How should we help the super rich?

[Hygro]

I had a moment thinking if we could just get the world leaders (of all types) together on MDMA with the people, deep in the desert where it's beautiful and equal, we could arrest so much evil.

And I still think that, to an extent. Especially between religious sectarians, who are guiding billions regardless of not being the top of the top.

But I also realized a bunch of them are already doing that, and so a lot of the good outcomes are already baked in, and many of them are having no trouble continuing active evil.

Though I do think the evilest subsection is mostly drug-avoidant, they'd rather watch and think they "get it". There are exceptions, however.

 

[Narz]

I am someone who had the great fortune of inheriting what most would consider to be considerable wealth.

Despite this, I do believe there should be stronger and better rules to stop generational transfer of wealth. Dynasties, monopolies etc are all terrible for the planet.

I donate to charity, but nothing on the scale of what could have been claimed during my inheritance with better laws. So I am likely a hypocrite rather than a saint.

How much mate? When's the boat party?

 

[Narz]

I had a moment thinking if we could just get the world leaders (of all types) together on MDMA with the people, deep in the desert where it's beautiful and equal, we could arrest so much evil.

And I still think that, to an extent. Especially between religious sectarians, who are guiding billions regardless of not being the top of the top.

But I also realized a bunch of them are already doing that, and so a lot of the good outcomes are already baked in, and many of them are having no trouble continuing active evil.

Though I do think the evilest subsection is mostly drug-avoidant, they'd rather watch and think they "get it". There are exceptions, however.

Yeah I don't think drugs in and of themselves necessarily make someone more prosocial. Especially if one can't really relate to the suffering of the masses. Mofos used to take ayahuasca before battle even tho nowadays white people seem to think of it as a magical love/healing drug.

 

[Bugfatty300]

How should we help them so they can be better people & make better decisions?

Take their money away.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Crucify them!

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

How much mate? When's the boat party?

Enough to not really need to work on a career. I've become "asset management" level of wealth.

I see you are in the UK now? So maybe we can try for a boat party next summer.

 

[Lexicus]

They've tried that thruout history. A bunch of brutal overlords replaced by another. Not so realistic these days either.

Wipe them out with euthanasia of the rentier, duh

 

[Narz]

Wipe them out with euthanasia of the rentier, duh

What's that mean?

Also. Say you achieve your aim of genocide of everyone above a certain income/power level? Who takes over? The gentle and unambitious somehow?

 

[El_Machinae]

I do think the short answer is that we are better off just democratically restructuring things to reduce their ability to cause damage. We don't have good intuitions regarding the various types of wealth, and the damage versus benefit each will cause.


But I think that you are asking more about some type of psychological help, so that they feel less need to hoard or to hurt others for their own benefit.

I think you can get a long way on that front just by memetic design. And I mean that in the more old-fashioned use of the term. You have two fronts, the first is that you don't need massive accumulation to fill a psychological void. The second would be how hoarding isn't helping, even though a reasonable fraction of people think it is.

If you look at the answers of some of the people who've taken the giving pledge, a lot of them think that they can do more good by continuing to accumulate wealth and then give it away later. That by engaging in the accumulation, they are providing some type of net benefit. And because wealth compounds, they can do more of that accumulation if they already have stuff.

Of course, some people might just be doing the simple calculation of giving more later, because they think that accumulating at 7% will result in more being given away than if it's given away now. That's mainly because we don't have good systems for measuring the compounding benefit of early investment at the primary charity level.

Sometimes you help people by taking away their abusers. So if there are people that are propagating the poisonous memes that promote accumulation and hoarding, disempowering those people will help the people who would have been targeted by those memes

 

[Narz]

I see you are in the UK now?

yeah up near Cambridge

So maybe we can try for a boat party next summer.

 

[Lexicus]

What's that mean?

Also. Say you achieve your aim of genocide of everyone above a certain income/power level? Who takes over? The gentle and unambitious somehow?

Interesting that you ask what it means, then just go ahead and assume you know.

It means, in short, that full employment policy properly pursued results in the reduction of real interest rates to zero or nearly so, meaning that no idle class existing on income derived from the ownership of assets can exist.

 

[Farm Boy]

The disabled? The retired? Artists? Other socially useless work? All with the fun of definitions!

 

[Narz]

I do think the short answer is that we are better off just democratically restructuring things to reduce their ability to cause damage. We don't have good intuitions regarding the various types of wealth, and the damage versus benefit each will cause.


But I think that you are asking more about some type of psychological help, so that they feel less need to hoard or to hurt others for their own benefit

Yes.

Sometimes you help people by taking away their abusers. So if there are people that are propagating the poisonous memes that promote accumulation and hoarding, disempowering those people will help the people who would have been targeted by those memes

Poisonous memes is a good way to describe it.

Reminds me of this video I was watching earlier today

 

[Narz]

meaning that no idle class existing on income derived from the ownership of assets can exist.

That would be a major restructuring

 

[AmazonQueen]

The disabled? The retired? Artists? Other socially useless work? All with the fun of definitions!

Most disabled, retired and artists aren't super-rich and can't live off income generated by assets.

 

[Lexicus]

The disabled? The retired? Artists? Other socially useless work? All with the fun of definitions!

The majority of the disabled and retired in this country live off government payments, not rent from assets. Ditto artists who are neither idle nor live off rents: they live by selling their artworks, little different than anyone else selling their labor or its fruits.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

Mike Andrews from the GTA universe has the answer:

 

[danjuno]

You're trolling right? Why do the super rich need help?

 

[El_Machinae]

Poisonous memes is a good way to describe it

In my thinking. changes that create partial fixes are worth it. There are gains to be made that can be made through voluntary changes, and those gains are worth it. "A billionaire who decides to spend differently" is a win, and independent of structural change.

 

[Gorbles]

Yours was very vague so can't even really argue w it.

Any answers at a sufficiently large scale are always going to be vague.

I do think the short answer is that we are better off just democratically restructuring things to reduce their ability to cause damage.

How do you square this with their decidedly undemocratic influence on said democratic systems?