4 ms·

The idea that we do the "eat the rich" and it solves all the problems is simplistic? No, tell me it ain't so. But, as the fine original article basically says,

by ggm 2y ago

The idea that we do the "eat the rich" and it solves all the problems is simplistic? No, tell me it ain't so. But, as the fine original article basically says, that doesn't make it wrong to want to redistribute the wealth. It won't replace other things, like a more equitable distribution of income, but it sure helps. The problem is equity. Not only in it's economic meaning, in its social context. We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. And there is no way that Musk being paid $54b for his actions in control of his companies, is equitable, no matter how legal, proper or permitted in law it is.

nickpp 2y ago
> there is no way that Musk being paid $54b for his actions in control of his companies Except the people doing the actual paying, with their own money, voted twice to do it.
- throwaway3306a 2y ago
  There was a comment about people doing the work not voting for it - well that's because they're not the stakeholders. They are always free to start their own companies or buy stock - that will make them share the risk and give them voting rights. They have chosen to go the risk free guaranteed cash payment way instead.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
YZF 2y ago
But that's between Musk and whoever is paying him? I'm not sure why anyone but these parties should get in the middle of this (other than taxing his income etc.). In terms of the social impact of Musk being paid $54b it really depends on what happens with that money. It's not a negative for society if it gets invested in something that adds value. If Musk stores it in his mattress then it has around zero impact. If Musk competes with other people in society for limited resources using that money then it can have a negative impact. I don't think the real problem is Musk's pay. It's just a lightning rod. The problem is too many people with scarce resources. Paying Musk less doesn't solve that. The middle class is eroding not only because of pay disparity, it's because the life style of the middle class isn't sustainable when you have x100 the people wanting to have that life style. Now it's not exactly a zero sum game, we do have productivity gains and figure out other ways to get more out of finite resources, but it's also clearly not possible for everyone in China (e.g.) to have an acre of land, a nice house, and drive a Tesla (or whatever the middle/upper class dream is for the Chinese). So the question is should nobody have it or should more successful (or lucky or privileged) people have more and how much control you want to exert on these processes. Eliminating the top 0.1% via taxation doesn't have a certain outcome, it could make things worse for everyone, it could have no difference on the 99.9%, or it could move them ever so slightly higher. I doubt it has a huge positive impact. Then I guess you're going to end up with some remaining, maybe what you consider unfair, distribution. Part of the economic process that's been going on is also the shift of resources/wealth from a smaller part of humanity to a larger part (again China and other countries going from zero to some substantial portion). I don't think it's as simple as it seems.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > So the question is should nobody have it or should more successful (or lucky or privileged) people have more It seems as obvious as can be that it's the latter that's correct. Would anyone seriously entertain the idea of, e.g., burning all of Picasso's original works, since there aren't enough for everyone to have one?
lottin 2y ago
> We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. Ok. What does that mean? The problem with justice in general, and social justice in particular, is that different people have different opinions about what is just.
gwright 2y ago
> We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. Let's set aside for a moment that it isn't even clear that "equitable outcome" at the level of a society is desirable, lets just consider the fact that every attempt to use force (i.e. government regulations, taxes, penalties, laws, etc.) to move significantly in that direction has resulted in catastrophe with the societies devolving into systems of corruption, authoritarianism, and scarcity. Have you discovered some new mechanism to avoid that outcome? How many times do we need to experiment with communism, socialism, or other utopian philosophies before we realize they don't lead to a better society?
- cjblomqvist 2y ago
  Scandinavia with a tax pressure of 50% or something paints another picture than you do. What is probably more clear is that something of a mix between socialism and capitalism have been the most successful. Probably depending on a lot of factors, including implementation details.
  - gwright 2y ago
    Scandinavia is not an example of socialism and these countries and aren't trying to implement "equity of outcomes".
wavemode 2y ago
> But, as the fine original article basically says, that doesn't make it wrong to want to redistribute the wealth. It won't replace other things, like a more equitable distribution of income, but it sure helps. Show me the math. Redistribute it how? Help who, and help them how? > The problem is equity. Not only in it's economic meaning, in its social context. We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. And there is no way that Musk being paid $54b for his actions in control of his companies, is equitable, no matter how legal, proper or permitted in law it is. If you mean equity in an economic sense, then it's perfectly equitable for a company with >=$54b in assets to transfer <=$54b to an individual. That individual will then pay income tax on said transfer, further funding the development of the society. If you mean "equitable" as in "fair", then that's a value judgment - something is equitable because people feel it is equitable, not because of any objective measure. Even me personally, whatever wealth I have today I only have because I happened to be born within a particular country's borders and not another. Is that equitable? We'd get farther as a society focused on solving the real problems in people's everyday lives, not focused on the people who have things we don't have.
- fragmede 2y ago
  I keep hearing things about housing being a problem, currently. maybe we could tax the rich a little and build a tiny bit more housing? Even without the math that doesn't seem unreasonable.
  - wavemode 2y ago
    Without math anything can seem reasonable.
  - throwaway3306a 2y ago
    You're not going to make a measurable difference at all this way. What needs to be done is a complete change of the zoning system.

by ggm 2y ago

nickpp 2y ago

> there is no way that Musk being paid $54b for his actions in control of his companies Except the people doing the actual paying, with their own money, voted twice to do it.

throwaway3306a 2y ago
There was a comment about people doing the work not voting for it - well that's because they're not the stakeholders. They are always free to start their own companies or buy stock - that will make them share the risk and give them voting rights. They have chosen to go the risk free guaranteed cash payment way instead.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

YZF 2y ago

But that's between Musk and whoever is paying him? I'm not sure why anyone but these parties should get in the middle of this (other than taxing his income etc.). In terms of the social impact of Musk being paid $54b it really depends on what happens with that money. It's not a negative for society if it gets invested in something that adds value. If Musk stores it in his mattress then it has around zero impact. If Musk competes with other people in society for limited resources using that money then it can have a negative impact. I don't think the real problem is Musk's pay. It's just a lightning rod. The problem is too many people with scarce resources. Paying Musk less doesn't solve that. The middle class is eroding not only because of pay disparity, it's because the life style of the middle class isn't sustainable when you have x100 the people wanting to have that life style. Now it's not exactly a zero sum game, we do have productivity gains and figure out other ways to get more out of finite resources, but it's also clearly not possible for everyone in China (e.g.) to have an acre of land, a nice house, and drive a Tesla (or whatever the middle/upper class dream is for the Chinese). So the question is should nobody have it or should more successful (or lucky or privileged) people have more and how much control you want to exert on these processes. Eliminating the top 0.1% via taxation doesn't have a certain outcome, it could make things worse for everyone, it could have no difference on the 99.9%, or it could move them ever so slightly higher. I doubt it has a huge positive impact. Then I guess you're going to end up with some remaining, maybe what you consider unfair, distribution. Part of the economic process that's been going on is also the shift of resources/wealth from a smaller part of humanity to a larger part (again China and other countries going from zero to some substantial portion). I don't think it's as simple as it seems.

josephcsible 2y ago
> So the question is should nobody have it or should more successful (or lucky or privileged) people have more It seems as obvious as can be that it's the latter that's correct. Would anyone seriously entertain the idea of, e.g., burning all of Picasso's original works, since there aren't enough for everyone to have one?

lottin 2y ago

> We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. Ok. What does that mean? The problem with justice in general, and social justice in particular, is that different people have different opinions about what is just.

gwright 2y ago

> We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. Let's set aside for a moment that it isn't even clear that "equitable outcome" at the level of a society is desirable, lets just consider the fact that every attempt to use force (i.e. government regulations, taxes, penalties, laws, etc.) to move significantly in that direction has resulted in catastrophe with the societies devolving into systems of corruption, authoritarianism, and scarcity. Have you discovered some new mechanism to avoid that outcome? How many times do we need to experiment with communism, socialism, or other utopian philosophies before we realize they don't lead to a better society?

cjblomqvist 2y ago
Scandinavia with a tax pressure of 50% or something paints another picture than you do. What is probably more clear is that something of a mix between socialism and capitalism have been the most successful. Probably depending on a lot of factors, including implementation details.
- gwright 2y ago
  Scandinavia is not an example of socialism and these countries and aren't trying to implement "equity of outcomes".

wavemode 2y ago

> But, as the fine original article basically says, that doesn't make it wrong to want to redistribute the wealth. It won't replace other things, like a more equitable distribution of income, but it sure helps. Show me the math. Redistribute it how? Help who, and help them how? > The problem is equity. Not only in it's economic meaning, in its social context. We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. And there is no way that Musk being paid $54b for his actions in control of his companies, is equitable, no matter how legal, proper or permitted in law it is. If you mean equity in an economic sense, then it's perfectly equitable for a company with >=$54b in assets to transfer <=$54b to an individual. That individual will then pay income tax on said transfer, further funding the development of the society. If you mean "equitable" as in "fair", then that's a value judgment - something is equitable because people feel it is equitable, not because of any objective measure. Even me personally, whatever wealth I have today I only have because I happened to be born within a particular country's borders and not another. Is that equitable? We'd get farther as a society focused on solving the real problems in people's everyday lives, not focused on the people who have things we don't have.

fragmede 2y ago
I keep hearing things about housing being a problem, currently. maybe we could tax the rich a little and build a tiny bit more housing? Even without the math that doesn't seem unreasonable.
- wavemode 2y ago
  Without math anything can seem reasonable.
- throwaway3306a 2y ago
  You're not going to make a measurable difference at all this way. What needs to be done is a complete change of the zoning system.