4 ms·
MBAs and similar types are the Western capitalist equivalent of the Soviet apparatchik: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
by api 2y ago
MBAs and similar types are the Western capitalist equivalent of the Soviet apparatchik:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik
Entities like PE or conglomerates are a lot like Soviet bureaus: giant bastions of bureaucrats appointed to run things they have no direct expertise in running.
The underlying issue here is what I call the "big dumb money problem." You get entities with more resources to deploy than intelligence or expertise to deploy them efficiently.
A major argument for things like anti-trust and some degree of progressive taxation is to avoid what I call "Soviet Kapitalism" -- which the top of the economy ends up dominated by big dumb money and bureaucratic monopolies. When this happens a market economy starts looking indistinguishable from the USSR. In a way you could say a totalitarian state like the USSR is just an extreme version of this with the state acting like one giant monopoly mega-corp.
Money needs to be redistributed so the ratio of dollars to brain cells is more balanced.
- robertlagrant 2y ago> Money needs to be redistributed so the ratio of dollars to brain cells is more balanced. It will likely do that naturally unless something gets in the way in the name of progress.
- alan-hn 2y agoMoney and greed naturally get in the way. Is that not obvious? People are finding any way to game the system just to get more money You're thinking of using money as a measure but everyone else is using it as a target...
- jerrycabbage 2y agoThe answer is a wealth tax. The inequality grows leading into a need for investments like these. If all other assets weren't so inflated then we could at least wish PE wouldn't need to do things like this but this is what will happen. Excess capital keeps buying up assets lower classes need due to lack of options otherwise.
- pessimizer 2y agoI'm still an advocate of the old-school top income tax bracket of 85-100% i.e. a maximum income. A general wealth tax always seems like double-dipping; today I take $1 out of your $10, and a year from now I take 90¢ from your remaining $9. It's more of a motivation for one to continue accumulating (a floor, even) just to tread water. Property taxes are different, because more services get provided to people with more property. Income taxes are fine because we take it as a given that the state has the ability to regulate every aspect of domestic financial transactions and financial lives, at least in our currency (even if we don't or shouldn't, we of course can.) A yearly individual income cap means at the least people would have to put money in more hands. Being corrupt on a large scale would hopefully require a larger conspiracy. I'm fine with arbitrary wealth taxes and taxes on capital, with arbitrary justifications, so I'm probably not saying much here; but I'm not in support of a revolving wealth tax.
- robertlagrant 2y agoNo, greed (or wanting money) is one of the reasons some people with brains get paid better. if they can think of things or ways of doing things that save money or create value, or both, then they will get paid lots. They could still agree with their employer that they get paid the equivalent of a postgrad stipend, but they probably don't. You don't need to game a system for that to happen.
- alan-hn 2y agoSo why does a PhD university professor make less than a wall st trader frat bro
- bloopernova 2y agoI wonder what would happen if private equity firms all threw their money into planting trees?