5 ms·

So, the state should control any large enough corporation? Or there should be a ban on over $999m in cash? Or should the government just not waste the absurd am

So, the state should control any large enough corporation? Or there should be a ban on over $999m in cash? Or should the government just not waste the absurd amounts of money we already give them?

mptest 3y ago
>state should control any large enough corporation Not necessarily, company could be broken down in to smaller, become employee owned in some part, could have some amount of stock become owned by an infrastructure fund or something. There's many ways to skin a cat
- wingworks 3y ago
  I'd love for this to work, but in practise I feel the owner on the 999m will more likely stop investing in sed company when it reaches 999m and spin up a new company or some other loophole to get around it. (or if it's individual wealth, then they'll use trusts or some of the many other options available to them.) If there are no options, you better believe they'll create them soon enough.
  - mptest 3y ago
    >or some other loophole to get around it. (or if it's individual wealth, then they'll use trusts or some of the many other options available to them Completely agree, it will always be a cat and mouse game. But it's a worthy aspiration, and I'd argue the reason the wealthy have been the cat more than the mouse in the relationship with the state is due only to the budget disparity between them. Start to shrink the disparity between the enforcement budget (think IRS special forces for the ultra wealthy) and the "avoid taxes" budget and the aspiration looks a lot more doable. >owner of the 999m will stop investing Maybe. Or maybe they'll get better and spending rather than hoarding and continuously need to replenish that stock. Even if these "winners" of a more 'social capitalism' stopped gracing us with their genius, the surplus of wealth in endeavors like free stem schooling for everyone (that wants it) would surely make up for that loss??
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Not necessarily, company could be broken down in to smaller, become employee owned in some part, could have some amount of stock become owned by an infrastructure fund or something. There's many ways to skin a cat If you think taking money from paper billionaires is going to make a material difference to the US's $6 trillion spending each year, can you quantify how much are you expecting it to raise?
  - mptest 3y ago
    You're right that reducing spending, particularly the pentagon's blank check and the military budget is going to play a larger role but stop reading ahead! I can only push leftist politics one point at a time out here!
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Well, if you go after the actual problem and not just talking points, you'll know it's a lot bigger than the military. And that the US military is extremely important for the whole global house of cards to stay standing. Glad to hear that limited government is now considered leftist politics. No more pork barrels for the Democrats?
      - mptest 3y ago
        Reign in unlimited military spending is not "limited government", it's "limited military". Making sure the pentagon stops "losing" trillions is not small government it's basic accountability. But you're right it's more than that. And the billionaires. But like I said, one point at a time! You've clearly read ahead of the class. And "no more pork barrels for democrats"? I said leftist, not democrat. I still believe in state solutions to healthcare to start, since that's the topic at hand. And yes, I know it's much bigger than the military and pentagon, but I can't exactly summarize Pikkety's Capital and ideology or the socialist manifesto by sunkara in a couple hn comments can I? Re the "we're vital for the whole house of cards" to remain standing, lol. What good have we done recently besides maybe funding ukraine? Were we keeping the house of cards standing in iraq? vietnam? Korea? points to latin america in general Need I go on? Iran? Were we keeping the cards up when we spent money arming the Mujahadeen?
boxed 3y ago
Well.. no, we should all be less ignorant of how science, technology, and societies work. I have no idea how you got to your statement from mine. States are ALSO absolutely HORRIBLE at doing this basic thing correctly. They waste enormous amounts of money doing worthless things and under-invest in infrastructure in ways that makes my eyes water. Same as the ultra rich really. It's all about cultural stories. You have fallen into the base line left-right story so hard you replied to my comment with a non-sequitur. Literally it was nonsense, because your preconceived ideas of the solution space cannot even map what I was saying. This is a war of ideas where currently sanity isn't only losing, it's not even in the game. The big players are Islam, Christianity, Communism, and Libertarianism/Laissez-faire capitalism. All of which are basically death cults in this context.

So, the state should control any large enough corporation? Or there should be a ban on over $999m in cash? Or should the government just not waste the absurd amounts of money we already give them?

mptest 3y ago

>state should control any large enough corporation Not necessarily, company could be broken down in to smaller, become employee owned in some part, could have some amount of stock become owned by an infrastructure fund or something. There's many ways to skin a cat

wingworks 3y ago
I'd love for this to work, but in practise I feel the owner on the 999m will more likely stop investing in sed company when it reaches 999m and spin up a new company or some other loophole to get around it. (or if it's individual wealth, then they'll use trusts or some of the many other options available to them.) If there are no options, you better believe they'll create them soon enough.
- mptest 3y ago
  >or some other loophole to get around it. (or if it's individual wealth, then they'll use trusts or some of the many other options available to them Completely agree, it will always be a cat and mouse game. But it's a worthy aspiration, and I'd argue the reason the wealthy have been the cat more than the mouse in the relationship with the state is due only to the budget disparity between them. Start to shrink the disparity between the enforcement budget (think IRS special forces for the ultra wealthy) and the "avoid taxes" budget and the aspiration looks a lot more doable. >owner of the 999m will stop investing Maybe. Or maybe they'll get better and spending rather than hoarding and continuously need to replenish that stock. Even if these "winners" of a more 'social capitalism' stopped gracing us with their genius, the surplus of wealth in endeavors like free stem schooling for everyone (that wants it) would surely make up for that loss??
robertlagrant 3y ago
> Not necessarily, company could be broken down in to smaller, become employee owned in some part, could have some amount of stock become owned by an infrastructure fund or something. There's many ways to skin a cat If you think taking money from paper billionaires is going to make a material difference to the US's $6 trillion spending each year, can you quantify how much are you expecting it to raise?
- mptest 3y ago
  You're right that reducing spending, particularly the pentagon's blank check and the military budget is going to play a larger role but stop reading ahead! I can only push leftist politics one point at a time out here!
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Well, if you go after the actual problem and not just talking points, you'll know it's a lot bigger than the military. And that the US military is extremely important for the whole global house of cards to stay standing. Glad to hear that limited government is now considered leftist politics. No more pork barrels for the Democrats?
    - mptest 3y ago
      Reign in unlimited military spending is not "limited government", it's "limited military". Making sure the pentagon stops "losing" trillions is not small government it's basic accountability. But you're right it's more than that. And the billionaires. But like I said, one point at a time! You've clearly read ahead of the class. And "no more pork barrels for democrats"? I said leftist, not democrat. I still believe in state solutions to healthcare to start, since that's the topic at hand. And yes, I know it's much bigger than the military and pentagon, but I can't exactly summarize Pikkety's Capital and ideology or the socialist manifesto by sunkara in a couple hn comments can I? Re the "we're vital for the whole house of cards" to remain standing, lol. What good have we done recently besides maybe funding ukraine? Were we keeping the house of cards standing in iraq? vietnam? Korea? points to latin america in general Need I go on? Iran? Were we keeping the cards up when we spent money arming the Mujahadeen?

boxed 3y ago

Well.. no, we should all be less ignorant of how science, technology, and societies work. I have no idea how you got to your statement from mine. States are ALSO absolutely HORRIBLE at doing this basic thing correctly. They waste enormous amounts of money doing worthless things and under-invest in infrastructure in ways that makes my eyes water. Same as the ultra rich really. It's all about cultural stories. You have fallen into the base line left-right story so hard you replied to my comment with a non-sequitur. Literally it was nonsense, because your preconceived ideas of the solution space cannot even map what I was saying. This is a war of ideas where currently sanity isn't only losing, it's not even in the game. The big players are Islam, Christianity, Communism, and Libertarianism/Laissez-faire capitalism. All of which are basically death cults in this context.