The tech oligarchy has been here for years
bloodinthemachine.com
bloodinthemachine.com
I'm not sure of that. What some mega-corps like Google have been able to create is amazing for sure, but who's to say that a thousand smaller companies wouldn't be better. Or maybe being a billionaire should have a term limit? Make all the money you want, but it is socialized at death.
If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k?
The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we can’t set an upper limit.
That's not an actual argument though.
It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving.
> If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k?
Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but it’s pointless beyond the cerebral exercise because it’s impossible to implement. “It’s impossible to implement” simply trumps all other arguments.
> but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon
There is no way to get to an agreement on a specific amount because you theoretically apply the same “pro” arguments to wealth limitation to a billion dollars to $100k or even to $14,001. The alternative is a prohibition against any individual wealth accumulation. I’m absolutely not for that, so you and I will never agree on a number, because there isn’t a number where I would say “that is too much”. I am dead set against any wealth limitation.
M: "Would you sleep with me for $1M"
W: "for $1M dollars? Yeah, I guess I could be convinced for $1M."
M: "What about for $10"
W: "No, what do you take me for!"
M: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."
I don't think this is that funny of a joke, but the point I'm making is that picking a number is a detail that comes after we decide that there needs to be a number. And I think if you agree that there needs to be a number, the gov't is the one that could set it (or the voting public).
The most likely answer is you pick some multiple of minimum wage, and then some number of years at that number. 1000x minimum wage, 10 years of earnings at that value. That's the maximum you can have. You want more? You gotta raise minimum wage.
If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".
In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.
You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap.
But the effect of this is actually that we would realize we don't need the ultra-wealthy. We would likely do better because it would be a significant downward pressure on inequality in the countries that enforced it, and more people would have opportunities to make it big.
If there are going to be ultra wealthy, then yes, locales benefit where they invest.
> You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap.
Correct, so they just don’t do business in your country and do business with the countries elsewhere that are happy to accept their investment.
Is there no conceivable amount of wealth hoarding that you would find excessive?
Even the US came close to this with a top marginal tax rate of 90% during WWII.
Hypothetically, if some government some day sets this amount, then it will pave the way for further adjustments.
Founders have been so thoroughly mythologized that everyone is becoming blind to the reality of the industry as a whole, and that is a few large corporations are increasingly holding all the keys.
Yet you have the people most affected by this decrying others who push against this in society, the workplace or in politics as if it’s an affront to do so.
We are losing our innovation spirit as we allow such rot to set in. We should have known better, we did nothing to prove we did
It is just the oligarchy as the above mentions. The take over startedwith Reagan, then Citizens United ruling locked in their power.
It is already here.
Well, an oligarchy is a form of government, so . . .
Time for a new speech-writer! I guess a new President will take care of that.
One human having a billion is like somebody weighing 1000 pounds. It's hella unhealthy for them (does anyone here imagine that Elon Musk is happy?) and it's catastrophically bad for the rest of society to have to deal with these people throwing their weight around.
Where do we "draw the line"? I dunno, could we consider something like 200 million? Judging by some of the responses here, probably not.