I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+11
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I like wealth taxes.
I like progressive taxation that gets rid of the kinds of loopholes that allow them to donate hundreds of millions to anti-abortion dark money bullshit in order to reduce their tax burden.
I dislike making the consolidation of capital around success “the enemy” - we just need better mechanisms to extract a sizable portion of that success and feed it back into the system that allowed for it
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
The real solution is to have a wealth tax, and then just let it play for a while, and set the level of the wealth tax such that you dont end up with people with more than say, double the amount of money required for the fulfillment of all human dreams and desires for the rest of their lives even if they quit their job and hid it in a mattress.
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
The real solution is to have a wealth tax, and then just let it play for a while, and set the level of the wealth tax such that you dont end up with people with more than say, double the amount of money required for the fulfillment of all human dreams and desires for the rest of their lives even if they quit their job and hid it in a mattress.
Except when set at reasonable, not economically destructive levels it's not going to do that. A 3,6,whatever percent wealth tax will raise revenue (though we don't really know how much) but it won't make anyone not a billionaire. It would require more extremist proposals like 90% which as we are discussing are unrealistic.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
It’s a long, dense article but this really helped me better understand that the issue is less the billionaires personally and more that we’re in a death spiral right now, and said billionaires are competing in a version of Highlander to be the richest person left at the end
It probably wouldn’t require too drastic a set of changes to get us on the good side of that phase transition...
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
The real solution is to have a wealth tax, and then just let it play for a while, and set the level of the wealth tax such that you dont end up with people with more than say, double the amount of money required for the fulfillment of all human dreams and desires for the rest of their lives even if they quit their job and hid it in a mattress.
Except when set at reasonable, not economically destructive levels it's not going to do that. A 3,6,whatever percent wealth tax will raise revenue (though we don't really know how much) but it won't make anyone not a billionaire. It would require more extremist proposals like 90% which as we are discussing are unrealistic.
The amount of money required for all human dreams to be fulfilled (yacht around the med on a 200 ft yacht playboy mansion style for 50 years) is around 1 billion dollars. At 6% wealth tax on wealth above 1 billion and 3% above 100 million would achieve making that level of wealth the maximum without much issue. Billionaires dont earn rates of return above 6% long term.
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
The real solution is to have a wealth tax, and then just let it play for a while, and set the level of the wealth tax such that you dont end up with people with more than say, double the amount of money required for the fulfillment of all human dreams and desires for the rest of their lives even if they quit their job and hid it in a mattress.
Except when set at reasonable, not economically destructive levels it's not going to do that. A 3,6,whatever percent wealth tax will raise revenue (though we don't really know how much) but it won't make anyone not a billionaire. It would require more extremist proposals like 90% which as we are discussing are unrealistic.
The amount of money required for all human dreams to be fulfilled (yacht around the med on a 200 ft yacht playboy mansion style for 50 years) is around 1 billion dollars. At 6% wealth tax on wealth above 1 billion and 3% above 100 million would achieve making that level of wealth the maximum without much issue. Billionaires dont earn rates of return above 6% long term.
According to a quick Google, Bill Gates has a net worth of about 100 billion and his net worth has increased 5 to 6 billion a year for the last 5 years. For one thing, they will be making income beyond capital gains. And looking further back it looks like in the 90s he had exponential growth in his net worth.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
BTW, I work for an employee-owned company. I've also had co-ops and employee-owned companies as clients when I've done IT consulting.
If you think co-ops are a panacea for the worst aspects of capitalism, I can only laugh.
There are things about my company that I like, but they're mostly unrelated to it being a co-op; meanwhile the things I don't like are mostly comparable to every other company I've ever worked for.
Just because I own a share in this company doesn't mean I have any meaningful control over my job.
Granted that being employee-owned is not, in itself, enough to ensure a good work environment, but there are thousands of ways to run an employee owned co-op and some are going to lead to significantly better outcomes than others. How are voting rights handled? What's the organizational structure? There are many ways to build it and some are going to be good while others are going to be bad, and some are going to make sense in some industries and not in others, and ultimately you will always have to deal with other people and all of the assorted problems that entails.
But at the end of the day I think any movement in that direction is beneficial and desirable. There is a lot of data showing that co-ops are much less likely to fail, less exploitable, and more stable. Fundamentally though it is simply a more just way to do business, and I think that's worth wanting in itself.
I don't think the idea that there are companies that fail to benefit their employees despite being co-ops is evidence against co-ops being a viable solution to the problems of capitalism any more so than the existence of failed socialist states means that socialism is not a viable solution to the problems of capitalism.
I like progressive taxation that gets rid of the kinds of loopholes that allow them to donate hundreds of millions to anti-abortion dark money bullshit in order to reduce their tax burden.
I dislike making the consolidation of capital around success “the enemy” - we just need better mechanisms to extract a sizable portion of that success and feed it back into the system that allowed for it
I can still only possibly see this as bailing water out of a sinking ship and saying "look at this, this is fine, the boat is working fine you just need to bail faster."
The consolidation of wealth under centralized entities is wrong, it corrupts and disenfranchises almost by default. Our system as it stands consolidates wealth. We can design a better system.
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
This, itself, is a massively destructive force in society, and I simply do not buy the notion that this is the only viable engine of constructive human economic activity. I think the only reason we believe it is so is due to the structure of the system we already live in.
Why do we deliberately power our society with the most antisocial aspects of human behavior? Why is this the feedback loop we are choosing to reinforce?
I like progressive taxation that gets rid of the kinds of loopholes that allow them to donate hundreds of millions to anti-abortion dark money bullshit in order to reduce their tax burden.
I dislike making the consolidation of capital around success “the enemy” - we just need better mechanisms to extract a sizable portion of that success and feed it back into the system that allowed for it
I can still only possibly see this as bailing water out of a sinking ship and saying "look at this, this is fine, the boat is working fine you just need to bail faster."
The consolidation of wealth under centralized entities is wrong, it corrupts and disenfranchises almost by default. Our system as it stands consolidates wealth. We can design a better system.
To the givers of this beautiful reward, my thanks, from the heart. My family, my agents, my editors, know that my being here is their doing as well as my own, and that the beautiful reward is theirs as much as mine. And I rejoice in accepting it for, and sharing it with, all the writers who’ve been excluded from literature for so long – my fellow authors of fantasy and science fiction, writers of the imagination, who for 50 years have watched the beautiful rewards go to the so-called realists.
Hard times are coming, when we’ll be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now, can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine real grounds for hope. We’ll need writers who can remember freedom – poets, visionaries – realists of a larger reality.
Right now, we need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximise corporate profit and advertising revenue is not the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship.
Yet I see sales departments given control over editorial. I see my own publishers, in a silly panic of ignorance and greed, charging public libraries for an e-book six or seven times more than they charge customers. We just saw a profiteer try to punish a publisher for disobedience, and writers threatened by corporate fatwa. And I see a lot of us, the producers, who write the books and make the books, accepting this – letting commodity profiteers sell us like deodorant, and tell us what to publish, what to write.
Books aren’t just commodities; the profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art. We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words.
I’ve had a long career as a writer, and a good one, in good company. Here at the end of it, I don’t want to watch American literature get sold down the river. We who live by writing and publishing want and should demand our fair share of the proceeds; but the name of our beautiful reward isn’t profit. Its name is freedom.
I don't think the idea that there are companies that fail to benefit their employees despite being co-ops is evidence against co-ops being a viable solution to the problems of capitalism any more so than the existence of failed socialist states means that socialism is not a viable solution to the problems of capitalism.
I suspect that you and I have very different views on whether this argument should be dismissed so glibly.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal because the idea of a maximum cap on wealth is nonsensical given how wealth works.
Honestly, I don't think the existence of the hyperwealthy is causing most of the most pressing issues, and I don't think eliminating their existence is necessary to start working on them. Instead, let's adjust the tax system to use the hyperwealthy as a revenue source to help fix healthcare, to address homelessness, to work on climate change. Get a wealth tax up and running. Implement regulations that directly impede the harmful behaviors we want to prevent. Get that shit in order, and then let's reassess.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+4
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal because the idea of a maximum cap on wealth is nonsensical given how wealth works.
Honestly, I don't think the existence of the hyperwealthy is causing most of the most pressing issues, and I don't think eliminating their existence is necessary to start working on them. Instead, let's adjust the tax system to use the hyperwealthy as a revenue source to help fix healthcare, to address homelessness, to work on climate change. Get a wealth tax up and running. Implement regulations that directly impede the harmful behaviors we want to prevent. Get that shit in order, and then let's reassess.
The hyperwealthy only reach that point by bleeding their labor force dry. Ideally you'd force them to actually treat their employees like human beings rather than resources to be exploited, and then if that actually happened across the board it wouldn't be nearly as necessary to treat them as a revenue source.
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal because the idea of a maximum cap on wealth is nonsensical given how wealth works.
Honestly, I don't think the existence of the hyperwealthy is causing most of the most pressing issues, and I don't think eliminating their existence is necessary to start working on them. Instead, let's adjust the tax system to use the hyperwealthy as a revenue source to help fix healthcare, to address homelessness, to work on climate change. Get a wealth tax up and running. Implement regulations that directly impede the harmful behaviors we want to prevent. Get that shit in order, and then let's reassess.
I think the problem here is that the existence of the hyperwealthy is, itself, merely a symptom. It's the racking cough you get as your lungs go to shit as a nasty viral infection hijacks your system to build more and more viruses to spread into other cells and continue reproducing.
The system itself is the problem, and until it's solved all these problems just will resurface in one way or another until it's solved. You can't have a system that funnels a majority of resources and power in the hands of a few and expect society to not suffer for it. And that's what Capitalism is. That is the foundational nature of allowing a group of few people to own the output of others work. It's neofeudalism with a nicer reputation.
The problem with the "wealth cap" argument is that it sidesteps the actual problem to create a system that doesn't make sense. We've had plenty of people explaining this in here and in other threads that you don't get to this level of wealth without building it on the backs of countless others working under you to produce the wealth at these scales, that you could work without break for centuries ( @Jragghen didn't you have the math on that in one of these threads?) and not even approach the net worths of men like Bezos.
Unless you reform the system, the problems will keep happening and people with interest in preserving their own power and status will use that wealth and the power it bestows to to acquire more and more of it, taking warping even the institutions of democratic self-governance to their own ends. That's how power works.
I don't think the idea that there are companies that fail to benefit their employees despite being co-ops is evidence against co-ops being a viable solution to the problems of capitalism any more so than the existence of failed socialist states means that socialism is not a viable solution to the problems of capitalism.
I suspect that you and I have very different views on whether this argument should be dismissed so glibly.
Pointing at failed socialist states is an extremely common tactic in anti-socialist propaganda, but I can point out just as many failed capitalist states that ended in violent worker revolts. Case in point: the vast majority of early South and Central American countries. A large number of socialist states are only so because they were capitalist states that failed to begin with.
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal because the idea of a maximum cap on wealth is nonsensical given how wealth works.
Honestly, I don't think the existence of the hyperwealthy is causing most of the most pressing issues, and I don't think eliminating their existence is necessary to start working on them. Instead, let's adjust the tax system to use the hyperwealthy as a revenue source to help fix healthcare, to address homelessness, to work on climate change. Get a wealth tax up and running. Implement regulations that directly impede the harmful behaviors we want to prevent. Get that shit in order, and then let's reassess.
This is essentially the redistributive force needed to counterbalance the upward consolidation of wealth and keep us a democracy vs accelerating through oligarchy to whatever the fuck is even beyond that
2 people alone (Bezos and Gates) are on track to own something like 6% of US GDP by 2050
Captain Inertia on
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
We can talk about failed socialist states if we want, but we could also talk about how according to UNICEF, Cuba has completely eliminated childhood hunger in their nation. No capitalist nation can claim the same.
We also don't really know whether a socialist state can truly succeed on its own because American imperialism tends to crush socialist states. Additionally, claiming that socialism can't work because of the failures of previous socialist states is, at its most basic, completely illogical. It's like someone during the Revolutionary war saying that a republic can't work because other republics fell to monarchist or imperialist powers. It's highly presumptive and ignores the differing material conditions of the modern age.
If anyone can point at a "failed socialist state" that's A actually socialist, as in the workers own the means of production, and B wasn't fucked with for decades by the USA and it's allies, I would love to see it
I don't think the idea that there are companies that fail to benefit their employees despite being co-ops is evidence against co-ops being a viable solution to the problems of capitalism any more so than the existence of failed socialist states means that socialism is not a viable solution to the problems of capitalism.
I suspect that you and I have very different views on whether this argument should be dismissed so glibly.
Pointing at failed socialist states is an extremely common tactic in anti-socialist propaganda, but I can point out just as many failed capitalist states that ended in violent worker revolts. Case in point: the vast majority of early South and Central American countries. A large number of socialist states are only so because they were capitalist states that failed to begin with.
I'm skeptical of your use of present tense here. I suspect you're including nations in your generalization that I wouldn't consider "socialist."
Because, from my perspective, there aren't a whole lot of socialist states left. Almost the entire world has been moving towards a pragmatic mix of capitalism, public planning, and redistribution. This is the wonkish mix that would be called "neoliberal" if that word hadn't been popularly corrupted to mean "the shitty parts of capitalism."
Yes, that includes China, which in my experience most socialists are quick to define as "state capitalism."
If you were to hold a Makarov to my head and tell me to list all the extant socialist states I know of in 2019, I'd say Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.
I might be missing some and I probably am. I'd be surprised if I were missing "a large number."
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't think the idea that there are companies that fail to benefit their employees despite being co-ops is evidence against co-ops being a viable solution to the problems of capitalism any more so than the existence of failed socialist states means that socialism is not a viable solution to the problems of capitalism.
I suspect that you and I have very different views on whether this argument should be dismissed so glibly.
Pointing at failed socialist states is an extremely common tactic in anti-socialist propaganda, but I can point out just as many failed capitalist states that ended in violent worker revolts. Case in point: the vast majority of early South and Central American countries. A large number of socialist states are only so because they were capitalist states that failed to begin with.
I'm skeptical of your use of present tense here. I suspect you're including nations in your generalization that I wouldn't consider "socialist."
Because, from my perspective, there aren't a whole lot of socialist states left. Almost the entire world has been moving towards a pragmatic mix of capitalism, public planning, and redistribution. This is the wonkish mix that would be called "neoliberal" if that word hadn't been popularly corrupted to mean "the shitty parts of capitalism."
Yes, that includes China, which in my experience most socialists are quick to define as "state capitalism."
If you were to hold a Makarov to my head and tell me to list all the extant socialist states I know of in 2019, I'd say Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.
I might be missing some and I probably am. I'd be surprised if I were missing "a large number."
This comes from an extremely American definition of socialism. State-based command economy =/= socialism. Labeling any successful mixed-market economy "capitalist" versus "socialist" is generally just a determinant of which aspect of the economy you want to highlight as being the driver of its success. There are visions for a market economy that do not carry the historical baggage of either.
But honestly I think the things that matter are largely orthogonal to the traditional capitalist/communist, first-world/second-world debate, which was driven between a very specific form of authoritarian socialism competing with a very specific form of capitalist neutered democracy.
If you ask an anarcho-socialist what they think about this dichotomy, they will generally tell you that both systems were (and are) driven overwhelmingly by oppressive bullshit masquerading as worthwhile ideals (this was basically the entire point of everything George Orwell, an anarcho-syndicalist, wrote).
Eh, I don’t think that’s the case; communism, on the other hand has the dissolution of the state as one of its tenets along with worker ownership of the means of production and the dissolution of class differences
I think the problem is that the core of the philanthropy issue has at its crux a class of individuals who harness vast amounts of capital resources to parley into the power to affect the world, at large scale, to their desires.
There aren’t very many ways to remedy this; a regulation for the amount of money you could spend on charity or university or such would be untenable for various reasons, so despite the fact that this form of spending can and often is an end run around democratic management of society, and has become a crutch we have come to depend on to make up for funding shortfalls in our democratic institutions (be it via acquisition/tax policy or prioritzation as to who receives funds).
So then your next choice is wealth and income taxes to recover the wealth to use via democratic institutions. But you’re going to have to use a wealth tax, because even their regular income isn't where their wealth is derived; it’s derived via business ownership. So you have to go for a wealth tax which has its difficulties in implementing because of potential liquidity issues and the fact our stock market has the personality equivalent of a herd of nervous barn animals.
Furthermore, even a wealth tax only addresses what is the symptom of a greater systemic problem. At heart to this debate is a question of democratic self-determination vs living under the whims of an aristocratic class. That class draws its power through our economic system of capitalism. And so that’s how we get to the socialism talk, because socialism is a method of worker empowerment that helps to prevent the consolidation of power through massive wealth acquisition.
At its heart, the Capitalism vs Socialism debate, since the 1800s, has been a debate regarding who wields power in society and how they acquire that power. Philanthropy’s usage as a means of societal reshaping is one method by which capitalists manage to retain that power and create an image of benevolence.
So then when you have a thread about "Philanthropy has major issues, what do we do to fix the problem?" when you have a board with even a few socialists, well, we end up viewing and addressing the problem via the lens of socialism.
I think the problem is that the core of the philanthropy issue has at its crux a class of individuals who harness vast amounts of capital resources to parley into the power to affect the world, at large scale, to their desires.
There aren’t very many ways to remedy this; a regulation for the amount of money you could spend on charity or university or such would be untenable for various reasons, so despite the fact that this form of spending can and often is an end run around democratic management of society, and has become a crutch we have come to depend on to make up for funding shortfalls in our democratic institutions (be it via acquisition/tax policy or prioritzation as to who receives funds).
So then your next choice is wealth and income taxes to recover the wealth to use via democratic institutions. But you’re going to have to use a wealth tax, because even their regular income isn't where their wealth is derived; it’s derived via business ownership. So you have to go for a wealth tax which has its difficulties in implementing because of potential liquidity issues and the fact our stock market has the personality equivalent of a herd of nervous barn animals.
Furthermore, even a wealth tax only addresses what is the symptom of a greater systemic problem. At heart to this debate is a question of democratic self-determination vs living under the whims of an aristocratic class. That class draws its power through our economic system of capitalism. And so that’s how we get to the socialism talk, because socialism is a method of worker empowerment that helps to prevent the consolidation of power through massive wealth acquisition.
At its heart, the Capitalism vs Socialism debate, since the 1800s, has been a debate regarding who wields power in society and how they acquire that power. Philanthropy’s usage as a means of societal reshaping is one method by which capitalists manage to retain that power and create an image of benevolence.
So then when you have a thread about "Philanthropy has major issues, what do we do to fix the problem?" when you have a board with even a few socialists, well, we end up viewing and addressing the problem via the lens of socialism.
I agree with this framing of the discussion, even though I disagree with your position.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Part of the issue with the accumulation of wealth is that they have paid Congress to define their methods of income as not income for taxes, and give them special lower rates and shit.
I think there are actually two kinds of taxes you could call a wealth tax, and both at least do something about this madness. The first is a tax on total wealth. The second is a tax on net wealth. If you go back a few pages to where people are talking about just the change in wealth over a single year being enough to end world hunger? Yeah, tax the fucking hell out of that. Second, tax the hoard beneath it.
I'd also ban stock options as compensation, but thats a bigger digression.
But I have little sympathy for this philanthropy nonsense when it doesn't even slow down their hoards from growing.
I'm not overly concerned about the effects on Jeff Bezos if he loses 90% of his wealth - as you say, he's so rich that he could lose 90% (or more) and never even notice in terms of his lifestyle. I am concerned, though, with the effects on Amazon, its employees, and the economy at large if Bezos is forced to suddenly liquidate almost his entire interest in Amazon.
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal because the idea of a maximum cap on wealth is nonsensical given how wealth works.
Honestly, I don't think the existence of the hyperwealthy is causing most of the most pressing issues, and I don't think eliminating their existence is necessary to start working on them. Instead, let's adjust the tax system to use the hyperwealthy as a revenue source to help fix healthcare, to address homelessness, to work on climate change. Get a wealth tax up and running. Implement regulations that directly impede the harmful behaviors we want to prevent. Get that shit in order, and then let's reassess.
This is exactly what I'm arguing for. Warren Buffet has stated that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, despite his much greater income and vastly greater accumulated wealth. The system is rigged to favor the rich and we need to de-rig it. The response to the first Gilded Age was the Progressive Era, and we need a 2nd Progressive Era to address our current state.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is that it's almost inherently defeatist and nihilistic.
- The super rich are monsters because they horde all their money instead of using it to better society.
- The super rich who try to use their money to better society are monsters because they're trying to better society based on what THEY think is best and secretly just want more power.
- Anyone who would even want to be rich is a monster because obviously they just want limitless power.
- Taxing them doesn't really do much because the very foundations of our society are unjust, so really it's just monsters all the way down.
We've basically gotten to where the only thing a wealthy person can do is kill themselves and leave all their money to a hypothetical future class who will tear down society and rebuild it as a Star Trek utopia.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's made me feel better about buying stuff from whomever
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is that it's almost inherently defeatist and nihilistic.
- The super rich are monsters because they horde all their money instead of using it to better society.
- The super rich who try to use their money to better society are monsters because they're trying to better society based on what THEY think is best and secretly just want more power.
- Anyone who would even want to be rich is a monster because obviously they just want limitless power.
- Taxing them doesn't really do much because the very foundations of our society are unjust, so really it's just monsters all the way down.
We've basically gotten to where the only thing a wealthy person can do is kill themselves and leave all their money to a hypothetical future class who will tear down society and rebuild it as a Star Trek utopia.
Chuck Feeney, JK Rowling, and Jon Huntsman Sr. are three examples of billionaires who gave away money and kept giving it away until they were no longer billionaires.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is that it's almost inherently defeatist and nihilistic.
- The super rich are monsters because they horde all their money instead of using it to better society.
- The super rich who try to use their money to better society are monsters because they're trying to better society based on what THEY think is best and secretly just want more power.
- Anyone who would even want to be rich is a monster because obviously they just want limitless power.
- Taxing them doesn't really do much because the very foundations of our society are unjust, so really it's just monsters all the way down.
We've basically gotten to where the only thing a wealthy person can do is kill themselves and leave all their money to a hypothetical future class who will tear down society and rebuild it as a Star Trek utopia.
I am directly advocating for dismantling the current system and rebuilding it based on fundamentally just principles, yes. This is something we have done many times throughout history requiring varying degrees of social and political upheaval. I think it is the right thing to do. I do not think it will be an easy process, and while I'm very far from having all the answers to what the ultimate form of society should be there are a massive number of proposals and examples throughout history that have been disregarded in return for clinging to the status quo. We can find a better way to live, I legitimately believe that, we have done it many times before and there is no reason to think we could not do it again. The first step of that process is pointing out the injustices that currently exist and tracing them to their root causes so that those causes can be excised from the system. In this case, the problem is extreme wealth inequality, and we need to be asking ourselves whether we truly need the institutions and concepts that allow this inequality in the first place.
The question you're asking is tantamount to "But if we end slavery what do we do with all the slaves? How do we allow the Southern economy to still function?" This is a problem that can be answered. The solution may not be palatable to people who thrive under the status quo, but it will be strictly necessary if we have any intention of making the way we live line up with our highest ideals.
To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.
That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.
Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is that it's almost inherently defeatist and nihilistic.
- The super rich are monsters because they horde all their money instead of using it to better society.
- The super rich who try to use their money to better society are monsters because they're trying to better society based on what THEY think is best and secretly just want more power.
- Anyone who would even want to be rich is a monster because obviously they just want limitless power.
- Taxing them doesn't really do much because the very foundations of our society are unjust, so really it's just monsters all the way down.
We've basically gotten to where the only thing a wealthy person can do is kill themselves and leave all their money to a hypothetical future class who will tear down society and rebuild it as a Star Trek utopia.
I think this is unnecessarily hyperbolic?
I mean, some of us think the system has an inherent problem. That's not "defeatist or nihilistic."
I literally posted a quote by LeGuin about how any human power can be changed by humans. Change and betterment is possible. But whenever someone says "The system is the problem," people who have grown up and cultured by that system and the decades of cold war between two imperial projects do... well, this. This claim of “nihilism” or complain about the demonisation of the wealthy, or any other sort of hyperbolic handwave that proponents of change are being too extreme
You don't have to build a Star Trek utopia. You can just, you know, share power with your fellow people. That's all. That's the trick. Just fucking share.
I don't think that's nihilism.
What feels like nihilism is looking at the problem and saying nothing can be done and we’re stuck with it because we’re too dependent on the broken system to risk change
To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.
That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.
Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.
The problem with centralized power runs much deeper than this. Almost by definition to have power is to have the ability to limit the self-determination of other individuals. Money is a method of controlling the behavior of others. There is a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function. The ability to coerce someone else into doing something against their will is wrong, we should arrange society such that no power is ever granted that is not given up with the full knowledge and consent of all those who give it up.
To clarify, my point is not that any of them are necessarily admirable figures, but that if the thread consensus is "no more billionaires," it is entirely possible for billionaires to simply stop being billionaires. They don't have to kill themselves.
That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.
Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.
The problem with centralized power runs much deeper than this. Almost by definition to have power is to have the ability to limit the self-determination of other individuals. Money is a method of controlling the behavior of others. There is a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function. The ability to coerce someone else into doing something against their will is wrong, we should arrange society such that no power is ever granted that is not given up with the full knowledge and consent of all those who give it up.
You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.
Posts
Note that I support Warren's wealth tax. I think that is entirely reasonable. And, at least in theory, I don't mind the notion that the existence of billionaires is a big red flag. It's when we get to "any billionaire who doesn't immediately give virtually the entirety of his wealth tomorrow to shelter the homeless is a monster and I don't care about things like 'liquidity'" that I tune out, because that's not how extreme wealth, or economics, actually works.
If we want to make billionaires obsolete, cool, I'm game. I'm wondering how we get there, because wealth taxes only get you so far, and if you're thinking we just make it illegal to have more than a billion dollars in wealth and who cares what form that wealth takes, this ceases to be a serious conversation.
I like progressive taxation that gets rid of the kinds of loopholes that allow them to donate hundreds of millions to anti-abortion dark money bullshit in order to reduce their tax burden.
I dislike making the consolidation of capital around success “the enemy” - we just need better mechanisms to extract a sizable portion of that success and feed it back into the system that allowed for it
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The real solution is to have a wealth tax, and then just let it play for a while, and set the level of the wealth tax such that you dont end up with people with more than say, double the amount of money required for the fulfillment of all human dreams and desires for the rest of their lives even if they quit their job and hid it in a mattress.
Except when set at reasonable, not economically destructive levels it's not going to do that. A 3,6,whatever percent wealth tax will raise revenue (though we don't really know how much) but it won't make anyone not a billionaire. It would require more extremist proposals like 90% which as we are discussing are unrealistic.
It’s a long, dense article but this really helped me better understand that the issue is less the billionaires personally and more that we’re in a death spiral right now, and said billionaires are competing in a version of Highlander to be the richest person left at the end
It probably wouldn’t require too drastic a set of changes to get us on the good side of that phase transition...
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal in our current society, because so much of our society is focused on the dangled carrot of making more money. I do agree wealth taxes will only get you so far, but I think what wealth taxes as Warren has proposed will do is effectively stagnate (or at least greatly slow) wealth accumulation past $1B. Even very progressive countries like Denmark still have billionaires (Denmark has 7 of the top 500 richest people!).
The amount of money required for all human dreams to be fulfilled (yacht around the med on a 200 ft yacht playboy mansion style for 50 years) is around 1 billion dollars. At 6% wealth tax on wealth above 1 billion and 3% above 100 million would achieve making that level of wealth the maximum without much issue. Billionaires dont earn rates of return above 6% long term.
According to a quick Google, Bill Gates has a net worth of about 100 billion and his net worth has increased 5 to 6 billion a year for the last 5 years. For one thing, they will be making income beyond capital gains. And looking further back it looks like in the 90s he had exponential growth in his net worth.
Granted that being employee-owned is not, in itself, enough to ensure a good work environment, but there are thousands of ways to run an employee owned co-op and some are going to lead to significantly better outcomes than others. How are voting rights handled? What's the organizational structure? There are many ways to build it and some are going to be good while others are going to be bad, and some are going to make sense in some industries and not in others, and ultimately you will always have to deal with other people and all of the assorted problems that entails.
But at the end of the day I think any movement in that direction is beneficial and desirable. There is a lot of data showing that co-ops are much less likely to fail, less exploitable, and more stable. Fundamentally though it is simply a more just way to do business, and I think that's worth wanting in itself.
I don't think the idea that there are companies that fail to benefit their employees despite being co-ops is evidence against co-ops being a viable solution to the problems of capitalism any more so than the existence of failed socialist states means that socialism is not a viable solution to the problems of capitalism.
I can still only possibly see this as bailing water out of a sinking ship and saying "look at this, this is fine, the boat is working fine you just need to bail faster."
The consolidation of wealth under centralized entities is wrong, it corrupts and disenfranchises almost by default. Our system as it stands consolidates wealth. We can design a better system.
This, itself, is a massively destructive force in society, and I simply do not buy the notion that this is the only viable engine of constructive human economic activity. I think the only reason we believe it is so is due to the structure of the system we already live in.
Why do we deliberately power our society with the most antisocial aspects of human behavior? Why is this the feedback loop we are choosing to reinforce?
I suspect that you and I have very different views on whether this argument should be dismissed so glibly.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't think you can make being a billionaire illegal because the idea of a maximum cap on wealth is nonsensical given how wealth works.
Honestly, I don't think the existence of the hyperwealthy is causing most of the most pressing issues, and I don't think eliminating their existence is necessary to start working on them. Instead, let's adjust the tax system to use the hyperwealthy as a revenue source to help fix healthcare, to address homelessness, to work on climate change. Get a wealth tax up and running. Implement regulations that directly impede the harmful behaviors we want to prevent. Get that shit in order, and then let's reassess.
The hyperwealthy only reach that point by bleeding their labor force dry. Ideally you'd force them to actually treat their employees like human beings rather than resources to be exploited, and then if that actually happened across the board it wouldn't be nearly as necessary to treat them as a revenue source.
I think the problem here is that the existence of the hyperwealthy is, itself, merely a symptom. It's the racking cough you get as your lungs go to shit as a nasty viral infection hijacks your system to build more and more viruses to spread into other cells and continue reproducing.
The system itself is the problem, and until it's solved all these problems just will resurface in one way or another until it's solved. You can't have a system that funnels a majority of resources and power in the hands of a few and expect society to not suffer for it. And that's what Capitalism is. That is the foundational nature of allowing a group of few people to own the output of others work. It's neofeudalism with a nicer reputation.
The problem with the "wealth cap" argument is that it sidesteps the actual problem to create a system that doesn't make sense. We've had plenty of people explaining this in here and in other threads that you don't get to this level of wealth without building it on the backs of countless others working under you to produce the wealth at these scales, that you could work without break for centuries ( @Jragghen didn't you have the math on that in one of these threads?) and not even approach the net worths of men like Bezos.
Unless you reform the system, the problems will keep happening and people with interest in preserving their own power and status will use that wealth and the power it bestows to to acquire more and more of it, taking warping even the institutions of democratic self-governance to their own ends. That's how power works.
Pointing at failed socialist states is an extremely common tactic in anti-socialist propaganda, but I can point out just as many failed capitalist states that ended in violent worker revolts. Case in point: the vast majority of early South and Central American countries. A large number of socialist states are only so because they were capitalist states that failed to begin with.
This is essentially the redistributive force needed to counterbalance the upward consolidation of wealth and keep us a democracy vs accelerating through oligarchy to whatever the fuck is even beyond that
2 people alone (Bezos and Gates) are on track to own something like 6% of US GDP by 2050
We also don't really know whether a socialist state can truly succeed on its own because American imperialism tends to crush socialist states. Additionally, claiming that socialism can't work because of the failures of previous socialist states is, at its most basic, completely illogical. It's like someone during the Revolutionary war saying that a republic can't work because other republics fell to monarchist or imperialist powers. It's highly presumptive and ignores the differing material conditions of the modern age.
Do billionaires always exist in some form but are kept pruned and of appropriate scale to the rest of the population?
Billionaires are parasites of capitalism
Billionaires would not exist in socialism, nor would millionaires
Capitalism is an issue because it is a very effective method for pursuing the goal of power consolidation.
If you know a better method than socialism for reaching the goal of distributing power more equally, by all means bring it forth.
I'm skeptical of your use of present tense here. I suspect you're including nations in your generalization that I wouldn't consider "socialist."
Because, from my perspective, there aren't a whole lot of socialist states left. Almost the entire world has been moving towards a pragmatic mix of capitalism, public planning, and redistribution. This is the wonkish mix that would be called "neoliberal" if that word hadn't been popularly corrupted to mean "the shitty parts of capitalism."
Yes, that includes China, which in my experience most socialists are quick to define as "state capitalism."
If you were to hold a Makarov to my head and tell me to list all the extant socialist states I know of in 2019, I'd say Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.
I might be missing some and I probably am. I'd be surprised if I were missing "a large number."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This comes from an extremely American definition of socialism. State-based command economy =/= socialism. Labeling any successful mixed-market economy "capitalist" versus "socialist" is generally just a determinant of which aspect of the economy you want to highlight as being the driver of its success. There are visions for a market economy that do not carry the historical baggage of either.
But honestly I think the things that matter are largely orthogonal to the traditional capitalist/communist, first-world/second-world debate, which was driven between a very specific form of authoritarian socialism competing with a very specific form of capitalist neutered democracy.
If you ask an anarcho-socialist what they think about this dichotomy, they will generally tell you that both systems were (and are) driven overwhelmingly by oppressive bullshit masquerading as worthwhile ideals (this was basically the entire point of everything George Orwell, an anarcho-syndicalist, wrote).
Socialist country is a paradox
Eh, I don’t think that’s the case; communism, on the other hand has the dissolution of the state as one of its tenets along with worker ownership of the means of production and the dissolution of class differences
I think the problem is that the core of the philanthropy issue has at its crux a class of individuals who harness vast amounts of capital resources to parley into the power to affect the world, at large scale, to their desires.
There aren’t very many ways to remedy this; a regulation for the amount of money you could spend on charity or university or such would be untenable for various reasons, so despite the fact that this form of spending can and often is an end run around democratic management of society, and has become a crutch we have come to depend on to make up for funding shortfalls in our democratic institutions (be it via acquisition/tax policy or prioritzation as to who receives funds).
So then your next choice is wealth and income taxes to recover the wealth to use via democratic institutions. But you’re going to have to use a wealth tax, because even their regular income isn't where their wealth is derived; it’s derived via business ownership. So you have to go for a wealth tax which has its difficulties in implementing because of potential liquidity issues and the fact our stock market has the personality equivalent of a herd of nervous barn animals.
Furthermore, even a wealth tax only addresses what is the symptom of a greater systemic problem. At heart to this debate is a question of democratic self-determination vs living under the whims of an aristocratic class. That class draws its power through our economic system of capitalism. And so that’s how we get to the socialism talk, because socialism is a method of worker empowerment that helps to prevent the consolidation of power through massive wealth acquisition.
At its heart, the Capitalism vs Socialism debate, since the 1800s, has been a debate regarding who wields power in society and how they acquire that power. Philanthropy’s usage as a means of societal reshaping is one method by which capitalists manage to retain that power and create an image of benevolence.
So then when you have a thread about "Philanthropy has major issues, what do we do to fix the problem?" when you have a board with even a few socialists, well, we end up viewing and addressing the problem via the lens of socialism.
I agree with this framing of the discussion, even though I disagree with your position.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think there are actually two kinds of taxes you could call a wealth tax, and both at least do something about this madness. The first is a tax on total wealth. The second is a tax on net wealth. If you go back a few pages to where people are talking about just the change in wealth over a single year being enough to end world hunger? Yeah, tax the fucking hell out of that. Second, tax the hoard beneath it.
I'd also ban stock options as compensation, but thats a bigger digression.
But I have little sympathy for this philanthropy nonsense when it doesn't even slow down their hoards from growing.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This is exactly what I'm arguing for. Warren Buffet has stated that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, despite his much greater income and vastly greater accumulated wealth. The system is rigged to favor the rich and we need to de-rig it. The response to the first Gilded Age was the Progressive Era, and we need a 2nd Progressive Era to address our current state.
- The super rich are monsters because they horde all their money instead of using it to better society.
- The super rich who try to use their money to better society are monsters because they're trying to better society based on what THEY think is best and secretly just want more power.
- Anyone who would even want to be rich is a monster because obviously they just want limitless power.
- Taxing them doesn't really do much because the very foundations of our society are unjust, so really it's just monsters all the way down.
We've basically gotten to where the only thing a wealthy person can do is kill themselves and leave all their money to a hypothetical future class who will tear down society and rebuild it as a Star Trek utopia.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Chuck Feeney, JK Rowling, and Jon Huntsman Sr. are three examples of billionaires who gave away money and kept giving it away until they were no longer billionaires.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I am directly advocating for dismantling the current system and rebuilding it based on fundamentally just principles, yes. This is something we have done many times throughout history requiring varying degrees of social and political upheaval. I think it is the right thing to do. I do not think it will be an easy process, and while I'm very far from having all the answers to what the ultimate form of society should be there are a massive number of proposals and examples throughout history that have been disregarded in return for clinging to the status quo. We can find a better way to live, I legitimately believe that, we have done it many times before and there is no reason to think we could not do it again. The first step of that process is pointing out the injustices that currently exist and tracing them to their root causes so that those causes can be excised from the system. In this case, the problem is extreme wealth inequality, and we need to be asking ourselves whether we truly need the institutions and concepts that allow this inequality in the first place.
The question you're asking is tantamount to "But if we end slavery what do we do with all the slaves? How do we allow the Southern economy to still function?" This is a problem that can be answered. The solution may not be palatable to people who thrive under the status quo, but it will be strictly necessary if we have any intention of making the way we live line up with our highest ideals.
That still leaves open questions about how many billionaires got their status through perfectly legitimate, ethical business. Feeney made his money by helping tobacco and alcohol addicts evade taxes. Huntsman was an LDS official who made his money through nonbiodegradeable styrofoam. And I'm sick and tired of talking about Rowling, so let's not.
Everybody has skeletons in their closets. Nobody is perfect. But when you're that rich, whatever skeletons you have are multiplied across a much vaster impact. And I think it's a respectable argument to say that we should discourage individuals from getting limitlessly rich for the same reason we should discourage individuals from seeking limitless political power - it amplifies the negative impacts of our human imperfections to an untenable degree.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think this is unnecessarily hyperbolic?
I mean, some of us think the system has an inherent problem. That's not "defeatist or nihilistic."
I literally posted a quote by LeGuin about how any human power can be changed by humans. Change and betterment is possible. But whenever someone says "The system is the problem," people who have grown up and cultured by that system and the decades of cold war between two imperial projects do... well, this. This claim of “nihilism” or complain about the demonisation of the wealthy, or any other sort of hyperbolic handwave that proponents of change are being too extreme
You don't have to build a Star Trek utopia. You can just, you know, share power with your fellow people. That's all. That's the trick. Just fucking share.
I don't think that's nihilism.
What feels like nihilism is looking at the problem and saying nothing can be done and we’re stuck with it because we’re too dependent on the broken system to risk change
The problem with centralized power runs much deeper than this. Almost by definition to have power is to have the ability to limit the self-determination of other individuals. Money is a method of controlling the behavior of others. There is a strong moral argument that the power of any one individual should be limited to the lowest possible level that still allows society to effectively function. The ability to coerce someone else into doing something against their will is wrong, we should arrange society such that no power is ever granted that is not given up with the full knowledge and consent of all those who give it up.