5 ms·
And it never will be. This is a human problem. No amount of laws and regulations will ever solve it.
by seanw444 3y ago
And it never will be. This is a human problem. No amount of laws and regulations will ever solve it.
- basedkissinger 3y ago[dead]
- r00fus 3y agoIs this an appeal for a different form of governance?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- renewiltord 3y agoPerhaps we can rely on a capricious unaligned AGI to run our universities.
- Kapura 3y agowhat if we had laws that prevented people from obtaining disproportionate amounts of wealth? Seems like it'd be a lot harder to buy a school if being a multi-billionaire is impossible.
- random_kris 3y agoAnd the party is in charge of enforcing those laws right ?
- BowBun 3y agoLoopholes will be found, wealth will be concentrated in new ways, and then the wealth will be used to revert laws to benefit the wealthy. The laws won't change in the first place since money has captured most political systems as well.
- bcrosby95 3y agoYes, give up and don't try, on the scale of things you will be dead and forgotten anyways - a failure in every sense of the word regardless of what you do.
- BowBun 3y agoEven people famous in their time are forgotten in short order. A good lesson for those deluding themselves into thinking they'll be an exception. Better to be remembered as a decent human being to your loved ones.
- holmesworcester 3y agoThat would tip the balance of power to another corrupting influence. Corporations, say. Or professional associations representing highly-educated high earners like doctors or lawyers. Or to politically savvy deca-millionaires who use their money with more focused attention. And that's setting aside the question of how and whether you could prevent the existence of billionaires, which would lead to offshoring and (plausibly at least) dramatic unintended changes in what kinds of social and technological change happens. But either way, coalitions corrupting institutions is not a soluble problem generally. It gets solved with acts of effort and courage like this one, and by discussions like this.
- tivert 3y ago> That would tip the balance of power to another corrupting influence. Corporations, say. Or professional associations representing highly-educated high earners like doctors or lawyers. Even if what you say is true, which I do not grant, your implication is akin to "we should not punish criminals, because some other criminals will rise to take their place." It's a defeatist meme that mainly serves to protect the interests of the already-powerful. Some work is never done, but that is not a reason to give up on it.
- firebat45 3y agoThis is such a naive viewpoint. Let's say that people are not allowed to have more than 10 million dollars, but corporations are. Then it wouldn't be Zuckerberg's money, it would simply be Facebook's, wielded by Zuckerberg. I hope you can see the ridiculousness is saying that corporations should be limited in wealth as well, but even if you can't, let's assume they are limited the same. Now it becomes easier to buy them off, because they are comparably smaller. The only logical solution is to allow both corporations and individuals to accumulate as much wealth as they are able to. Rich people aren't the problem, corrupt people are. Instead of trying to make rich corrupt people less rich, why don't we try to make them less corrupt instead?
- istjohn 3y agoJust who is buying off these corporations if no one has vast wealth?
- lovecg 3y agoForeign entities? Of course, we should ban that as long as we’re at it. Next you’ll have people using vastly superior foreign products, we better ban that as well. And if people decide to leave the country en masse because they’re too morally weak and desire wealth, we can’t have that either, so better build a wall.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoYour argument is founded on naivete. Of course doing something halfway would not accomplish much.
- 93po 3y agoWe should just tax income over $10 million at 90% for both people and corporations. Maybe then we could have an actual healthcare system
- lovecg 3y ago> We should just tax income over $10 million at 90% for both people and corporations. People - maybe. But why corporations? Isn’t that double taxation? The only way money leaves a corporation is through people which will be taxed eventually. As for the healthcare system, it doesn’t need more money. It needs an extreme regulation and red tape shake up. We could have vastly better healthcare today for the same amount of money that’s already there if not for the bureaucratic mess and an army of administrators tending to it.
- Tempest1981 3y agoThere are some billionaires who are literally asking to be taxed more. Not much success convincing US govt.
- mrguyorama 3y agoBecause they are full of shit. Where is the "pro billionaire tax" think tank and super-PAC they are funding?
- pwillia7 3y agoWhat about better redistributing wealth -- you know like corn subsidies
- LewisVerstappen 3y ago[flagged]
- istjohn 3y agoWhat were the disastrous consequences of the 91% income tax rate on the top bracket in the 1950's?
- LewisVerstappen 3y ago[flagged]
- skeaker 3y agoNot seeing how this is related.
- mjmsmith 3y agoIt's unfortunate that you stopped before responding to the question that was asked.
- hellotomyrars 3y agoIt is very good and useful to actually ignore a reasonable question and engage in any discussion they might contradict your way of thinking and instead point and yell at things that literally aren’t representative of what was posed. What a joke. It didn’t used to be this way in the US and we weren’t North Korea then, but okay. Point at a bogeyman and accept the status quo (to the benefit of those with unimaginable wealth by the way, of which they aren’t going to give you any for defending them.) instead of I considering how to make a world where things are better for everyone.
- sobkas 3y ago
- tivert 3y ago>> From regulatory capture through revolving doors and lobbying, to media capture through purchase, and now academic capture through donation, it seems no activity is safe from large concentrations of wealth. > And it never will be. This is a human problem. No amount of laws and regulations will ever solve it. Come on. Wealth is literally a creature of "law and regulations," and changes to them can definitely "solve it." That's trivially shown by the through a thought experiment where we imagine legal changes that lead to Zuckerberg having his wealth confiscated and Facebook being placed under the control of some person or entity who is not its ally and is not allowed to profit from it. I think I need to make extra-clear that my example is an extreme one to clearly disprove your point, not the only regulatory option available or a policy proposal. Don't get distracted by irrelevant details. Defeatist memes like what you said circulate widely to encourage paralysis, but they're propaganda or its derivatives, not truth.
- whelp_24 3y agoWe shouldn't sit on our hands or whatever but wealth isn't a creation of laws, it's a bit of the inverse. Some laws can remove wealth and some laws are gonna take a lotta of guns and manpower (resources ==wealth) to implement.
- istjohn 3y agoWithout laws, you have anarchy. Laws create the institutions necessary to have an economy capable of creating wealth.
- sobkas 3y ago> Without laws, you have anarchy. Laws create the institutions necessary to have an economy capable of creating wealth. Without laws you don't have anarchy, you just have rule of strongest. Anarchy can have laws but no authority that enforces them.
- seanw444 3y agoIf we moved into a world without government and laws, it'd be replaced by a sort of modernized feudalism. Not anarchy.
- happytiger 3y agoThat’s not the point. Corruption (which is what this is) is NOT binary, it’s a problem that exists on spectrum. We don’t solve spectrum problems, we reduce and minimize them. Just because they exist to a degree and never are remediated doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to minimize them. Corruption can lead to tax evasion, poor tax administration, and exemptions that disproportionately favor the well-connected and wealthy population groups in society and must be rallied against if we seek civil societies. We’ll never get rid of it. As you say. But if we don’t act against it these problems will grow like cancer and become insidious, infecting every aspect of society, so it’s deeply important not to embrace an apathetic approach or present them as inevitable. They are intrinsic, but the level we tolerate — the “degree of corruption” — which I would argue is pretty high in this case, is most certainly counterable and definitely can be reduced.
- istjohn 3y agoWell, you can prevent the concentration of wealth in the first place. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property....Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise"[0]. 0. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-08-02-0534 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-08-02-0...
- lapinot 3y agoThe good old "we have always been that way". If perhaps hard to imagine for you, there are tons of social structures where wealth cannot be used to purchase power (ie where currency buys you some stuff but not labor from other humans). See the recent book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything. Very much a perspective changing book.
- lovecg 3y agoI’m going to guess that not many of those social structures achieved things like low infant mortality, not dying from randomly stubbing your toe, the internet, space travel, and the like. If I was presented with a choice, I’d pick a modern Western state any time, flawed as they may be.
- lapinot 3y agoYour argument is a straw-man. You're conflating taking inspiration from something and adopting it verbatim (your first two examples are particularly hilarious in this regard). Also i've yet to find a compelling argument defending that western capitalism is a necessity for high-tech (you second two examples). In particular schools, academia and software are fields where not commercial-centric relationships are thriving and deemed superior by a fair share of practitioners.