8 billion people vs. 3000 billionaires: Who would win?
-
I would again point to the Incas as a decent example. Though I kind of want to pick at your use of "money or authoritarian forces".
Money is currently used as an authoritarian force. It's given those with money restrictive control over our daily lives. Look at all the censorship by those who control the major websites and payment processors on the internet. Look at the who lobbied the creation of infrastructure that forces most every person in the states to own and maintain a car. Look at how they're working on dismantling our public education system. Our police and military exist to protect those with money. This is how capitalism works. Despite some lofty ideas of peace liberty and democracy for all, when the system is based around money everything else will get compromised.
I read up on the Inca. Interesting. But I'm still doubtful they could build an MRI - I want a modern example.
And I'm certainly no fan of the current system - it sounds like you're describing America, and yes, America is a bit of a shit show at the moment. But we should also remember that Sweden's strong social safety nets, Finland's excellent education system, and the Netherlands' transportation infrastructure all exist in societies which use money.
Meanwhile, I don't think eliminating money would really solve the problems you are looking to solve. Power-hungry people will seek power regardless of the system they find themselves in. If they don't become capitalists, they become high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians.
-
Elaborate and explain
wrote last edited by [email protected]Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
-
Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless
-
No, no, you don't understand. See, the thing is, America Bad.
I would expect this comment to come from a lemmy.ml account
-
Hear me out:
zombie movie, but it's the poors storming down the megarich bunkers.
And poor people are theoretically smarter than zombies. Even conservatards occasionally. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1518107286215389
-
It’s funny cause no one seems to realize that the billionaires are human beings. They have a house, they shit, they piss, they bleed, etc. And yet, everyone is somehow convinced that becoming a billionaire makes you somehow invulnerable.
Its not that. Its the fact that these people hsve entire services dedicated to protecting their lifestyle and security.
And the public security is also geared to disproportionately protect them as well.
Short answer. The elite have private security of their own. And they are allied with rich politicians who control the police and military. They've got a shitload of guns at their disposal.
-
Elaborate and explain
What are we measuring. Like just a braw? A unanimouse revolution?
-
Words are how we communicate ideas, and words are messy and can mean different things in different cultures and contexts (and a lot of times people use them incorrectly). Semantics matter in science and academia when you're trying to be precise for the historical record so things don't get misinterpreted by people who usually don't have the ability to ask you what you mean by "has the ability" or "humanity". A very broad statement I might add. Too broad of a statement for most academic literature.
An early step in the process of ending our reliance on money is broadly accepting that it isn't a necessity. I never claimed that that kind of global shift would happen overnight, and I don't find it useful to use that kind of prescription to undermine the concept unless your goal is solely to undermine the concept.
Semantics matter in every attempt at communicating information.
If I say humans "have the ability to fly", it is important to specify that I mean they have the potential to secure the means to fly, not that they can actually fly themselves. That difference in meaning is the difference between a person booking a flight, and jumping off a roof to their surprised death.
A much more important early step is securing an alternative to money. Money is not really the problem, it's just a framework for resource allocation. Any other framework is going to have its own vulnerabilities, like the administrative corruption in central planning, or the kludginess of barter, or the social loafing of spontaneous cooperation. And none of those alternative frameworks prevent unofficial currencies from popping up.
Ignoring these issues doesn't make them go away, and wanting to address them at the outset does not undermine the concept, any more than acknowledging that humans cannot naturally fly undermines the development of aircraft.
-
Elaborate and explain
8 billion temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
-
Elaborate and explain
3000 billionaires because you can't convince everybody to ditch school. You can't change people. Pharaoh, Hammurabi. Those are thousands of years of genetic obedience.
-
I read up on the Inca. Interesting. But I'm still doubtful they could build an MRI - I want a modern example.
And I'm certainly no fan of the current system - it sounds like you're describing America, and yes, America is a bit of a shit show at the moment. But we should also remember that Sweden's strong social safety nets, Finland's excellent education system, and the Netherlands' transportation infrastructure all exist in societies which use money.
Meanwhile, I don't think eliminating money would really solve the problems you are looking to solve. Power-hungry people will seek power regardless of the system they find themselves in. If they don't become capitalists, they become high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians.
Wasn't the point that nobody would want to mine? But Inca did mine silver copper and clay? Also they built aqueducts and pyramids which I'm sure were plenty back breaking. More importantly.
Not just America. There's a global rightward shift largely fueled by moneyed interests. In the countries you mentioned, the rich are still getting richer and wealth inequality is growing. The wealthy countries all got that way because of colonialist oppression. We live under a global capitalist economy that is directly antagonistic to places that try to live apart from it. Cuba is probably the best modern example of an attempt to break from the capitalist hegemony, but they are punished and slandered for it. But they actually have better health outcomes and longer life expectancy than the imperial core of the USA. And yes they still use money because they live in a world that requires the use of money. That's not saying moneyless society isn't possible, but demonstrates the stranglehold money has over the world.
Yes, power hungry people will always be around, but the money system only feeds into that desire. Capitalism rewards and encourages greed. How are we supposed to keep the power hungry in check when the system is designed for them to flourish? I'd rather see a system that encourages collaboration. A system where reducing your working hours gives you opportunity rather than panic. I don't think that's possible with a system that revolves around money.
-
Its not that. Its the fact that these people hsve entire services dedicated to protecting their lifestyle and security.
And the public security is also geared to disproportionately protect them as well.
Short answer. The elite have private security of their own. And they are allied with rich politicians who control the police and military. They've got a shitload of guns at their disposal.
Yet they can still be taken out by a 3D printed gun on a nice morning walk to the office.
You're not wrong, but if Luigi taught us anything its that they're not as impermeable as they like to appear. It just might take a few martyrs on our end.
-
Semantics matter in every attempt at communicating information.
If I say humans "have the ability to fly", it is important to specify that I mean they have the potential to secure the means to fly, not that they can actually fly themselves. That difference in meaning is the difference between a person booking a flight, and jumping off a roof to their surprised death.
A much more important early step is securing an alternative to money. Money is not really the problem, it's just a framework for resource allocation. Any other framework is going to have its own vulnerabilities, like the administrative corruption in central planning, or the kludginess of barter, or the social loafing of spontaneous cooperation. And none of those alternative frameworks prevent unofficial currencies from popping up.
Ignoring these issues doesn't make them go away, and wanting to address them at the outset does not undermine the concept, any more than acknowledging that humans cannot naturally fly undermines the development of aircraft.
Again, context matters. If someone reads an internet comment that says "humans have the ability to fly" and proceeds to jump off a building, that's on them. Doesn't change the veracity of the statement. If you would like to question how the statement was true, hopefully the commenter would be willing to elaborate with some examples (like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don't involve money). The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true. The people who didn't think that were eventually proven wrong.
Also again, a full economic theory is way too complicated to get into the details in this context. I can say that my favorite theory is a library economy, but I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.
But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.
-
Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
Nationalize the assets
-
Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
The same removal mechanism will need to keep new rich people from getting too rich. In general everything could stay the same in terms of assets if they are divided more equally. Even a billion dollar yacht could be divided and rented out. Who's paying for a billion dollar yacht vacation when there is no ultra rich? Divide that shit again into 500 admissions for a boat party until it doesn't make sense to upkeep.
-
Again, context matters. If someone reads an internet comment that says "humans have the ability to fly" and proceeds to jump off a building, that's on them. Doesn't change the veracity of the statement. If you would like to question how the statement was true, hopefully the commenter would be willing to elaborate with some examples (like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don't involve money). The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true. The people who didn't think that were eventually proven wrong.
Also again, a full economic theory is way too complicated to get into the details in this context. I can say that my favorite theory is a library economy, but I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.
But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.
wrote last edited by [email protected]like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don't involve money
And I responded by pointing out that all those systems which could be implemented today reduce to barter, central planning, incentiveless systems that result in social loafing, or reinventing money with extra steps (e.g. energy certificates, local currencies, etc.). The others require some significant material change to function (e.g. near universal automation).
The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true
The vast majority of them invented things that did not make it true, and many of them died testing those inventions. I'm not saying we can't develop a moneyless society, but I don't think that's something you can flippantly say we have "the ability" to do, when our current state of development is more like Icarus than the Wright Brothers.
I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.
That's exactly the source of my disagreement. Trivializing the work left to be done does nothing but encourage people to jump off buildings en masse with cardboard wings.
But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.
I disagree. Central planning is extremely vulnerable to corruption, mutualism is extremely vulnerable to corruption, barter is extremely vulnerable to corruption, none of the alternatives listed prevent black market currencies, which are extremely vulnerable to corruption. Yes, money has flaws, but if none of the available alternatives are less flawed, then disposing of money accomplishes nothing of importance.
The effort still required to make any alternative viable cannot be trivialized. The flaws of alternatives cannot be trivialized. It's not enough to have an idea, that idea actually has to work in the real world. I have the same goal as your, but trivializing the difficulties involved does not help.
-
Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
The same issues arise whenever billionaires pass from old age or sickness. The world will be fine.
-
Elaborate and explain
Don't worry, the entire system is collapsing from mismanagement.
-
The same issues arise whenever billionaires pass from old age or sickness. The world will be fine.
I have no doubt the world will be fine, but the hypothetical we're discussing isn't just one or two rich bastards knocking off a year with their legal estate already taken care of in a will...we're suggesting more direct action assisting their departure en masse - which isn't going to happen without a lot of other upheaval causing all kinds of economic turmoil that we're ignoring for the sake of this argument.
-
Nationalize the assets
Pretty simple and effective.
