5 ms·

We need wealth limits for companies (which should be more like co-ops), proportional to the size of the company, with everything pasta threshold going back int

We need wealth limits for companies (which should be more like co-ops), proportional to the size of the company, with everything pasta threshold going back into UBI or something. Same for individual wealth accumulation. People could do more projects/start more companies to earn more, but no one should be accumulating millions by doing almost nothing as is the case now.

prottog 4y ago
> no one should be accumulating millions by doing almost nothing as is the case now Outside of people who inherit this kind of wealth, who exactly is accumulating millions just sitting on their asses?
- PrimeMcFly 4y ago
  People who earn via investing for starters. And then you have people earning millions, that at least when compared to the numerous workers being underpaid and actually doing the hard work that generates profit, basically do so little work they may as well be sitting on their asses.
  - umrcumrcu 4y ago
    You would effectively ban investment then? No one could earn any money from index funds?
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      black/white fallacy
      - umrcumrcu 4y ago
        Someone has a million in index funds and earns more than a Walmart worker by "sitting on their ass". Are you proposing a ban to that?
        mxkopy 4y ago
        limit != ban Capital gains taxes don't prevent an investor from making money.
        nickpp 4y ago
        They do disincentivize and thus reduce the investment in the area though. An area which helps the economy grow and in process creates good services and jobs for everybody.
        peterashford 4y ago
        You really need to learn how to respond to arguments without constructing strawmen. You can't get to a resolution of different viewpoints by misrepresenting the opposing argument
    - r00fus 4y ago
      Your argument is a strawman - but yes, ideally this would come via additional taxation or regulation of investment (which we do now, but not well enough).
      - nickpp 4y ago
        That would restrict access to early investment deals and opportunities for regular folks even more (today you have to be a "certified" investor) in turn increasing wealth inequality and social mobility.
- just-ok 4y ago
  a $10M portfolio with 10% annual gains (tweak the numbers as you’d like, it’s still fairly reasonable for the “wealthy”, I think)
- r00fus 4y ago
  I can't find the source, but I heard most of the newest crop of billionaires made all their money of financialized wealth (ie, not producing anything of value, just arbitraging something - probably mostly real-estate). They're not exactly doing nothing but they're not producing anything of real value. This is a growing problem in the US.
  - snapcaster 4y ago
    I agree with your larger points, but also arbitraging away price differences is valuable for a society. It feels like one of the big advantages capitalism has versus planned economies
umrcumrcu 4y ago
What wealth limit are you proposing and why wouldn't companies leave for another country?
- mxkopy 4y ago
  > why wouldn't companies leave for another country Haven't they already? Besides, that might be a good thing, if corporate overreach continues to grow unchecked.
- PrimeMcFly 4y ago
  > why wouldn't companies leave for another country? Solved by limiting the profit that can be transferred out to foreign companies/parent companies. If a market is too big, as long as money can still be made even with a cap, a company won't leave - or if they do a competitor will spring up to take its place.
  - refurb 4y ago
    So capital controls? Like China? That has a ton of associated problems.
    - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
      I mean, I'm not sure China is the role model for how to do anything like that really. Doesn't mean the idea is without merit though.
      - refurb 4y ago
        It kind of does because you can see the problems with capital controls in China. Foreign investment drops off because, hey, who is going to invest if they can take their money back out? It's also going to limit foreign investment outside the country. It also screws with exchange rates and interest rates because of the Interest Rate parity law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity
randomcarbloke 4y ago
Coops are free to exist and do, unfortunately they cannot scale - you need to solve this before mandating all companies act as cooperatives.
- PrimeMcFly 4y ago
  Of course coops can scale. https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/jan/04/social-enterprise-blog-co-operatives-and-mutuals https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/j...
  - jhbadger 4y ago
    That certainly shows that coops can be bigger than the cliched coop grocery store and the like, but even the largest coops on that list aren't particularly large as far as corporations go even if some have high revenue -- and look what industries they are in -- banking, lumber, insurance -- not exactly progressive role models.
    - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
      > but even the largest coops on that list aren't particularly large as far as corporations go even if some have high revenue And you think that's a bad thing?
      - jhbadger 4y ago
        The argument was whether they could scale, and they don't seem to be able to beyond a certain point (and even then only in fields of dubious value like banking). Whether or not scaling is a good thing or not is an entirely different thing.
        PrimeMcFly 4y ago
        I don't think it's an issue that they can scale, I see no reason they could not, I think it's because they don't have the appetite to do so. There is nothing intrinsically limiting about the format of a coop that would prevent it from being as big as needed, IMO.

prottog 4y ago

> no one should be accumulating millions by doing almost nothing as is the case now Outside of people who inherit this kind of wealth, who exactly is accumulating millions just sitting on their asses?

PrimeMcFly 4y ago
People who earn via investing for starters. And then you have people earning millions, that at least when compared to the numerous workers being underpaid and actually doing the hard work that generates profit, basically do so little work they may as well be sitting on their asses.
- umrcumrcu 4y ago
  You would effectively ban investment then? No one could earn any money from index funds?
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    black/white fallacy
    - umrcumrcu 4y ago
      Someone has a million in index funds and earns more than a Walmart worker by "sitting on their ass". Are you proposing a ban to that?
      - mxkopy 4y ago
        limit != ban Capital gains taxes don't prevent an investor from making money.
        nickpp 4y ago
        They do disincentivize and thus reduce the investment in the area though. An area which helps the economy grow and in process creates good services and jobs for everybody.
      - peterashford 4y ago
        You really need to learn how to respond to arguments without constructing strawmen. You can't get to a resolution of different viewpoints by misrepresenting the opposing argument
  - r00fus 4y ago
    Your argument is a strawman - but yes, ideally this would come via additional taxation or regulation of investment (which we do now, but not well enough).
    - nickpp 4y ago
      That would restrict access to early investment deals and opportunities for regular folks even more (today you have to be a "certified" investor) in turn increasing wealth inequality and social mobility.
just-ok 4y ago
a $10M portfolio with 10% annual gains (tweak the numbers as you’d like, it’s still fairly reasonable for the “wealthy”, I think)
r00fus 4y ago
I can't find the source, but I heard most of the newest crop of billionaires made all their money of financialized wealth (ie, not producing anything of value, just arbitraging something - probably mostly real-estate). They're not exactly doing nothing but they're not producing anything of real value. This is a growing problem in the US.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  I agree with your larger points, but also arbitraging away price differences is valuable for a society. It feels like one of the big advantages capitalism has versus planned economies

umrcumrcu 4y ago

What wealth limit are you proposing and why wouldn't companies leave for another country?

mxkopy 4y ago
> why wouldn't companies leave for another country Haven't they already? Besides, that might be a good thing, if corporate overreach continues to grow unchecked.
PrimeMcFly 4y ago
> why wouldn't companies leave for another country? Solved by limiting the profit that can be transferred out to foreign companies/parent companies. If a market is too big, as long as money can still be made even with a cap, a company won't leave - or if they do a competitor will spring up to take its place.
- refurb 4y ago
  So capital controls? Like China? That has a ton of associated problems.
  - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
    I mean, I'm not sure China is the role model for how to do anything like that really. Doesn't mean the idea is without merit though.
    - refurb 4y ago
      It kind of does because you can see the problems with capital controls in China. Foreign investment drops off because, hey, who is going to invest if they can take their money back out? It's also going to limit foreign investment outside the country. It also screws with exchange rates and interest rates because of the Interest Rate parity law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity

randomcarbloke 4y ago

Coops are free to exist and do, unfortunately they cannot scale - you need to solve this before mandating all companies act as cooperatives.

PrimeMcFly 4y ago
Of course coops can scale. https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/jan/04/social-enterprise-blog-co-operatives-and-mutuals https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/j...
- jhbadger 4y ago
  That certainly shows that coops can be bigger than the cliched coop grocery store and the like, but even the largest coops on that list aren't particularly large as far as corporations go even if some have high revenue -- and look what industries they are in -- banking, lumber, insurance -- not exactly progressive role models.
  - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
    > but even the largest coops on that list aren't particularly large as far as corporations go even if some have high revenue And you think that's a bad thing?
    - jhbadger 4y ago
      The argument was whether they could scale, and they don't seem to be able to beyond a certain point (and even then only in fields of dubious value like banking). Whether or not scaling is a good thing or not is an entirely different thing.
      - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
        I don't think it's an issue that they can scale, I see no reason they could not, I think it's because they don't have the appetite to do so. There is nothing intrinsically limiting about the format of a coop that would prevent it from being as big as needed, IMO.