3 ms·
50% per year might do it, but I think that is well into market distortion territory where there will be consequences. Also remember that at this scale it isn't
by s1artibartfast 1y ago
50% per year might do it, but I think that is well into market distortion territory where there will be consequences. Also remember that at this scale it isn't taking money, it is seizing control of companies.
But yes, we can both agree to defer to the experts and not bother trying to understand or think through the consequences of our policy beliefs.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> Also remember that at this scale it isn't taking money, it is seizing control of companies. Nah. Zuck has "founder's stock" that gets 10x the voting power. He owns something like 13% of FB but >50% of the voting power. > But yes, we can both agree to defer to the experts and not bother trying to understand or think through the consequences of our policy beliefs. "We should have a wealth tax" and "the wealth tax should be set to exactly 3.28%" are very different things. I believe a wealth tax would be beneficial; I also believe that setting the amount of said tax requires some domain experts. In comic form: https://condenaststore.com/featured/these-smug-pilots-have-lost-touch-with-regular-will-mcphail.html https://condenaststore.com/featured/these-smug-pilots-have-l... I'm able to say "we should not crash the plane into that big mountain" without being able to say how to fly said plane.