How should we help the super rich?
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Maybe. Maybe not. My intention is to stay within CFC rules.
The first way that it can help with inequality is that it changes the odds on whether it will be hoarded. If it is spent unwisely, then it is available to be worked for. As well, the hoarder might not have the same psychology with regards to generosity as the inheritor. A lot of the damage is done with the hoarding. In many ways, the spending is just a line item.
The second is that it can act as an incentive, as long as the incentive is communicated clearly. It strains the word voluntary, but if it encourages voluntary disbursement along socially beneficial lines, it can also help reduce inequality.
Of course, because countries are also tiered when it comes to wealth, there is a chance that any redistribution just rearranges the deck chairs elsewhere if we are viewing from the perspective of the actually poor.
There are more than a few case studies that we can use to extract lessons or to plan. It's hard not to violate CFC rules. There are many times it's not worked, there are many times it's kind of worked.
Of course, the same can be said with efforts to evoke voluntary generosity. Sometimes the efforts are useful. And, after that, sometimes the generosity is useful. And many cases where it's not.
Narz
keeping it real
Talks like a duck, walks like a duck, continously talks excitedly about mass murder like a duckYou mean like by comparing people to Pol Pot?
Narz
keeping it real
Society is messed up, acting like we need more Ted kacinski's isn't the answer
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,171
killing will not help anything . Or any legal thing that means taking over that wealth or anything . Not today but history will write a major part of the reasons of the war in Ukraine was that the Democrats in the US could neither deliver what they should have been doing after empowered by the masses after the disasters of the Trump era , nor could simply say they are just the same with the Republicans . Once again to the attention of those who think they can change anything with violence: Ballot is your thing . By the time you will get organized to do anything worth mentioning , you will all be dead . Your relatives , your neighbours , your cat , too . People who will be doing that have been killing Brown coloured people for decades now , men , women , children and that just for sport . That things have not gone that low is not because Americans are exceptional or anything . Capitalism just needed a brutal cop that would enforce the plunder and America is no longer strong enough to bully . Next stop is chaos in the US . Because there is no more need for PR to scare these peer competitors and whatnot and the profit margins are falling . But in case you are still willing to try , please explain your rage and whatnot in places where half of the intelligence services of the world are not tracking some known enemy of United States . You would last longer .
sophie
Break My Heart
For someone who references Dawn of Everything constantly, you sure seem to have understood very little of it
Oh, so your shock value is valid because you consider it accurate, but those of others (real or imagined) are not because you deem them inaccurate.
Seems like a one-sided way of looking at things, but what do I know.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Has anyone personally wronged you enough that you should kill them?
Last edited:
Rosa Parks was picked strategically. Whoever you're hoping becomes Dancing Shirtless Guy on this front should probably be picked wisely as well, to avoid a bad spiral.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,171
the success of the Black Rights movement , now that it just doesn't come to my mind in case there is a more specific term for it , was really dependant on the willingness of the US Goverment to see it succeed . While a lot of things might be said for any reluctance and so on , Kennedy was a President and ı saw it on TV or whatever that Johnson practically threatened a Governor that he would be executed by the relevant Federal unit to be found in a ditch by the roadside . Yes , there was a risk of certain numbers of Black men armed and ready , but the real threat was foreign intervention . If not in the US , then elsewhere . To bring this notion of American Superiority down . This is not 1962 and the Russians are defeated everyday , too .
ballot . Protect yourself against thugs , like within reason if you want/have to . Can not win or go further by any other means .
ballot . Protect yourself against thugs , like within reason if you want/have to . Can not win or go further by any other means .
sophie
Break My Heart
Just a conclusion based on all existing historical evidence: the wealthy never willingly renounce their wealth, and when compelled to do so through coercion and allowed to live, they immediately set about plotting a return of their power and expropriated wealth. The violence committed by the communards of Paris in 1871 paled in comparison to the rivers and oceans of blood that flowed when the national forces overran the barricade and retook the city. The Union let the confederates off with no consequences and they immediately set about waging a brutal guerrilla war that eventually resulted in their de facto return to full power.
I personally abhor violence, and would prefer a revolution occur through peaceful means. But I know such an outcome is simply not in the cards in any universe
Last edited:
Narz
keeping it real
I recall referencing it only once ages ago a few days after I finished it.
Might be worth a re-read. As usual you are unspecific so not sure what you're talking about nor why you bring it up in response to the quoted post.
Main message I got from the book is that the a-->b-->c linear view of tribe to empire is shallow & complexity doesn't necessitate top down authority.
Yeah I read about that recently. There were at least a couple before her but the movemnet choose her because her reputation was basically perfect & the 1950's version of fox news couldn't do an expose on her
Last edited:
Narz
keeping it real
Warren Buffett - The Giving Pledge
More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day."
givingpledge.org
Not saying this is typical of the super rich. But it could become so (I mean realistically probably not but more likely than some coordinated attack on all elites all over the world).
Regardless of whether you think violence is the only answer storming the castle w pitchforks isn't a practical option in 2022.
[snip] Moderator Action: Inappropriate comment removed. Birdjaguar
Last edited by a moderator:
Can a ask about how you worked out these probabilities? It does not seem credible to me, we have seen how rich people act and we rarely see them being generous, but all system in the past ended with violence.
Well, we saw someone coin the phrase
"I want to leave my kids enough that they can do anything they want, but not enough that they can do nothing"
So, there is always the distribution after death that is available for modifying via psychology. A very real hindrance on real-time generosity, one that we all fall for constantly, is that we worry that the money that is being given will be poorly spent. Never mind that the alternative use of a dollar is one of the most powerful things that we wield, when we decide to.
We have all heard of instances of people being given money where they now have enough to not be poor, and then a short while later, they are poor again.
And how many times have we refused to give to research charities when we realize how much they spend on infrastructure? We would rather save up to overspend on Alzheimer's patient care than waste money trying to find interventions
The math is always difficult. I'm able to calculate my capital growth very easily and then I'm able to calculate how much leisure it can generate once it is distributed. But the actual calculation that we need, the literal growth that proper generosity can unleash if spent properly, it's very hard to calculate.
"I want to leave my kids enough that they can do anything they want, but not enough that they can do nothing"
So, there is always the distribution after death that is available for modifying via psychology. A very real hindrance on real-time generosity, one that we all fall for constantly, is that we worry that the money that is being given will be poorly spent. Never mind that the alternative use of a dollar is one of the most powerful things that we wield, when we decide to.
We have all heard of instances of people being given money where they now have enough to not be poor, and then a short while later, they are poor again.
And how many times have we refused to give to research charities when we realize how much they spend on infrastructure? We would rather save up to overspend on Alzheimer's patient care than waste money trying to find interventions
The math is always difficult. I'm able to calculate my capital growth very easily and then I'm able to calculate how much leisure it can generate once it is distributed. But the actual calculation that we need, the literal growth that proper generosity can unleash if spent properly, it's very hard to calculate.
I would swap interesting for horrifying. Likely they are attached to names/brands you would recognise though.
Yes, my sentence makes more sense if we put quote marks around the word "interesting". I was even surprised to find out that I didn't recognize some of the brands! Some people seem to be rich because people wealthier than I give them money for something I don't value.
But yeah, our little primate instincts that are entirely focused on Gossip don't seem to capture the private lives of the people who control basically everything outside of government spheres.
The American government controls the value of the American dollar, and yet the politicians really seem to care about what the people with all those dollars think. Our instinctive need to recognize the concept of property is deep.
Perhaps off-topic, but are we not surmising that the government does NOT, rather that wealthy individuals do, and its a problem.
Last edited:
Narz
keeping it real
Well @ least one of the world's richest (buffet) giving away all his wealth.
And not all revolutions have been violent.
Most systems that end w violence begat more violence. The idea that we just kill all the corrupt bad guys and replace them w good guys is a childlike fantasy (granted one that has pop appeal, "drain the swamp", etc)
