4 ms·

What Would Society Look Like If Extreme Wealth Were Impossible?

25 points by hermitcrab 3y ago

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Wrong question. A more practical and more important question is: What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system putting their thumb on the scale to benefit The Few? Furthermore, it's not how high to top is per se, it's that so few arw that high (i.e., the concentration); it's how far away the top is from the bottom. The top is embrassassing, but the bottom is shameful.
- hermitcrab 3y ago
  We don't have the resources for everyone to live like current billionaires live (private jets, yachts, multiple homes etc). It would destroy the ecosystem. So we can't raise everyone to that level (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. I realize that is unlikely to be a popular position on HN, where many people consider themselves future billionaires!
  - delichon 3y ago
    > (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. Why would we restrict ourselves to current tech in the future? AI has the potential to be a human force multiplier on the scale of the industrial revolution, and more. We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
    - mbfg 3y ago
      No doubt AI will be a force multiplier. But that in no way says it will help the masses. It will help the owners of the tech. You might be able to find some tangential ways where it may help the bottom somewhat, but in the end the disparity between rich and poor will just be larger.
    - Voultapher 3y ago
      > We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity No we can't. There are so many signs that all point to that not happening https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    The point is, those lifestyles are a symptom. For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Yes, resources are limited. So then why are key entities (e.g., The Fed) so insantant on squandering those resources for The Few? The buck literally starts and stops here. Solving the after the fact symptom(s) is a fool's errand. If we - The Many - continue to be fools, nothing is going to change. In fact, the concentration and distribution of financial wealth is getting worse. But sure, let's keep obcessing over symptoms.
    - squigz 3y ago
      > For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Because we're led to believe the symptons are the actual problems. Solving the core issues would be bad for the rich and powerful, and so they work to keep us distracted and misinformed > If we - The Many - continue to be fools, I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few"
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - chiefalchemist 3y ago
        > I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few" If the lies of The Few keep working, why should they stop? If The Many are well aware they have been lied to *repeatedly*, and yet continue to suck up the lies as gospel, whose fault is that? "First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me." But The Many can't count past one.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system putting their thumb on the scale to benefit The Few? Are you proposing we should outlaw the putting of the thumb on the scale? That's a wonderful idea. Do you happen to have any details? Maybe some references. The only thing I could think of is called "checks and balances". The reference to that is fairly standard, it's called the US Constitution. Are you saying that's not enough? Ok, then the fix you are proposing is what? An amendment or a replacement? If it's an amendment, what would it be? If it's a replacement, I'm honestly not that interested.
nf3 3y ago
https://archive.ph/ZGuWC https://archive.ph/ZGuWC
jocoda 3y ago
Article does not try to answer it's title question so I guess that it was added to make it more clickable. - "no one deserves such excess, that people would be better off morally and psychologically without it" The extremes of what we have achieved - both good and bad mark out the features of humanity. We are not good or bad, we're animals functioning in nature, and nature's one core characteristic is competition, competition in everything. I think we're really good at competing within our environment. So good in fact, that we're hitting the limits of our environment in many ways. Bacteria in a petri dish go through rapid growth, stability and then inevitably reach the final death phase. I wonder it that's what awaits us. I hope that we can self modify quickly enough to morph into something other than human because our humanity is the defining feature that got us to where we are right now. edit - grammar
- Voultapher 3y ago
  Stopping manmade biosphere destruction is easy, it only requires fundamental political, economic and cultural changes in every single country all at once. Our political, economic and cultural systems are all rooted in growth. We define wealth as owning and using more than before. Our economies and pensions etc. are built on the expectation of continuous growth. Our cultures revolve in large parts around wealth. I think the question is no longer what can we do to prevent billions from dying, rather our decisions today will decide how many billions. Side-note: The perspective above is human centric or supremacist depending on who you ask. We share this world with so many other lifeforms, as of now they don't have a seat at the table. What if we manage to save humans and smartphones from extinction but only us? Is that a world worth living in? To quote Tom Murphy: > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life. From https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/
mbg721 3y ago
It would look like whatever the largest possessor of extreme wealth that was defined outside the society wanted it to look like. That's every Communist society ever, "You're the People, just trust us,"
pizzafeelsright 3y ago
The Kingdom of God has no interest, debt is discouraged, loan forgiveness after 7 years, and community reset every 50 years.
justinclift 3y ago
Well, the US wouldn't be winning "the space race" for starters. Whether or not that's viewed positively probably depends on how you view the US though. ;)
simne 3y ago
This is known thing - in some countries taxes are so high (progressive system, etc), billionaires just flew out there, and other freedoms don't help to retain wealth people. For this are known Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden. For example, I know, even when in Sweden exist very active venture system, but nearly all startups flew out there, after passed first two-three years and achieve some big valuation.

25 points by hermitcrab 3y ago

Wrong question. A more practical and more important question is: What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system putting their thumb on the scale to benefit The Few? Furthermore, it's not how high to top is per se, it's that so few arw that high (i.e., the concentration); it's how far away the top is from the bottom. The top is embrassassing, but the bottom is shameful.

hermitcrab 3y ago
We don't have the resources for everyone to live like current billionaires live (private jets, yachts, multiple homes etc). It would destroy the ecosystem. So we can't raise everyone to that level (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. I realize that is unlikely to be a popular position on HN, where many people consider themselves future billionaires!
- delichon 3y ago
  > (with current technology and resources). So the only way we can improve the lots of the poor is by reducing the ludicrous over consumption of billionaires. Why would we restrict ourselves to current tech in the future? AI has the potential to be a human force multiplier on the scale of the industrial revolution, and more. We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
  - mbfg 3y ago
    No doubt AI will be a force multiplier. But that in no way says it will help the masses. It will help the owners of the tech. You might be able to find some tangential ways where it may help the bottom somewhat, but in the end the disparity between rich and poor will just be larger.
  - Voultapher 3y ago
    > We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity No we can't. There are so many signs that all point to that not happening https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  The point is, those lifestyles are a symptom. For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Yes, resources are limited. So then why are key entities (e.g., The Fed) so insantant on squandering those resources for The Few? The buck literally starts and stops here. Solving the after the fact symptom(s) is a fool's errand. If we - The Many - continue to be fools, nothing is going to change. In fact, the concentration and distribution of financial wealth is getting worse. But sure, let's keep obcessing over symptoms.
  - squigz 3y ago
    > For reasons I cannot explain, we collectively spend an excessive amount of time on symptoms and too little time on root problems. Because we're led to believe the symptons are the actual problems. Solving the core issues would be bad for the rich and powerful, and so they work to keep us distracted and misinformed > If we - The Many - continue to be fools, I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few"
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      > I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few" If the lies of The Few keep working, why should they stop? If The Many are well aware they have been lied to *repeatedly*, and yet continue to suck up the lies as gospel, whose fault is that? "First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me." But The Many can't count past one.
credit_guy 3y ago
> What would society look like if extreme wealth wasn't driven by key entities within the system putting their thumb on the scale to benefit The Few? Are you proposing we should outlaw the putting of the thumb on the scale? That's a wonderful idea. Do you happen to have any details? Maybe some references. The only thing I could think of is called "checks and balances". The reference to that is fairly standard, it's called the US Constitution. Are you saying that's not enough? Ok, then the fix you are proposing is what? An amendment or a replacement? If it's an amendment, what would it be? If it's a replacement, I'm honestly not that interested.

nf3 3y ago

https://archive.ph/ZGuWC https://archive.ph/ZGuWC

jocoda 3y ago

Article does not try to answer it's title question so I guess that it was added to make it more clickable. - "no one deserves such excess, that people would be better off morally and psychologically without it" The extremes of what we have achieved - both good and bad mark out the features of humanity. We are not good or bad, we're animals functioning in nature, and nature's one core characteristic is competition, competition in everything. I think we're really good at competing within our environment. So good in fact, that we're hitting the limits of our environment in many ways. Bacteria in a petri dish go through rapid growth, stability and then inevitably reach the final death phase. I wonder it that's what awaits us. I hope that we can self modify quickly enough to morph into something other than human because our humanity is the defining feature that got us to where we are right now. edit - grammar

Voultapher 3y ago
Stopping manmade biosphere destruction is easy, it only requires fundamental political, economic and cultural changes in every single country all at once. Our political, economic and cultural systems are all rooted in growth. We define wealth as owning and using more than before. Our economies and pensions etc. are built on the expectation of continuous growth. Our cultures revolve in large parts around wealth. I think the question is no longer what can we do to prevent billions from dying, rather our decisions today will decide how many billions. Side-note: The perspective above is human centric or supremacist depending on who you ask. We share this world with so many other lifeforms, as of now they don't have a seat at the table. What if we manage to save humans and smartphones from extinction but only us? Is that a world worth living in? To quote Tom Murphy: > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life. From https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/

mbg721 3y ago

It would look like whatever the largest possessor of extreme wealth that was defined outside the society wanted it to look like. That's every Communist society ever, "You're the People, just trust us,"

pizzafeelsright 3y ago

The Kingdom of God has no interest, debt is discouraged, loan forgiveness after 7 years, and community reset every 50 years.

justinclift 3y ago

Well, the US wouldn't be winning "the space race" for starters. Whether or not that's viewed positively probably depends on how you view the US though. ;)

simne 3y ago

This is known thing - in some countries taxes are so high (progressive system, etc), billionaires just flew out there, and other freedoms don't help to retain wealth people. For this are known Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden. For example, I know, even when in Sweden exist very active venture system, but nearly all startups flew out there, after passed first two-three years and achieve some big valuation.