3 ms·
These are all very good ways to handwave the fact that the impact of "cutting back on consumption" is distributed extremely unevenly to the point that a single
by hnbad 4y ago
These are all very good ways to handwave the fact that the impact of "cutting back on consumption" is distributed extremely unevenly to the point that a single billionaire living like a middle class person would have a bigger effect than most of the middle class living like paupers.
The prisoners' dilemma arises from the prison. The tragedy of the commons arises from the replacement of mutual social structures with competitve market incentives. These are not neutral facts of life, they're describing emergent properties of the systems they exist in. Those systems are arbitrary and we can change them.
There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Few of them understandably want to simply give away their wealth but they're okay with paying a fairer (read: significantly larger) share as long as others in their class have to do so as well. They're trying to lower the ceiling, to literally change the system so the emergent properties of it change for the better.
What you're describing is an extremely individualistic approach favored by Austrian economics. It's not apolitical objective truth. It relies on intentional design choices of the economic system that can be changed. Much like feudal lords before the French revolution, however, those currently benefiting from it are largely disinterested in changing it and too powerful to overrule. We can hope "the government" addresses this, but as long as we accept narratives about individual responsibility and "everyone doing their part" I see no hope for legislators seriously reining in the actual polluters, especially in a country where the second anyone proposes it a skilled orator will insist that this will single-handedly destroy America as we know it.
Of course convincing an economist that the system could be changed in a way that doesn't incentivize the destruction of our habitat would be as outlandish as convincing an aristocrat in 1322 that the system could be changed so the king is continuously elected by the common folk instead of being destined by his bloodline and divine right:
It is hopelessly naive of the human condition to imagine that an ordinary mortal like you or I could assume the power of God to pick a new lordship like we are picking out pigs to slaughter. Even if it wasn't blasphemy, surely it is only right and best for us if our lord is born into his destiny and raised from a young age by experts in his future affairs do be a good lord for us and make his choices we are too ignorant to judge fairly.
- ejb999 4y ago>>There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Complete BS virtue signaling - everyone of those supposed 'multi-billionaires who lobby for raising their own taxes', can already voluntarily pay as much extra taxes as they want - how many are? Why is it that these people will only do what they believe is morally correct, but only if the law forces them do it? The answer is, because they don't really believe what they say they believe in - they are virtue signaling. Just like all the celebrities flying around in their private jets, giving speeches about global warming, and collecting their global warming awareness achievement awards.
- EricDeb 4y agoI disagree with this I think wealthy people can unhyproctitically advocate for higher taxes without necessarily giving up all their money themselves. It's logical to realize one's own small contribution won't do much but the compulsory contribution from everyone will
- ejb999 4y agoDo you think Warren Buffet and Bill Gates can only make a 'small contribution' and it won't do much? I call BS. You know why they don't voluntarily pay higher taxes, and yet advocate for it? because they know if the tax rates/laws change, they will just pay their lawyers extra money to figure out how not to pay it - they want someone else to do it instead. Same reason Bezos preaches on GW, and yet drives around in a yacht that burns more fossil fuels than thousands or of typical Americans will use in a year. It's all virtue signaling, and nothing else.
- hnbad 4y agoI think I see now why you're being angry and confused. I'm not talking about Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. I'm talking about people like Marlene Engelhorn in Austria, who literally toured TV shows making arguments that border on anti-capitalism. She's a millionaire heiress and advocates not just for a higher maximum income tax rate but also for reinstating the wealth tax and raising inheritance tax. She's basically advocating for policies that would make it impossible (or extremely difficult) to become and remain as wealthy as she is, let alone a billionaire. And she's directly going against her own financial interests with this because no amount of creative accounting would shield her from all of it if it became actual policy. For the record, I remembered her being a billionaire heiress but it seems I was off by a digit or two. So I apologize for incorrectly referring to one-percenters when I meant mostly her and other millionaires (afaik) who support her project called Taxmenow. She also criticized philanthropy.