Narz
keeping it real
Kind of like that Inception movie where tons of time, effort and coordination is spent trying to get into the head of one man and change his mind.
How should we help the super rich?
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Senethro
Overlord
Oligarchs are sufficiently untouchable that autocrats have to throw them out of windows to send messages to the rest.
They need to be prevented existing, not persuaded.
They need to be prevented existing, not persuaded.
Narz
keeping it real
Lil late
"Prevented from existing" might be the wrong answer in some practical sense.
When I look at a list of countries with no billionaires, I'm not jealous of any of them. And all of the countries that I consider to be potentially nicer than mine does have them.
en.wikipedia.org
When I sort in ascending per capita and ask "would I move there to raise a family?", there's no obvious correlation with a lack of billionaires.
There could be underlying reasons where treating the question as if extremes are the answer is ... wrong. Just because I prefer a colder room temperature than others, it doesn't mean "colder is better". And just because someone prefers to add a couple of degrees, it doesn't mean "adding 15 is better". Minimum wage has superior options to $0/hr or $200/hr. There are lots of systems where cranking one dial to the maximum will lead to suboptimal outcomes.
I guess there are two modifications you can make to billionaires, laws that constrain their ability to wield their wealth (or assisting them in spending it in ways that are of net benefit*) OR charge a higher fee for how much of it you're willing to legally protect (and then deciding how to spend that fee*)
*These are themselves complicated questions.
When I look at a list of countries with no billionaires, I'm not jealous of any of them. And all of the countries that I consider to be potentially nicer than mine does have them.
List of countries by number of billionaires - Wikipedia
When I sort in ascending per capita and ask "would I move there to raise a family?", there's no obvious correlation with a lack of billionaires.
There could be underlying reasons where treating the question as if extremes are the answer is ... wrong. Just because I prefer a colder room temperature than others, it doesn't mean "colder is better". And just because someone prefers to add a couple of degrees, it doesn't mean "adding 15 is better". Minimum wage has superior options to $0/hr or $200/hr. There are lots of systems where cranking one dial to the maximum will lead to suboptimal outcomes.
I guess there are two modifications you can make to billionaires, laws that constrain their ability to wield their wealth (or assisting them in spending it in ways that are of net benefit*) OR charge a higher fee for how much of it you're willing to legally protect (and then deciding how to spend that fee*)
*These are themselves complicated questions.
Moriarte
Immortal
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,692
At this moment, unwanted laws are avoided by choosing correct jurisdiction. As for the second bit - it is difficult to force billionaires into anything, outside of placing them under supervision of CCP. And even under supervision, money still run away into Singapore the moment they stop liking the microclimate. Forcing big money to behave in the western world is equally hopeless, even more so. The sanctity of private property, the free market - major roadblocks to most forcing attempts.
Your link tells us that the US has 735 billionaires. That is not very many people. If one could put together a team of leaders from the major charities/NGOs, etc. that serve the bottom half of the world's people, they might well be able to individually target a significant number of those 735 and persuade them to move 50% of their wealth into world benefiting projects. Building and executing such a campaign is not new or difficult; of course, the outcome is unknown, but such things can build momentum to persuade more. For each target a specific team would be assembled that fits with the profile of the targeted billionaire and appeal their ego and legacy to be part of an elite project bigger than themselves."Prevented from existing" might be the wrong answer in some practical sense.
When I look at a list of countries with no billionaires, I'm not jealous of any of them. And all of the countries that I consider to be potentially nicer than mine does have them.
List of countries by number of billionaires - Wikipedia
When I sort in ascending per capita and ask "would I move there to raise a family?", there's no obvious correlation with a lack of billionaires.
There could be underlying reasons where treating the question as if extremes are the answer is ... wrong. Just because I prefer a colder room temperature than others, it doesn't mean "colder is better". And just because someone prefers to add a couple of degrees, it doesn't mean "adding 15 is better". Minimum wage has superior options to $0/hr or $200/hr. There are lots of systems where cranking one dial to the maximum will lead to suboptimal outcomes.
I guess there are two modifications you can make to billionaires, laws that constrain their ability to wield their wealth (or assisting them in spending it in ways that are of net benefit*) OR charge a higher fee for how much of it you're willing to legally protect (and then deciding how to spend that fee*)
*These are themselves complicated questions.
Yeah, that was the beginning of the Giving Pledge. What really helps those is 'very good projects' to work on. People like giving efficaciously and they don't like giving if it's going to be 'wasted'.
You'll still need systemic change, because if the system is shuttling wealth upwards it's going to keep doing so. "Productivity increases" at the bottom are what grow absolute wealth, but they don't claw relative wealth downwards if the systems aren't designed to at least allow it if people work to do so.
The Giving Pledge suffers an additional weakness, since enough people are putting the donations into their wills (though people who're 'interested' will start to distribute wealth earlier than that if various projects seem appealing). Warren Buffet is very likely to die of old age in a reasonable timeframe. Jeff Bezos really might not.
You'll still need systemic change, because if the system is shuttling wealth upwards it's going to keep doing so. "Productivity increases" at the bottom are what grow absolute wealth, but they don't claw relative wealth downwards if the systems aren't designed to at least allow it if people work to do so.
The Giving Pledge suffers an additional weakness, since enough people are putting the donations into their wills (though people who're 'interested' will start to distribute wealth earlier than that if various projects seem appealing). Warren Buffet is very likely to die of old age in a reasonable timeframe. Jeff Bezos really might not.
Not sure how useful that list is. Many of the countries with the highest proportion of billionaires like Monaco are not where those billionaires were born, live or make their money, just where they avoid taxes."Prevented from existing" might be the wrong answer in some practical sense.
When I look at a list of countries with no billionaires, I'm not jealous of any of them. And all of the countries that I consider to be potentially nicer than mine does have them.
List of countries by number of billionaires - Wikipedia
When I sort in ascending per capita and ask "would I move there to raise a family?", there's no obvious correlation with a lack of billionaires.
There could be underlying reasons where treating the question as if extremes are the answer is ... wrong. Just because I prefer a colder room temperature than others, it doesn't mean "colder is better". And just because someone prefers to add a couple of degrees, it doesn't mean "adding 15 is better". Minimum wage has superior options to $0/hr or $200/hr. There are lots of systems where cranking one dial to the maximum will lead to suboptimal outcomes.
I guess there are two modifications you can make to billionaires, laws that constrain their ability to wield their wealth (or assisting them in spending it in ways that are of net benefit*) OR charge a higher fee for how much of it you're willing to legally protect (and then deciding how to spend that fee*)
*These are themselves complicated questions.
I'm don't think that the correlation with 'lots of billionaires' is all that useful either. But my observation was whether 'zero' was a useful goal. I'm not jealous of any of the places that have achieved 'zero'.
Last year's biggest givers.
www.huffpost.com
Bill Gates Made 2022′s Biggest Charitable Donation
The Microsoft mogul gave $5 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to finance work in global health, development, policy and advocacy, and U.S. education.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Must work with the Ladies ....
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
I wonder when our civilization come to think of it that they could print pages with faces on them and demand service for it - it get worse still, we have the internet .... 
Can you explain that in layman terms?
Because I am pretty sure that the bolded part describes something that is impossible unless private property is abolished entirely.
Lexicus
Deity
Which word is unclear?
Words are clear... at least I think so.
But how would "reduction of real interest rates to zero or nearly so" make it so that
"no idle class existing on income derived from the ownership of assets can exist"??
Firstly, real interest rates have been below zero for a while.
Secondly, basic logic seems to dictate that if an asset can create income to sustain a worker, it can also create income to sustain its owner - [EDIT - provided the owner maintains the right to rent out his owned assets]
(And if it can not create income, it has no value and is not an asset by definition).
Hence, what you describe seems a logical impossibility to me.
Last edited:
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
It doesn't so long as there are players are too big to fail. It breaks the entire deal of the system. It hasn't functioned, like actually officially in policy, since 2008. There is no capitalism, only political reward.
Even the Shakers failed. There are three of them left now after trying for 250 years.
That is not logic, it is a decision we have made as to the structure of the economy.
