3 ms·

> Meanwhile tech workers in the US spend all day online defending billionaires Tech pulled a great trick here: equity. America as a whole pulled a similar tri

by Swizec 5mo ago

> Meanwhile tech workers in the US spend all day online defending billionaires Tech pulled a great trick here: equity. America as a whole pulled a similar trick: 401k It’s hard to fight the billionaires when all your money depends on not fighting them.

anon291 5mo ago
Well yeah America has achieved what the communists sought: public ownership of the means of production . Today most of the American public owns the largest means of production in government advantaged accounts. Marx ought to be proud
- yogthos 5mo ago
  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-9...
  - foxglacier 5mo ago
    So basically most older professionals, and today's young professionals will step into their shoes as they grow their wealth over time too. Which means probably far more than 10% of the population will at some point in their life belong to that group which owns 90% of the means of production.
    - Swizec 5mo ago
      > will at some point in their life belong to that group which owns 90% of the means of production Would love to but I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand how the power law distribution works. Unfortunately the billionaires are running away from us exponentially faster than we are catching up. Speaking as someone who will almost certainly become a multi millionaire in the next decade or two. (even if I stop adding more savings manually) But crucially this only happens if there _isnt_ a big revolution in USA. If there is, I'm fucked.
      - lIl-IIIl 5mo ago
        >Unfortunately the billionaires are running away from us exponentially faster than we are catching up. Why does that matter? Who is trying to catch up with a billionaire? They are not even playing the same game as the rest of us.
  - anon291 5mo ago
    The idea that communism means that everyone owns everything equally is retarded. Communes themselves don't do this. People with more stake get more ownership This corresponds to the first stage of Marxs theorized progession from capitalism too communism Done hate the messenger. I'm just taking what I read and applying it to observed reality and telling you it fit. Self described commies are dumb because they are incapable of enacting the very system they claim to idealize.
    - vasco 5mo ago
      Can you show a commune that has lasted 3 generations? So like people move in, they stay and have kids and their kids stay long enough to have kids themselves. So at least about ~50 years? My impression of all these communes is: - idealistic people move in - they realize 90% of the people that moved in are lazy and don't want to work - the rest of the 10% run the show and the commune either breaks down here or kicks out many people - kids are born, they grow up and by the time they get to university age they find the whole thing cringy and leave to go have normal lives - commune ends Other than some that also degenerate into sexual abuse between members and other weird power games. My impression of these outsider hippie / communist groups is that their failure rate is very high.
      - anon291 5mo ago
        The United States, since most of our means of production is owned by the public. That was the point. The United States has the highest equity ownership rate in the world. We all have a stake in this.
    - yogthos 5mo ago
      That's just an infantile straw man though which has nothing to do with how communism works. Communism simply means that workers own their workplace and are the primary beneficiaries of their labor. In practice this means a mix of state ownership for cross-cutting concerns such as energy production or infrastructure and cooperative ownership for things like light industry. Cooperatives operate exactly the same way as companies owned by capitalists, except workers are in charge of running the company. Huawei is an example of how this works in the real world. Maybe avoid opining on topics you have no idea in the future as not to make an ass of yourself in public.
- nielsbot 5mo ago
  I want to smoke what you’re smoking!
  - anon291 5mo ago
    I'm just starting from first principles on a debate that has ended up being more about neurological orientation rather than anything substantive.
- Danox 5mo ago
  Actually, it’s the other way around in America the government and the people get to pay for the debt and the Robber Baron insiders get to scuttle away with the profit.
  - anon291 5mo ago
    You can argue it's poorly managed, but the ownership structure is whatever it is.
nielsbot 5mo ago
Are you saying taxing billionaires out of existence would be bad for equity and 401ks? How, exactly?
- winter_blue 5mo ago
  I don't think it would be bad for equity in any way. It might actually be good instead actually. First, the general public would have more disposable income if we shift more of the tax burden on the ultra rich. Second, people like Elon Musk won't be able to give themselves massive bonuses that are essentially paid by diluting common stock. Also, with regard to the U.S., the U.S. could wipe out its national debt with a one-time wealth tax, and also pass a balanced budget const. amendment so it never ends up deep in debt again. Lastly, perverse and extremely greed-based exploitative businesses might become less common, since there aren't ultra fat executive paychecks. Although it might still happen if a large group of people are able to make a somewhat high salary off such schemes.
  - cityofdelusion 5mo ago
    No way wealth tax covers the debt. It would be more of an asset seizure and forced sale or nationalization of a bunch of businesses and illiquid asset classes. The rich don’t hold enough cash to make it happen. The other issue is the U.S. deficit is a feature not a bug. As long as the world buys the bonds, it’s “free” and no one will care until forced austerity happens. Look into the end of the Gilded Age to see how this really gets fixed.
    - winter_blue 5mo ago
      Nationalization is arbitrary and wrong. That's not what I'm proposing. We'd largely be transferring shares in companies to the treasury bond holders, ie the people and orgs who hold US debt. The federal government might for example force mega-sized private companies like Koch Industries to go public to get an accurate market valuation (or just sell it to private equity by starting a bidding war on it across many private equity investors). The wealth tax cutoff would be determined by the national debt. It might fall to a relatively harsh / low threshold like 99.9% of assets over $20 million. Or maybe 99% of assets between $20 million to $1 billion, and 99.9% on assets above $1 billion. Treasury bonds themselves would be subject to the wealth tax, so someone with $100 billion in T bonds might just see 99% of $80 million erased. So even the total number of T bonds payable will drop under this wealth tax. But someone with $100 million in shares in private and public companies will see their shares transferred to the federal government, and then eventually sold. Once every T bond has been paid off, Congress and the states could try to close the centuries-long chapter on debt by trying to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
Danox 5mo ago
401(k) and IRA’s were not a gift. It was a way for the companies to end the company pension plans in the early to mid 1980s. Half of the people who did receive them squandered them by cashing out before retirement to pay bills. If Social Security goes the same way most would squander it paying for necessities. Most of the unionize workers still left in America get a better share of the pie than the non-Union workers not even close. It’s always good to work together in a union had to be footloose and fancy free by yourself.
- Swizec 5mo ago
  > 401(k) and IRA’s were not a gift No not a gift but they sure do align incentives

by Swizec 5mo ago

anon291 5mo ago

Well yeah America has achieved what the communists sought: public ownership of the means of production . Today most of the American public owns the largest means of production in government advantaged accounts. Marx ought to be proud

yogthos 5mo ago
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-9...
- foxglacier 5mo ago
  So basically most older professionals, and today's young professionals will step into their shoes as they grow their wealth over time too. Which means probably far more than 10% of the population will at some point in their life belong to that group which owns 90% of the means of production.
  - Swizec 5mo ago
    > will at some point in their life belong to that group which owns 90% of the means of production Would love to but I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand how the power law distribution works. Unfortunately the billionaires are running away from us exponentially faster than we are catching up. Speaking as someone who will almost certainly become a multi millionaire in the next decade or two. (even if I stop adding more savings manually) But crucially this only happens if there _isnt_ a big revolution in USA. If there is, I'm fucked.
    - lIl-IIIl 5mo ago
      >Unfortunately the billionaires are running away from us exponentially faster than we are catching up. Why does that matter? Who is trying to catch up with a billionaire? They are not even playing the same game as the rest of us.
- anon291 5mo ago
  The idea that communism means that everyone owns everything equally is retarded. Communes themselves don't do this. People with more stake get more ownership This corresponds to the first stage of Marxs theorized progession from capitalism too communism Done hate the messenger. I'm just taking what I read and applying it to observed reality and telling you it fit. Self described commies are dumb because they are incapable of enacting the very system they claim to idealize.
  - vasco 5mo ago
    Can you show a commune that has lasted 3 generations? So like people move in, they stay and have kids and their kids stay long enough to have kids themselves. So at least about ~50 years? My impression of all these communes is: - idealistic people move in - they realize 90% of the people that moved in are lazy and don't want to work - the rest of the 10% run the show and the commune either breaks down here or kicks out many people - kids are born, they grow up and by the time they get to university age they find the whole thing cringy and leave to go have normal lives - commune ends Other than some that also degenerate into sexual abuse between members and other weird power games. My impression of these outsider hippie / communist groups is that their failure rate is very high.
    - anon291 5mo ago
      The United States, since most of our means of production is owned by the public. That was the point. The United States has the highest equity ownership rate in the world. We all have a stake in this.
  - yogthos 5mo ago
    That's just an infantile straw man though which has nothing to do with how communism works. Communism simply means that workers own their workplace and are the primary beneficiaries of their labor. In practice this means a mix of state ownership for cross-cutting concerns such as energy production or infrastructure and cooperative ownership for things like light industry. Cooperatives operate exactly the same way as companies owned by capitalists, except workers are in charge of running the company. Huawei is an example of how this works in the real world. Maybe avoid opining on topics you have no idea in the future as not to make an ass of yourself in public.
nielsbot 5mo ago
I want to smoke what you’re smoking!
- anon291 5mo ago
  I'm just starting from first principles on a debate that has ended up being more about neurological orientation rather than anything substantive.
Danox 5mo ago
Actually, it’s the other way around in America the government and the people get to pay for the debt and the Robber Baron insiders get to scuttle away with the profit.
- anon291 5mo ago
  You can argue it's poorly managed, but the ownership structure is whatever it is.

nielsbot 5mo ago

Are you saying taxing billionaires out of existence would be bad for equity and 401ks? How, exactly?

winter_blue 5mo ago
I don't think it would be bad for equity in any way. It might actually be good instead actually. First, the general public would have more disposable income if we shift more of the tax burden on the ultra rich. Second, people like Elon Musk won't be able to give themselves massive bonuses that are essentially paid by diluting common stock. Also, with regard to the U.S., the U.S. could wipe out its national debt with a one-time wealth tax, and also pass a balanced budget const. amendment so it never ends up deep in debt again. Lastly, perverse and extremely greed-based exploitative businesses might become less common, since there aren't ultra fat executive paychecks. Although it might still happen if a large group of people are able to make a somewhat high salary off such schemes.
- cityofdelusion 5mo ago
  No way wealth tax covers the debt. It would be more of an asset seizure and forced sale or nationalization of a bunch of businesses and illiquid asset classes. The rich don’t hold enough cash to make it happen. The other issue is the U.S. deficit is a feature not a bug. As long as the world buys the bonds, it’s “free” and no one will care until forced austerity happens. Look into the end of the Gilded Age to see how this really gets fixed.
  - winter_blue 5mo ago
    Nationalization is arbitrary and wrong. That's not what I'm proposing. We'd largely be transferring shares in companies to the treasury bond holders, ie the people and orgs who hold US debt. The federal government might for example force mega-sized private companies like Koch Industries to go public to get an accurate market valuation (or just sell it to private equity by starting a bidding war on it across many private equity investors). The wealth tax cutoff would be determined by the national debt. It might fall to a relatively harsh / low threshold like 99.9% of assets over $20 million. Or maybe 99% of assets between $20 million to $1 billion, and 99.9% on assets above $1 billion. Treasury bonds themselves would be subject to the wealth tax, so someone with $100 billion in T bonds might just see 99% of $80 million erased. So even the total number of T bonds payable will drop under this wealth tax. But someone with $100 million in shares in private and public companies will see their shares transferred to the federal government, and then eventually sold. Once every T bond has been paid off, Congress and the states could try to close the centuries-long chapter on debt by trying to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Danox 5mo ago

401(k) and IRA’s were not a gift. It was a way for the companies to end the company pension plans in the early to mid 1980s. Half of the people who did receive them squandered them by cashing out before retirement to pay bills. If Social Security goes the same way most would squander it paying for necessities. Most of the unionize workers still left in America get a better share of the pie than the non-Union workers not even close. It’s always good to work together in a union had to be footloose and fancy free by yourself.

Swizec 5mo ago
> 401(k) and IRA’s were not a gift No not a gift but they sure do align incentives