Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich.
If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.
His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop him?
Tax schemes and how they affect wealth, inequality, consumption, etc. is an interesting line of thought, and a necessary one, if you accept that the current one has allowed some individuals to get so rich that the rule of law breaks down in their presence.
Tesla has been successful in many of its lines of business and succeeded when many thought they couldn’t, that is undebatable. The failure of our system is that its stock price is completely out of line with the reality that reflects that success.
You can buy shares in other car manufacturers. Why would Tesla disproportionately benefit from inflated asset prices?
Elon Musk knows this and is a master at harnessing this power, which is why he’s shamelessly pumped DogeCoin and Shiba. He continually pushes his company to be the most popular brands by promising impossible futuristic products that cannot exist, but build excitement. Countless examples of these, but a few are Full Self Driving, a flying Roadster, the Tesla semi, solving transportation issues with tunnels, the Tesla bot, $25k model 3, solar roof that costs less than a normal roof, robotaxi, etc etc etc. It’s all calculated.
I think NFTs are stupid, but I don't think they're "a problem".
People spend lots of money on stuff I find stupid. I would never buy a Gucci handbag, they have about as much value as an NFT. But if someone else wants to, it doesn't hurt me, so, so what?
Generally, anyone who puts money into a 401k, will likely have some of it going to Tesla and disproportionately over other auto companies - simply because how funds are typically weighted.
What should have happened is wider distribution of profits among Tesla employees, who are the ones actually doing the work. It’s fine if the CEO is considered an extremely valuable employee and gets a larger share, within limits. Pretty sure he could live a great life with a few million dollars, which would both limit his undeserved power and benefit everyone doing the work.
Every unit of time (year or month) you have to declare what stocks you own and you get taxed based on how much they're worth.
There are lots of successful examples - constitutions, voting, term limits, separate judiciary, non-political commuters, etc
The big problem I see in the design of egalitarian systems, is explicitly addressing the need for continuous response to new forms of centralization. I don’t know of any significant systems that were designed with any explicit statement of prioritizing that (vs. just general support for fixes, amendments, etc.)
For instance, the centralization of US political power into only two parties, where (temporary) single party rule of three branches is actually a practical possibility should have triggered some major reforms before it spun out of control.
A simple requirement that no coordinated individual or organization have sway over more than 25% of political seats, and political organizations at the federal and state levels must be separated, would do wonders for decentralization and better representation.
But the constitution is silent on any guidance or requirement on addressing new power centralization problems.
It is the hard root problem of power, but not systemizing progress on it is to accept inevitable dystopia
Such a reductive view, on any group, isn't productive.
A fundamental problem, that we are all burdened to solve, is how do we get from an ideological government to a scientific one. Until we do that, we're all just plugging holes in a sinking ship.
and would be undemocratic
Of course first-past the post voting systems won't work here, but that doesn't make it undemocratic.
The federal constitution says that voting is left up to the states, so arguably the centralization problem is ~50 different experiments which have all gone wrong in the exact same way.
You could say that the federal constitution should have put some guidance in place to stop exactly this correlated failure, but ironically that would introduce more centralization as there would be one rule forced on all the individual states.
Whether that's a good idea or not I think depends on how good the rule is in practice. Unfortunately the rule you suggest highlights just how difficult it is to write a good one. For example, how do you define "coordinated organization"?
If both major parties split into 50 different organizations that all happened to endorse the same candidate for president (but for nominally different state-specific reasons), should the SCOTUS have the power to ban those political organizations (and perhaps ban one and not the other)?
Fortunately we can look to other countries that have managed to avoid political duopoly by using voting systems which don't penalize people for voting for new parties. Even better, some US states have already implemented such a system[0], and, going back to your point about constitutions, the people of Maine managed to introduce RCV not because of a constitutional requirement, but despite a narrow (state) constitutional prohibition.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
If the constitution forbid parties from operating across state lines, or operating in more than 20 states, or holding more than 20% of seats in either Federal legislative body, … there would never be single party rule at the Federal level which is where it would matter most.
> If both major parties split into 50 different organizations that all happened to endorse the same candidate for president (but for nominally different state-specific reasons), should the SCOTUS have the power to ban those political organizations (and perhaps ban one and not the other)?
While collusion (meaning surreptitious coordination, in this case) between 50 state level parties would certainly be possible, it would be substantially more difficult than coordinating 50 state offices of a single political party as it is today.
Today, all senate campaigns are basically running for one shared constituency: big money from anywhere in the US, and political support from the same party, across the US.
The tight link that should exist between a politicians power base and the politicians electorate has been broken, for state level elections of Federal positions.
> Fortunately we can look to other countries that have managed to avoid political duopoly by using voting systems which don't penalize people for voting for new parties. Even better, some US states have already implemented such a system[0], and, going back to your point about constitutions, the people of Maine managed to introduce RCV not because of a constitutional requirement, but despite a narrow (state) constitutional prohibition.[1]
I think you are right, voting systems are the best place to start.
That and prohibitions on justices and congressfolk from weighing in on matters they have a personal or political interest in, such as receiving political funds or assistance.
Imagine if donating to a politician whose influence you want will make it more likely they cannot help you. That leaves donations reflecting people's assessment of who will better run the country in a more general sense. Those donations look more like "free speech" than the rampant influence purchasing that overwhelms the system today.
Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.
However it might be interesting to explore an option that required people who own a stake in a company that has grown beyond a certain size to be required to siphon off some of those shares to employees over time in a way where it was not conducted on the open market and would not affect share price.
I also question whether corporate entities should be allowed to own shares and what the benefits are of that. Should private investment firms be allowed to accumulate massive stakes in public companies?
Local governments are starved for money, and almost all of their funding comes from local property taxes, that is, normal people. So, these mega-rich are allowed to get unboundedly wealthy, while normal people have to pay to keep society running as a minimal level. The mega-rich's money, as well as corporations', needs to flow back through the system. It does no good to let it concentrate so heavily and ultimately do nothing while it sits there.
But I disagree in that I think we absolutely should avoid it because a larger federal government has been heavily correlated with less local funding (so much so that the SALT deduction was once a thing). It's given rise to globalization and large multi-national conglomerates. It creates a situation where power & money is too concentrated.
Once you start looking into the ideologies of people like the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer and his family, Peter Thiel, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Sheldon Adelson, Ronald Cameron, Steve Wynn, and others, you start seeing very weird and strange beliefs that are incompatible with a functional society. The primary thread is that these people do not care about others. Just look at the Koch brothers' political donations and the businesses they run. Is it then any surprise why the Republicans might not care so much about climate change and policies to mitigate it?
We have one extremist political party, and then the other, somewhat incompetent, party spends all their energy fighting back against the extremism of the other.
A certain Republican sect literally tried to overturn the presidential election, threatening to hang the vice president, killed a capital cop, ransacked the capital, and only one Republican had the guts to vote against the president. Then that same party will decry people marching for human rights and supports violence against those groups. The Republicans are the same party that supposedly stand for small government but are hell bent on telling people what they can do with their own bodies and forcing religion to be taught in public schools. Republicans' reaction to mass shootings is more guns, while they are the ones that block any investigation into why these are happening or preventing people that should not be buying guns from buying guns. I happened to drive across the country during COVID. You could tell the Republican states from the amount of masks being warn. The Republicans blocked a third supreme court nomination by a two-term president in Obama that was 10 months ahead of the presidential election, meanwhile they rushed a third supreme court appointee by a one-term president just two months before an election, throwing out every reason they used to block Obama's nomination. These are all extreme positions that don't have analogs in the Democratic party.
> have no interest in discussing real solutions
Mind pointing that out? In fact, I've elaborated quite a decent amount. I'm not sure what you've brought to the discussion other than just stating disagreement and making bad faith statements. You are free to contribute or elaborate on what you mean by the Republican party not being extreme.
The solutions I believe that could help things are: increasing tax on the wealthy, limiting the amount of political donations including to interest groups and think tanks (i.e., get private money out of politics and government), abiding by separation of church and state, and increasing primary and secondary education.
- womens rights have been thrown back 50 years
- a legitimately won election was almost overturned by a violent mob incited by Trump at the time
Have the Democrats ever incited a mob to violently overturn an election?
The fact that people like Trump, Greene, Boebert and others with extremist and narcissistic values can rise to power / influence points to major systemic failures, which eventually destroys democracy if not stopped.
How do you avoid those destructive people rise to power?
I agree with that, but they could just, you know, lower taxes on the lower and middle class to balance it out.
I’m a US tax payer since less than a decade. My experience is that I pay a significant portion of my incomes to taxes that only marginally benefit me or folks around me.
Recent uptick of direct distribution is nice.
But a leadership in the stewarding of the land would be tasteful and send the right message IMO.
It’s fascinating to see the Western European countries I’m familiar with being blinded by the economic might of the US but not realizing how little the average citizen benefit from it.
With that said, the parent commenter subscribes to what political philsophies and/or ethics? ...
Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence.
>I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc
Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea of powerful citizens has all the tools it needs to make almost all those people (hard to banish all the Christian missionaries, and martyring them is the surest way to grow more) leave or fall in line, but I don't think many people look at Venezuela or North Korea as ideal places to govern in terms of democracy, the court system, national security, etc.
What inability and where was it demonstrated? Are you referring to a useful purpose if it was taxed or a useful purpose for individuals to have such wealth? If the latter, then I propose that an individual containing such wealth is less useful than it being returned.
Those things and countries you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion.
If you tax them 100% they'll just stop working or bail to another country, and then you collect zero tax revenue from them. At 70% most of them will just suck it up and pay.
(I realize France is a counterpoint here, but I'd argue it was a half-assed attempt, and they have neighboring French-speaking tax havens that have no real U.S. equivalent.)
The reality is that nobody knows for sure what the curve of revenue vs. tax rate looks like other than at those two end points, which makes the entire concept completely useless.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022...
During communism dignitaries didn’t have much money-wealth, or even true material wealth. But they were powerful nevertheless.
if you look at this as a problem with the rich, you're not being creative enough.
Speaking as if we're assuming Musk gets away with this, this is a justice enforcement problem -- when all the mega-rich are gone the justice system that displays this level of corruption will just skim the highest payers available to them; they won't just give up these corrupt practices because there isn't a local billionaire to tap.