alvvayson t1_isesudi wrote
Honestly, the more simple solution is that we don't really need billionaires, contrary to the propaganda.
Suppose you implement a compression function, so that the people with wealth in the range of 100 million to 500 billion all fall into the range of 100 million to 500 million, preserving their relative ranking.
No incentives change, but billionaires have ceased to exist.
One thing billionaires do provide is an efficient allocation of capital.
So put each of these persons excess wealth in a fund that copies the rest of their investment decisions. So the person with 200 million might allocate 20 million to an investment, then his fund might allocate an additional 20 billion.
Society would preserve their investment wisdom.
This is just a thought experiment to get rid of billionaires without changing anything else.
Of course, I believe we can allocate capital more efficiently than billionaires by utilizing markets, but many people don't believe that - hence this thought experiment.
TheSingulatarian t1_isewaa3 wrote
>One thing billionaires do provide is an efficient allocation of capital.
We are allocating capital to unnecessary weapons systems and dirty energy. Not efficient at all.
alvvayson t1_isexarg wrote
But more efficient than spending it on vacations to Hawaii or imperial/genocidal wars like Russia does.
As I said, I think markets can be more efficient than billionaires. But they are more efficient than some other alternatives.
TheSingulatarian t1_isexq2r wrote
This isn't markets, it is billionaires bribing politicians to do what is best for their business not what is best for society.
alvvayson t1_isf10mk wrote
I know. That's what I said. Read it again.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_iseu3kh wrote
I agree we don't need billionaires, but they exist and they have a desire to hoard their money and power.
Can that desire just be leveled out? It must be some mental illness they have, and I'm sure plenty of common folk have it too, just without the luck.
alvvayson t1_isevph3 wrote
They only exist as a side effect of our tax code.
FDR basically culled them all (with help of WW1 and the Great Depression) and they only started to come back around the 1980s.
It really is up to the G7 countries, which happen to all be democracies, to decide how we allocate capital across the globe.
We can't cull the desire though. Some people are just wealth maximizers and empire builders and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I actually think it is a good thing, because they help society build capital, which is better than spending everything on short term living.
But just as we decided that it's no longer acceptable to build physical empires by conquering land, at some point we will have to limit how much of the capital stock can be conquered by these empire builders.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isewqv3 wrote
I agree they only exist because of how the world operates. The difficult part is reversing how the world operates. And it just had occurred to me, the hardest solution may be the simplest. Changing billionaires minds, rather than legislation.
Its a matter of time until healthcare takes off in ways we thought were sci-fi. We're also dangerously close to critical unemployment when a few more narrow AI are released that out compete humans in significant sectors.
Things like open ai codex, it doesn't have to replace programmers, but if you increase programmers efficiency by even small percents it has a cascading effect across all sectors of IT.
stupendousman t1_isf6yoo wrote
> is that we don't really need billionaires
They don't really need you. I don't either. So what now?
>One thing billionaires do provide is an efficient allocation of capital.
No, markets generate price information which allows for producers to make educated guesses about resource allocation.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments