Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth(hive.co.uk)
hive.co.uk
Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Ingrid-Robeyns/Limitarianism--The-Case-Against-Extreme-Wealth/28866492
641 comments
Adding this to my reading list. I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million. Because that's the point at which you have enough wealth to live a comfortably middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life, still pass down a substantial chunk to your children, and never have to earn another cent.
I've argued we should combine this with a move towards a worker owned economy - in which businesses are democratic institutions governed by the people who do the work involved.
But either of these changes on their own would do _substantial_ good. Going to make a note to read this book!
I've argued we should combine this with a move towards a worker owned economy - in which businesses are democratic institutions governed by the people who do the work involved.
But either of these changes on their own would do _substantial_ good. Going to make a note to read this book!
Will you cap the wealth of corporations too?
Because if not, people with insatiable appetites will simply seek control of those corporations rather than direct control of piles of money.
Personally I'm an advocate of the exact opposite of what seems to be proposed here: controls on corporate size rather than individual wealth. Living cells don't grow without bounds; at a certain point they get too big and are forced to divide. Simply imposing a tax on corporate size (not a limit) would accomplish this.
Industries where massive size is simply unavoidable (e.g. passenger airplane manufacturing) would simply pay the tax; any economic distortions can be nulled out by reducing the industry's VAT rate in proportion to average size-tax paid by that industry. In all other industries smaller competitors would have the persistent advantage of lower tax costs, allowing them to eventually undermine the bloated colossuses.
Because if not, people with insatiable appetites will simply seek control of those corporations rather than direct control of piles of money.
Personally I'm an advocate of the exact opposite of what seems to be proposed here: controls on corporate size rather than individual wealth. Living cells don't grow without bounds; at a certain point they get too big and are forced to divide. Simply imposing a tax on corporate size (not a limit) would accomplish this.
Industries where massive size is simply unavoidable (e.g. passenger airplane manufacturing) would simply pay the tax; any economic distortions can be nulled out by reducing the industry's VAT rate in proportion to average size-tax paid by that industry. In all other industries smaller competitors would have the persistent advantage of lower tax costs, allowing them to eventually undermine the bloated colossuses.
Productive wealth is a good thing. It's what made our current society possible. Unproductive wealth is the real devil, the hoarding of inelastic goods like land, gold, and oil.
I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public over one which does not.
I strongly prefer a society which permits the existence of Jeff Bezos over one which does not. Of course, more strongly than that, I prefer a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public over one which does not.
The problem I have with extreme, gratuitous wealth, and the inequality that creates it, is that it is fundamentally anti-democratic. It is well known by anyone with a pulse that money = political power, which means those with the most money, have the most political power, and given how just how much wealth so few people in the world have now, an infinitesimally tiny fraction of the population of most democratic countries have essentially entirely captured the political apparatuses of the countries in which they reside. Meaning the interests of the majority of the people in most countries are no longer being represented by their elected officials, instead the people being elected solely represent the interest of wealthy elites who can afford to make huge political "Donations" and pay lobbyist's salaries.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but one of the most effective changes we could make in the world is to get money out of politics, as its the only real way democracy can be put back in the hands of the people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but one of the most effective changes we could make in the world is to get money out of politics, as its the only real way democracy can be put back in the hands of the people.
I'm wondering if people understand that almost all the pleasures/comforts in modern life were created by people who wouldn't exist in this system.
There’s a lot of comments in here straw manning a book that I would guess very few have actually read. I don’t know if it’s a good argument or not but I’m sure the author is intelligent enough to have considered incentives and the case of central planning in the USSR and it’s not dunking on the author to just blindly bring these cases up as if they disqualify their whole argument. If this three paragraph summary of a 300 page book is so enraging then there’s maybe some deep seated biases to confront first.
We should place a hard cap on political ambitions like these. These utopians will be the end of us with their ridiculous schemes involving always what other people should do.
You'll always have the poor (by system, choice, situation, intention) among you.
No NBA player may score more than 100 points per season. After reaching this cap they may only pass the ball.
Extreme wealth is a symptom of an underlying problem - inhumane exploitation. People can get that rich because the economic system says that it is perfectly acceptable for a class of people to pee in bottles/diapers in order to maximize profits.
The solution for this doesn't have to target the rich explicitly. We can strengthen labor laws; update anti-monopoly laws. Make human dignity the central argument.
This will circumvent knee jerk reactions like "I work hard, I deserve to be rich". The question to ask is how are you, as an owner of capital, treating your labor? Like do they get to have a life after work? Have dignity at work? Do you use your wealth to circumvent democratic will and weaken labor protections? The answers to those questions should determine whether you deserve your wealth or not.
The solution for this doesn't have to target the rich explicitly. We can strengthen labor laws; update anti-monopoly laws. Make human dignity the central argument.
This will circumvent knee jerk reactions like "I work hard, I deserve to be rich". The question to ask is how are you, as an owner of capital, treating your labor? Like do they get to have a life after work? Have dignity at work? Do you use your wealth to circumvent democratic will and weaken labor protections? The answers to those questions should determine whether you deserve your wealth or not.
> But if the rich become richer, there is nothing much to see in public and, for most of us, daily life doesn't change.
This is exactly why I don't really care how rich Elon, Gates, Bezos, Buffett are. If they have money, great... If they don't... oh well. Doesn't change my life. It's also the reason why you shouldn't care and why this book is likely a load of crock.
This is exactly why I don't really care how rich Elon, Gates, Bezos, Buffett are. If they have money, great... If they don't... oh well. Doesn't change my life. It's also the reason why you shouldn't care and why this book is likely a load of crock.
I wonder if this book have a solution how to motivate people working more and creating companies if it does not make you rich.
Certainly a lot of people among most driven would work less or emigrate. If I can't earn more, I would work that's most joyful and relaxed. So, no banking or any other demanding job where there are a lot of rules.
Certainly a lot of people among most driven would work less or emigrate. If I can't earn more, I would work that's most joyful and relaxed. So, no banking or any other demanding job where there are a lot of rules.
I’m not extremely wealthy so can’t spend 20 pounds on this but I imagine I would agree with the moral argument for limiting wealth. But the details make the whole discussion seem like an absurd waste of intellect.
Please, just name the people who you want to “wealth limit” and explain how you will go about it. Specifically address the obvious problem: wealth gets distributed across families and other groups in such a way as to make it impossible to even count let alone try to limit. If it could be done, it would have been done. Digital currency shouldn’t be the impetus to relearn governance mistakes of the past.
Once you understand the problem is not a should or shouldn’t problem, but a how is it possible to problem you quickly realize the answer is more individual freedom.
Please, just name the people who you want to “wealth limit” and explain how you will go about it. Specifically address the obvious problem: wealth gets distributed across families and other groups in such a way as to make it impossible to even count let alone try to limit. If it could be done, it would have been done. Digital currency shouldn’t be the impetus to relearn governance mistakes of the past.
Once you understand the problem is not a should or shouldn’t problem, but a how is it possible to problem you quickly realize the answer is more individual freedom.
I am not paying 20£ to read am article and i dont see an archive link, so i am flying blind but here goes: the fundamental problem with all these types of articles and so i assume also with this one is as follows: govermment is not better than private wealth, it is just a different group of assholes interfering in my life. Thr problem with all of them is the interference (abuse of market power in economic terms) so lets stop crying about people being successful amd instead target market power abuse. This means severely limiting government but also empowering government to much more easily break up market power abusing companies (i.e most of the s&p 500 plus a bunch of large private companies).
A US politician said no one deserved to be a millionaire until he sold a book and became a multimillionaire. Now, he says no one deserves to be a billionaire.
We should also say no one should be devastatingly handsome or pretty, outstandingly intelligent, excessively lucky, or extraordinarily persuasive. Or tall. Or athletic. Or motivated. Or powerful (which is rather more related to limiting someone else's money).
We should also say no one should be devastatingly handsome or pretty, outstandingly intelligent, excessively lucky, or extraordinarily persuasive. Or tall. Or athletic. Or motivated. Or powerful (which is rather more related to limiting someone else's money).
We should have regulations to limit the price of such books and how much royalties the author is receiving to make the books accessible and not make his income deviate too far from the rest of his fellow authors that don't make any money.
I think it would be great for someone or some think tank to devise a very well thought out publicized plan of how an ultra-rich person could efficiently redistribute their wealth to do a lot of good. Seems like most of what people recommend now is just "give it to charity!" but that's not exactly well-vetted advice. Or like the snarky advice downthread to just write a check to the Treasury, that's not what I'm talking about. Something constructive and efficient.
At this stage, I'd vote for any proposal which equalizes wealth. Limiting wealth, UBI...
The most interesting proposal I've heard recently basically suggested that instead of governments selling bonds (to the central bank and to the markets) when it creates new currency for public spending, it should essentially just give the newly created bonds to citizens since it's the people's money anyway that it's loaning out... It would have to split them equally among all citizens.
The most interesting proposal I've heard recently basically suggested that instead of governments selling bonds (to the central bank and to the markets) when it creates new currency for public spending, it should essentially just give the newly created bonds to citizens since it's the people's money anyway that it's loaning out... It would have to split them equally among all citizens.
My policy proposal for reducing concentration of power is:
1) maximum revenue per employee at privately held companies, eg. $1m
2) maximum ownership of a company by a single person or entity of, say, 5%
What this means is that when you hit a good stride with a business and solve the entrepreneurial problem, you have to go public and sell your stake in it.
Everyone gets a rewarding pay day, but there is greater accountability and earlier on and more even distribution of the gains.
1) maximum revenue per employee at privately held companies, eg. $1m
2) maximum ownership of a company by a single person or entity of, say, 5%
What this means is that when you hit a good stride with a business and solve the entrepreneurial problem, you have to go public and sell your stake in it.
Everyone gets a rewarding pay day, but there is greater accountability and earlier on and more even distribution of the gains.
[deleted]
I often wonder how it would work out if instead inheritance, all wealth at death was deposited into the $USA$ fund, then in aggregate got redistributed as universal income (or start-up fund) to all citizens (in equal amounts), save for some moderate amount. Complications sure re property, but would it squash or enhance the economy?
So, what's the best argument in the book?
How about a hard cap on inheritance instead.
One could look at things from a different perspective: All That money, like all debt, represents goods and services we collectively owe to those people.
They expect to one day buy things from us.
If we want to honor that agrement we should at least attempt to not make it worse.
They expect to one day buy things from us.
If we want to honor that agrement we should at least attempt to not make it worse.
Rich are getting richer but financial meltdowns happen all the time and then we are all again at the year zero and we shuffle the cards and start playing like nothing happened. In another words, richness does not last forever.
The ability to create extreme wealth in a democratic capitalist society is an indicator of the economic freedom.
It is the wealth that gives us the freedom to invest in new knowledge creation to solve problems.
The more wealth the more opportunities, especially when they are in the hands of someone who have proven again and again their ability to create value to society. Elon Musk is of course the obvious example but not the only one, Jeff Bezos, Larry and Sergey and we could go on. These people are excellent capital allocators.
The alternative to extreme wealth is extreme poverty and
Almost no one in western society gets to keep their wealth for more than 3 generations because other have the freedom to outcompete them. Everyone over time gets richer.
The alternative to that is dictatorships where there is no economic freedom, capitalist ownership and the way to make money is governed by the ruler.
Anyone making a case against extreme wealth in a society that is fairly free is spreading extremely bad ideas that if they become popular leads to revolutions.
In modern society the issue is not big corporations or extreme wealth, it's institutional capture by politicians and that entire system.
It is the wealth that gives us the freedom to invest in new knowledge creation to solve problems.
The more wealth the more opportunities, especially when they are in the hands of someone who have proven again and again their ability to create value to society. Elon Musk is of course the obvious example but not the only one, Jeff Bezos, Larry and Sergey and we could go on. These people are excellent capital allocators.
The alternative to extreme wealth is extreme poverty and
Almost no one in western society gets to keep their wealth for more than 3 generations because other have the freedom to outcompete them. Everyone over time gets richer.
The alternative to that is dictatorships where there is no economic freedom, capitalist ownership and the way to make money is governed by the ruler.
Anyone making a case against extreme wealth in a society that is fairly free is spreading extremely bad ideas that if they become popular leads to revolutions.
In modern society the issue is not big corporations or extreme wealth, it's institutional capture by politicians and that entire system.
Bah, "Please note: eBooks can only be purchased with a UK issued credit card and all our eBooks (ePub and PDF) are DRM protected."
I've always believed that ever higher degrees of wealth come with an obligation to manage people in better and better ways. Otherwise, wealth should be taxed so that "idle rich" end up having to live like the upper-middle-class.
IE: If you get very wealthy because you start a company, and manage your company in a way to improve other peoples' lives, that's a great thing. (Now, does Elon Musk deserve 50+ billion dollars? I'll just handwave and say that I think he could still live the same kind of life, and make a better contribution to society, with a fraction of that money.)
But, if Elon's kids all inherit many billions each, they either have to manage it in a way that improves other peoples' lives, or they need to be taxed back to the upper middle class.
IE: If you get very wealthy because you start a company, and manage your company in a way to improve other peoples' lives, that's a great thing. (Now, does Elon Musk deserve 50+ billion dollars? I'll just handwave and say that I think he could still live the same kind of life, and make a better contribution to society, with a fraction of that money.)
But, if Elon's kids all inherit many billions each, they either have to manage it in a way that improves other peoples' lives, or they need to be taxed back to the upper middle class.
Nobody should even be a millionaire it says. A small house in California is a million dollars ffs.
The irony of charging 20 pounds for this is palpable.
The irony of charging 20 pounds for this is palpable.
I’m not advocating high rates as good for the poor; I’m championing shaping the yield curve with a market mechanism. It might be too late for that to be anything other than disastrous though, after years of addiction to funny money.