8 ms·

I have nothing against rich. I have everything against a single person having a megaphone for themselves and a gag for everyone else and still calling it a demo

I have nothing against rich. I have everything against a single person having a megaphone for themselves and a gag for everyone else and still calling it a democracy. We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Having said that, the practical implication is that money needs to loose power and there are very few ways to truly do that other than just take it away. So, I agree that our only known practical path to a healthier democracy is to make it harder to be pathologically rich.

orwin 1y ago
Yes, ideologically, i had no issue with people being rich, it's people having undue power over other people that i found morally wrong. I was a libertatian almost in the american meaning of the word, a liberal libertarian. Then, i tried to put my ideas real conditions, and came to the realisation that as long as money could buy you power, you can never be free. I don't realistically see how we can limit money influence on power, when you can offshore your company in two days, so in a practical manner, the only way to limit how rich one can get, until we figure out the rest.
saulpw 1y ago
There's rich, and then there's 10x rich, and 100x rich, and 1000x rich, and 10000x rich, and now even 100000x rich. Millionaires are fine, billionaires are bad, and hectobillionaires are supremely terrible. I think once someone gets to a billion dollars net worth, they should get an AmEx black card, and 99% of their assets moved into a sovereign public wealth fund. They can have anything they want, they lose the power of extreme asset allocation, and if they just like competing, they can start over and try to ring the bell again (and can give the second AmEx black card to a person of their choosing).
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  So if your business is extremely successful, your reward is losing control if it? To who, politicians? Leaving the large business intact and just changing the leader doesn’t seem like it changes anything.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    Society?
  - mxkopy 1y ago
    You should be forced to invest into all aspects of the social fabric that makes your success possible. Your reward is being able to be a successful philanthropist
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      Your 401k is their social fabric contribution.
      - p_j_w 1y ago
        How does a 5 year old use their 401k to increase the quality of their education?
        Workaccount2 1y ago
        Probably should allow parents to open college investment accounts for kids at birth. Even $5k invested at birth would be $50k at 25, enough to mostly pay off a state school degree. So yeah, generally I think that would be a good idea.
        naniwaduni 1y ago
        We do have, like, four versions of that in the US alone, yes, starting with 529 plans.
        p_j_w 1y ago
        Suppose I’m a 5 year old born to poor parents. Should I have just made better life choices?
      - mxkopy 1y ago
        You misunderstand. From a billionaire’s POV a real contribution looks like taking some responsibility for the average person’s wellbeing even if it has nothing to do with their business interests, simply because they have the power to do this. The 401k is us benefitting from their selfishness, I ask that they stop being selfish
idle_zealot 1y ago
I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing between ideological opposition to rich people existing and opposition to disproportionately powerful people existing. In what hypothetical world are these not the exact same thing? Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it, and is just another way of saying "power over others". A world where being rich doesn't grant power over others is one where money isn't money.
- pdonis 1y ago
  > Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action Not in a free market. In a free market, people have the option to refuse to accept your money if they don't want to give you what you want to buy from them with it.
  - teachrdan 1y ago
    > people have the option to refuse to accept your money... This is the contradiction, isn't it? A free market that you or I might define requires safeguards like a social welfare net to make sure individuals are truly free to decline an offer that is harmful to them. Without such a welfare net one is compelled to accept an offer that is harmful (to one's health, morality, etc.) because the alternative is to lose your dignity and all of your belongings, or worse. But then the owning class has every incentive to reduce or remove the safety net. Not least because they will be paying a lot for it! But even more so because that safety net is what gives people some small amount of power to say no to them.
    - nielsbot 1y ago
      People like to talk about politically tyranny, but forgot about the tyranny of capitalism. We've financialized servitude is all.
      - Supermancho 1y ago
        Many people decry the tyranny of capitalism, but this site tends to lean into it and defend it at every turn because capitalism is painted as the tide that lifts all boats, despite the bodies on the ocean floor. Some believe, wholeheartedly that a few regulations is all that is needed to establish a fair free market, despite evidence to the contrary. ANY niche market where a world-spanning monopoly can be established, makes a mockery of regulation time and time again.
JKCalhoun 1y ago
> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  Agreed. (I'm all in on confiscatory taxation.) No one person should be allowed to accumulate so much power and wealth.
- culopatin 1y ago
  What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?
  - spongebobstoes 1y ago
    why do you think that will happen? how could that scenario be prevented, while still taxing money? if you put more effort into making your point, I'm sure you could get better engagement
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      Look at what Texas has been doing to California. People who assign billionaires as being the living manifestation of greed are somehow quick to hand wave away "billionaires will move to protect their wealth".
      - thoroughburro 1y ago
        We should be so lucky. They are leeches.
      - p_j_w 1y ago
        > Look at what Texas has been doing to California. What might that be? California is still at the forefront of every technological innovation this country is seeing while Texas is at the forefront of theocracy. California may be seeing a smaller share of the world’s innovation in the past, but that hasn’t moved to Texas, it’s moved to China.

orwin 1y ago

Yes, ideologically, i had no issue with people being rich, it's people having undue power over other people that i found morally wrong. I was a libertatian almost in the american meaning of the word, a liberal libertarian. Then, i tried to put my ideas real conditions, and came to the realisation that as long as money could buy you power, you can never be free. I don't realistically see how we can limit money influence on power, when you can offshore your company in two days, so in a practical manner, the only way to limit how rich one can get, until we figure out the rest.

saulpw 1y ago

There's rich, and then there's 10x rich, and 100x rich, and 1000x rich, and 10000x rich, and now even 100000x rich. Millionaires are fine, billionaires are bad, and hectobillionaires are supremely terrible. I think once someone gets to a billion dollars net worth, they should get an AmEx black card, and 99% of their assets moved into a sovereign public wealth fund. They can have anything they want, they lose the power of extreme asset allocation, and if they just like competing, they can start over and try to ring the bell again (and can give the second AmEx black card to a person of their choosing).

lotsofpulp 1y ago
So if your business is extremely successful, your reward is losing control if it? To who, politicians? Leaving the large business intact and just changing the leader doesn’t seem like it changes anything.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Society?
- mxkopy 1y ago
  You should be forced to invest into all aspects of the social fabric that makes your success possible. Your reward is being able to be a successful philanthropist
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Your 401k is their social fabric contribution.
    - p_j_w 1y ago
      How does a 5 year old use their 401k to increase the quality of their education?
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        Probably should allow parents to open college investment accounts for kids at birth. Even $5k invested at birth would be $50k at 25, enough to mostly pay off a state school degree. So yeah, generally I think that would be a good idea.
        naniwaduni 1y ago
        We do have, like, four versions of that in the US alone, yes, starting with 529 plans.
        p_j_w 1y ago
        Suppose I’m a 5 year old born to poor parents. Should I have just made better life choices?
    - mxkopy 1y ago
      You misunderstand. From a billionaire’s POV a real contribution looks like taking some responsibility for the average person’s wellbeing even if it has nothing to do with their business interests, simply because they have the power to do this. The 401k is us benefitting from their selfishness, I ask that they stop being selfish

idle_zealot 1y ago

I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing between ideological opposition to rich people existing and opposition to disproportionately powerful people existing. In what hypothetical world are these not the exact same thing? Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it, and is just another way of saying "power over others". A world where being rich doesn't grant power over others is one where money isn't money.

pdonis 1y ago
> Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action Not in a free market. In a free market, people have the option to refuse to accept your money if they don't want to give you what you want to buy from them with it.
- teachrdan 1y ago
  > people have the option to refuse to accept your money... This is the contradiction, isn't it? A free market that you or I might define requires safeguards like a social welfare net to make sure individuals are truly free to decline an offer that is harmful to them. Without such a welfare net one is compelled to accept an offer that is harmful (to one's health, morality, etc.) because the alternative is to lose your dignity and all of your belongings, or worse. But then the owning class has every incentive to reduce or remove the safety net. Not least because they will be paying a lot for it! But even more so because that safety net is what gives people some small amount of power to say no to them.
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    People like to talk about politically tyranny, but forgot about the tyranny of capitalism. We've financialized servitude is all.
    - Supermancho 1y ago
      Many people decry the tyranny of capitalism, but this site tends to lean into it and defend it at every turn because capitalism is painted as the tide that lifts all boats, despite the bodies on the ocean floor. Some believe, wholeheartedly that a few regulations is all that is needed to establish a fair free market, despite evidence to the contrary. ANY niche market where a world-spanning monopoly can be established, makes a mockery of regulation time and time again.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

nielsbot 1y ago
Agreed. (I'm all in on confiscatory taxation.) No one person should be allowed to accumulate so much power and wealth.
culopatin 1y ago
What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?
- spongebobstoes 1y ago
  why do you think that will happen? how could that scenario be prevented, while still taxing money? if you put more effort into making your point, I'm sure you could get better engagement
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Look at what Texas has been doing to California. People who assign billionaires as being the living manifestation of greed are somehow quick to hand wave away "billionaires will move to protect their wealth".
    - thoroughburro 1y ago
      We should be so lucky. They are leeches.
    - p_j_w 1y ago
      > Look at what Texas has been doing to California. What might that be? California is still at the forefront of every technological innovation this country is seeing while Texas is at the forefront of theocracy. California may be seeing a smaller share of the world’s innovation in the past, but that hasn’t moved to Texas, it’s moved to China.