3 ms·

But are the ten thousand people he employs getting good wages because of his actions? Would they be making comparable salaries if he had not started his compani

But are the ten thousand people he employs getting good wages because of his actions? Would they be making comparable salaries if he had not started his companies? He is not paid for productivity, he is rewarded for taking the initial risk and investing his own money.

v-erne 4y ago
I think this story/abstraction of "owning money" has to break at some level. I mean if you believe, as I do, that money (especially at trillion level) is direct substitution for power over people and even whole societies then what happens if we let this global game of Monopoly to play to its seemingly inevitable conclusion ? Isn't this somehow antidemocratic in nature? And if you notice that inheritance is not unlike inheriting stance in aristocratic societies this capitalistic abstraction of ownership through money seems to crack.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  Most billionaires don't really have access to the cash that is included in their net worth, they are shares in their company. If they want to be liquid they have to sell the shares, sacrificing their control of their companies. Regarding the rich having an outsized influence in politics, I do agree, but I think the solution is to get rid of PAC's. Give the rich the same donation limits as everyone else. Strict legal enforcement should be put in place. I believe if you set a limit on an individuals net worth, the economy will lose one of its major drivers and job creators will potentially just hit that net worth, shrug and shut their companies down or pass them on to less capable people costing millions of jobs. Depending on the net worth cap, this could happen relatively early in a companies growth. I do strongly agree with a strong inheritance tax for individuals over an arbitrary net worth, something in the hundred millions range.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    > If they want to be liquid they have to sell the shares, sacrificing their control of their companies. Of course they don't, they just take loans against their assets. The banking sector is happy to provide them with liquidity at almost no cost.
  - v-erne 4y ago
    >> I believe if you set a limit on an individuals net worth, the economy will lose one of its major drivers and job creators This is a really intresting intuition. My off the cuff resposne would be something like this: So what? This does not mean anything without understanding what is the social impact of the jobs that were created - I have a bit of doubt that all 80000+ jobs at Facebook is really a net benefit for a world as a whole. I'm from former Eastern Block country which went through full blown comunism era and we really did not need billioners to help create unlimited amount of bullshit jobs. And what is more important for me, as I'm in the process of going through Shirer The Rise and Fall of Third Reich, and it had a real impact on my understanding of democracy - I believe at this point that it is paramount to create system in which no single individual or party has the ability to accumulate infinite power, no matter what cost it bears for economy. If anyone have some reservations - find the part where the infamous German "leader" explains to his generals why the war with west is inevitable and why it has to happen now and not in next few years.
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      I hear what you are saying but who in the US from the private sector is close to seizing power? Elon Musk is the richest man in the world and a political pariah. There is a big difference between 80k jobs created by the government and 80k jobs created by the free market. Those 80,000 jobs may not have a social impact as far as moving the world in the a desired direction but what jobs do? Does a plumber? A teacher? What if they are not teaching what the party in charge wants taught? Are we going to put someone in charge of determining if a job has meaning and eradicate the job if they don't? What happens when a different political party wins election and starts eliminating positions that the prior party thought had meaning? Can we say certain political parties have no net world benefit and remove them from contention? That much power in government hands is a slow march back to the communism from which your country escaped. Hitler was able to do what he did because the government had so much power. Less power in the hands of the government prevents that, not giving the government more power to police who can earn how much money and what jobs are worthy of existing. I understand what you are saying especially when taken in the context of your childhood but I just disagree with giving anyone the power to enforce it.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > Isn't this somehow antidemocratic in nature? The idea of joint-stock companies is antidemocratic in nature. If you were to propose that people could buy votes in parliament, everybody would (rightly) be outraged. But this is how joint-stock companies work: workers have 0 say in how things are run and how resources are allocated, owners can buy and sell voting rights and dividend rights.

v-erne 4y ago

I think this story/abstraction of "owning money" has to break at some level. I mean if you believe, as I do, that money (especially at trillion level) is direct substitution for power over people and even whole societies then what happens if we let this global game of Monopoly to play to its seemingly inevitable conclusion ? Isn't this somehow antidemocratic in nature? And if you notice that inheritance is not unlike inheriting stance in aristocratic societies this capitalistic abstraction of ownership through money seems to crack.

wonderwonder 4y ago
Most billionaires don't really have access to the cash that is included in their net worth, they are shares in their company. If they want to be liquid they have to sell the shares, sacrificing their control of their companies. Regarding the rich having an outsized influence in politics, I do agree, but I think the solution is to get rid of PAC's. Give the rich the same donation limits as everyone else. Strict legal enforcement should be put in place. I believe if you set a limit on an individuals net worth, the economy will lose one of its major drivers and job creators will potentially just hit that net worth, shrug and shut their companies down or pass them on to less capable people costing millions of jobs. Depending on the net worth cap, this could happen relatively early in a companies growth. I do strongly agree with a strong inheritance tax for individuals over an arbitrary net worth, something in the hundred millions range.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > If they want to be liquid they have to sell the shares, sacrificing their control of their companies. Of course they don't, they just take loans against their assets. The banking sector is happy to provide them with liquidity at almost no cost.
- v-erne 4y ago
  >> I believe if you set a limit on an individuals net worth, the economy will lose one of its major drivers and job creators This is a really intresting intuition. My off the cuff resposne would be something like this: So what? This does not mean anything without understanding what is the social impact of the jobs that were created - I have a bit of doubt that all 80000+ jobs at Facebook is really a net benefit for a world as a whole. I'm from former Eastern Block country which went through full blown comunism era and we really did not need billioners to help create unlimited amount of bullshit jobs. And what is more important for me, as I'm in the process of going through Shirer The Rise and Fall of Third Reich, and it had a real impact on my understanding of democracy - I believe at this point that it is paramount to create system in which no single individual or party has the ability to accumulate infinite power, no matter what cost it bears for economy. If anyone have some reservations - find the part where the infamous German "leader" explains to his generals why the war with west is inevitable and why it has to happen now and not in next few years.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    I hear what you are saying but who in the US from the private sector is close to seizing power? Elon Musk is the richest man in the world and a political pariah. There is a big difference between 80k jobs created by the government and 80k jobs created by the free market. Those 80,000 jobs may not have a social impact as far as moving the world in the a desired direction but what jobs do? Does a plumber? A teacher? What if they are not teaching what the party in charge wants taught? Are we going to put someone in charge of determining if a job has meaning and eradicate the job if they don't? What happens when a different political party wins election and starts eliminating positions that the prior party thought had meaning? Can we say certain political parties have no net world benefit and remove them from contention? That much power in government hands is a slow march back to the communism from which your country escaped. Hitler was able to do what he did because the government had so much power. Less power in the hands of the government prevents that, not giving the government more power to police who can earn how much money and what jobs are worthy of existing. I understand what you are saying especially when taken in the context of your childhood but I just disagree with giving anyone the power to enforce it.
andrepd 4y ago
> Isn't this somehow antidemocratic in nature? The idea of joint-stock companies is antidemocratic in nature. If you were to propose that people could buy votes in parliament, everybody would (rightly) be outraged. But this is how joint-stock companies work: workers have 0 say in how things are run and how resources are allocated, owners can buy and sell voting rights and dividend rights.