x or 100x more productive or good at making decisions than four decades ago? Do they do 10x or 100x more work? It's completely implausible. CEOs continue to be compensated insanely well, even when they make bad decisions and their companies go under. The real answer is such titans have been more successful at changing the culture to make it acceptable to channel a larger and larger portion of their organization's profit to themselves. It's all mathematically impossible that these people could have done anything to produce so much more "entreprenurial" fruits themselves. Rather, they are the ones confiscating those fruits from their employees and their companies and are benefiting from the casino-like nature of speculative investment markets fueled ultimately by money created out of thin air by debt. And on top of that, they tell us that they are being stolen from! Gaslighting horseshit.

craftsman 4y ago

> Maybe the consequences of that in terms of individual wealth ownership are unpalatable to you, but the alternative would result in an option that is net significantly worse for society. The alternative? Surely there are more than two ways of organizing society: (i) one with successful entrepreneurship but large wealth inequality, and (ii) presumably one without successful entrepreneurship along with various other characteristics that make that society clearly "net" worse than it would be in (i). For example, I could imagine a tax regime which resulted in a cap on individual wealth at, say, 1% of GDP. Or 5%. Or 0.1%. Or ... It's not clear to me that there's an unambiguous demarcation between only two types of societies, and one which is observed across all possible policy or economic schemes.