4 ms·

> We wouldn't have SpaceX or Tesla with that policy. Neither you nor I have no idea what we’d have or wouldn’t have under a completely different set of policie

> We wouldn't have SpaceX or Tesla with that policy. Neither you nor I have no idea what we’d have or wouldn’t have under a completely different set of policies.

WalterBright 2y ago
Yeah, we do, because we've seen flattened societies and the results.
- stouset 2y ago
  We’ve also seen the results of societies with extreme economic disparity. Neither seem to work out great.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    In the US, we've seen enormous prosperity as a result.
    - stouset 2y ago
      For a small and ever-decreasing share of the population, since the seventies.
      - nickpp 2y ago
        The poorest people of today's developed countries are countless times richer than the kings of old - in terms of the products and services they have access to. Medicine, communication, transportation, entertainment - we can't even compare.
        whymememe 2y ago
        The poorest? So the homeless opiate addict living under a city bypass is better off than King Henry VIII? Someone should tell them.
        nickpp 2y ago
        Yes. All he has to do is walk into a hospital or detox center and he’ll have access to medical care King Henry VIII could not buy with all his riches. > opiate addict Indeed, we don’t have the technology to save people from themselves, yet. I am sure kings of old didn’t either and addicts of their time fared even worse.
        whymememe 2y ago
        I understand your point but all the resources and material goods in the world don’t matter if you can’t access them. > Indeed, we don’t have the technology to save people from themselves, yet. The plight of the poorest in today’s societies is far more of a social and political issue than a technological one. An issue America is particularly bad on, despite all its affluence.
- thot_experiment 2y ago
  You can't seriously think that the incredible defensibility and natural resource wealth of the USA would suddenly go away if we taxed the shit out of rich people. Norway is rich and effective and much flatter than the USA so I think perhaps flatness isn't as rigidly tied to negative outcomes as you seem to think.
  - nickpp 2y ago
    Venezuela is one of the most oil-rich countries on Earth - and they had gas shortages. It isn't enough to have resources in the ground. They are worth zero until extracted and turned into products and services. And for that you need technology, companies and entrepreneurs. When you tax "the shit out of rich people" that's what you lose. You can do it exactly one time - next time you won't have what to tax.
    - thot_experiment 2y ago
      This is such a ridiculous argument. You can't equivocate the USA to Venezuela. The USA has SO SO much more going for it. The USA wouldn't suddenly turn into Venezuela if we taxed the hell out of rich people, don't be absurd. The GINI coefficient of Venezuela is WORSE than the USA, it is LESS flat. Venezuela is stupidly corrupt, has had like a million coups, has it's affairs constantly meddled with by other governments. The Netherlands, Finland, Norway etc are much flatter than the USA and weirdly they haven't turned into Venezuela.
      - nickpp 2y ago
        > You can't equivocate the USA to Venezuela Many other socialist experiments happened in the world during the last 100 years. Take your pick - they all failed miserably compared to the amazing increase in prosperity of the USA. > The USA wouldn't suddenly turn into Venezuela I never said that, please re-read my post. > Netherlands, Finland, Norway [...] haven't turned into Venezuela They haven't turn into the economic power house the US is right now either. In fact, the whole EU is waking up to the fact that they're being left behind. And they haven't "taxed the hell out of rich people", just slightly more. But coupled with just slightly more regulation, turns out the more socialism you impose on your economy, the less competitive it is. And we're talking about much smaller countries, too - but not that flat actually. Sweden is ahead and Norway is just 3 spots behind USA in the billionaires-per-capita ranking, with Finland and Netherlands not that far behind.

> We wouldn't have SpaceX or Tesla with that policy. Neither you nor I have no idea what we’d have or wouldn’t have under a completely different set of policies.

WalterBright 2y ago

Yeah, we do, because we've seen flattened societies and the results.

stouset 2y ago
We’ve also seen the results of societies with extreme economic disparity. Neither seem to work out great.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  In the US, we've seen enormous prosperity as a result.
  - stouset 2y ago
    For a small and ever-decreasing share of the population, since the seventies.
    - nickpp 2y ago
      The poorest people of today's developed countries are countless times richer than the kings of old - in terms of the products and services they have access to. Medicine, communication, transportation, entertainment - we can't even compare.
      - whymememe 2y ago
        The poorest? So the homeless opiate addict living under a city bypass is better off than King Henry VIII? Someone should tell them.
        nickpp 2y ago
        Yes. All he has to do is walk into a hospital or detox center and he’ll have access to medical care King Henry VIII could not buy with all his riches. > opiate addict Indeed, we don’t have the technology to save people from themselves, yet. I am sure kings of old didn’t either and addicts of their time fared even worse.
        whymememe 2y ago
        I understand your point but all the resources and material goods in the world don’t matter if you can’t access them. > Indeed, we don’t have the technology to save people from themselves, yet. The plight of the poorest in today’s societies is far more of a social and political issue than a technological one. An issue America is particularly bad on, despite all its affluence.
thot_experiment 2y ago
You can't seriously think that the incredible defensibility and natural resource wealth of the USA would suddenly go away if we taxed the shit out of rich people. Norway is rich and effective and much flatter than the USA so I think perhaps flatness isn't as rigidly tied to negative outcomes as you seem to think.
- nickpp 2y ago
  Venezuela is one of the most oil-rich countries on Earth - and they had gas shortages. It isn't enough to have resources in the ground. They are worth zero until extracted and turned into products and services. And for that you need technology, companies and entrepreneurs. When you tax "the shit out of rich people" that's what you lose. You can do it exactly one time - next time you won't have what to tax.
  - thot_experiment 2y ago
    This is such a ridiculous argument. You can't equivocate the USA to Venezuela. The USA has SO SO much more going for it. The USA wouldn't suddenly turn into Venezuela if we taxed the hell out of rich people, don't be absurd. The GINI coefficient of Venezuela is WORSE than the USA, it is LESS flat. Venezuela is stupidly corrupt, has had like a million coups, has it's affairs constantly meddled with by other governments. The Netherlands, Finland, Norway etc are much flatter than the USA and weirdly they haven't turned into Venezuela.
    - nickpp 2y ago
      > You can't equivocate the USA to Venezuela Many other socialist experiments happened in the world during the last 100 years. Take your pick - they all failed miserably compared to the amazing increase in prosperity of the USA. > The USA wouldn't suddenly turn into Venezuela I never said that, please re-read my post. > Netherlands, Finland, Norway [...] haven't turned into Venezuela They haven't turn into the economic power house the US is right now either. In fact, the whole EU is waking up to the fact that they're being left behind. And they haven't "taxed the hell out of rich people", just slightly more. But coupled with just slightly more regulation, turns out the more socialism you impose on your economy, the less competitive it is. And we're talking about much smaller countries, too - but not that flat actually. Sweden is ahead and Norway is just 3 spots behind USA in the billionaires-per-capita ranking, with Finland and Netherlands not that far behind.