4 ms·
If you don't want wealth inequality, let everybody from birth on start at the same zero, or rather, the same 1 million, or whatever is possible. Otherwise, what
by auggierose 4y ago
If you don't want wealth inequality, let everybody from birth on start at the same zero, or rather, the same 1 million, or whatever is possible. Otherwise, what kind of equality are we talking about here?
With AI, capital will dominate everything. Crass inequality will be the norm. The only path out of this will be paved with blood. Except if humanity is much smarter than I think it is.
- jacquesm 4y agoWe're talking about the difference between the billionaires that are the subject of the article and the people who end up being laid off (who are still pretty rich compared to many people). This guy is utterly isolated from the consequences of the decisions that he is asking for and effectively wants society to pay for his results. That's mismatched at many levels.
- auggierose 4y agoSo what? All people in power are utterly isolated from the consequences of the decisions they make. I don't see any mismatch here. I feel it is quite pointless to talk about the morality of billionaires. They are amoral pretty much by the definition of a billion.
- jacquesm 4y agoApologies for being rude but this is a discussion forum and I'll determine for myself what it is pointless to talk about and if you feel that you don't care then don't bother entering the discussion. FWIW I don't think that it is pointless to talk about the effect that billionaires are having on our lives precisely because their billions insulate them from the consequences which effectively makes them our new kings with their own dynasty. And the kings of old were at least somewhat accountable to their population in times of hardship and their influence was limited to the countries that they governed (or decided to go to war with). I sincerely believe that if we don't find a way to reign this in that it will come back to haunt us.
- cloutchaser 4y agoWhat he is saying is that in any society the elite are isolated, this isn’t something unique to billionaires. You think Chavez in Venezuela or Xi in China is still a man of the people? Perhaps this is a good thing. You can’t make emotional decisions when you are responsible for millions of people potentially. You literally wouldn’t be able to have leaders if leaders were emotionally involved in tens of thousands of peoples hard lives.
- jacquesm 4y agoThen maybe the solution is to do away with the leaders who can't. Because lots of people who crave power are exactly the ones who shouldn't have it in the first place. Xi for instance is not exactly lighting the way in terms of ethics.
- cloutchaser 4y agoI mean sure, that's a nice dream. What society in the history of humanity has ever come close to this? What is your blueprint for achieving this practically, instead of saying nice sounding dreams?
- jacquesm 4y agoSwitzerland. They're not perfect but definitely a step in the right direction.
- cloutchaser 4y agoA banking nation who even holds money for basically anyone, including nazis back in the 1940s. Nice example.
- jacquesm 4y agoWhat Switzerland did in the 1940's has absolutely nothing to do with what they do today, likewise the aggressor Germany, hardly anybody alive back the is still alive today and certainly not in a position of power. You asked for an example, I gave you one. Have a read to see how Switzerland created their political system out of necessity: http://www.athene.antenna.nl/MEDIATHEEK/KOBACH-1.html http://www.athene.antenna.nl/MEDIATHEEK/KOBACH-1.html