But it suggests a reframing that might be helpful. For practical purposes, there’s a maximum amount of money you can spend on personal consumption: if you have tens or hundreds of millions, you should be all set. And there’s a minimum amount of money that makes you a danger to society, able to buy laws, screw over communities and so on; that number is also maybe around hundreds of millions, or single digit billions. The second number seems higher than the first. So we can allow people to essentially max out their personal consumption, thus maxing out their selfish incentive to do good things for society, while still stopping them from becoming a danger. This would also mean mandatory dilution of corporate control: when a company gets big enough to push on society, the public should get a bigger and bigger say in how it’s run, with founders and investors keeping enough control to be ultra rich but not enough to run their bulldozer over society. How’s that sound?
I have goals that benefit from having hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. So do other people. Money is for steering the world. I can use money to hire other people and get them to do things I want. “Personal consumption” is not the reason why almost anyone tries to get rich!
That’s fair: you want to have billions of dollars’ worth of “steering influence”. But you are human. Humans have not only noble motives, but base ones too. Empirically, humans who get billions of dollars’ worth of “steering influence” usually end up using most of it to get more billions. In my comment I gave examples.
Maybe you’re a special human, and going through the process of getting a billion dollars will keep you noble and uncorrupted. I don’t know; nobody knows until they actually go through it. But on base rates, I’m against any person getting billions of dollars’ worth of unchecked steering influence. Including me and including you. Hope that makes sense.
EDIT: Rereading my reply, I see it’s a bit off target. I won’t delete it, because deleting comments is a bad habit that I really should get rid of; but just saying that now I see the descriptive part of your argument too. It’s true that if people can’t satisfy their world-changing goals (or just power-hungry goals) by starting a business, they’ll go into other avenues and who knows what’ll happen. I’ll need to think about that.
The way I see it, society is basically a big ultimatum game: the rich get to steer it in whatever way they choose, and the masses can either accept what they do or smash everything and go back to the “stone age”. So that sets the terms of the ongoing negotiation. It’s hard to have something like a wealth ceiling because it’s hard for millions of people to commit to being okay with someone having $100,000,000 but blowing up the world if someone has $100,000,001.
The way I see it, life is like a game of monopoly. Those who have more power (money being one form of power) gradually have their advantage increase. The have-nots must forever spend effort and coordination to have a share of the pie at all, or see it regress to the haves by default.
But that said, I don’t agree with the “smash everything and go back to stone age” fearmongering. Communist countries, for all their terrible record on human rights, haven’t been especially backwards on science and engineering. Nor have countries with strong progressive taxation regressed to barbarism. When the weak join forces to win themselves a chunk of the pie, that can sometimes be nasty, but it isn’t necessarily, definitionally nasty. I’m convinced it can be done in a good way.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to fearmonger. I agree with pretty much everything else in this comment. European social democracies seem pretty nice, and communism isn’t necessarily always the worst thing in the world (although I usually avoid saying that on LW because it gets me downvoted). However, communism didn’t end up working out anything like the way early communists envisioned, and countries that ended up communist or social democratic had to go through specific historical events that ended up making them that way. Right now billionaires seem unwilling to make concessions because they think under the current circumstances they will win in a showdown with the public, and I don’t really see why they’re wrong. Why do you think they’re wrong?
In particular, a lot of billionaires choose to “spend” their wealth on continuing to control the company they founded. Almost all of Jeff Bezos’ wealth is “spent” on owning Amazon, for example.
I have goals that benefit from having hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. So do other people. Money is for steering the world. I can use money to hire other people and get them to do things I want.
How do you stand towards pluralism or democracy? There is some tension there with people having billions of dollars of steering influence but of course there is with taking peoples money away as well. Money could also be used to steer towards a more pluralistic society etc. …
Anything to read which approximately describes you view there?
I have goals that benefit from having hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. So do other people. Money is for steering the world. I can use money to hire other people and get them to do things I want. “Personal consumption” is not the reason why almost anyone tries to get rich!
That’s fair: you want to have billions of dollars’ worth of “steering influence”. But you are human. Humans have not only noble motives, but base ones too. Empirically, humans who get billions of dollars’ worth of “steering influence” usually end up using most of it to get more billions. In my comment I gave examples.
Maybe you’re a special human, and going through the process of getting a billion dollars will keep you noble and uncorrupted. I don’t know; nobody knows until they actually go through it. But on base rates, I’m against any person getting billions of dollars’ worth of unchecked steering influence. Including me and including you. Hope that makes sense.
EDIT: Rereading my reply, I see it’s a bit off target. I won’t delete it, because deleting comments is a bad habit that I really should get rid of; but just saying that now I see the descriptive part of your argument too. It’s true that if people can’t satisfy their world-changing goals (or just power-hungry goals) by starting a business, they’ll go into other avenues and who knows what’ll happen. I’ll need to think about that.
The way I see it, society is basically a big ultimatum game: the rich get to steer it in whatever way they choose, and the masses can either accept what they do or smash everything and go back to the “stone age”. So that sets the terms of the ongoing negotiation. It’s hard to have something like a wealth ceiling because it’s hard for millions of people to commit to being okay with someone having $100,000,000 but blowing up the world if someone has $100,000,001.
The way I see it, life is like a game of monopoly. Those who have more power (money being one form of power) gradually have their advantage increase. The have-nots must forever spend effort and coordination to have a share of the pie at all, or see it regress to the haves by default.
But that said, I don’t agree with the “smash everything and go back to stone age” fearmongering. Communist countries, for all their terrible record on human rights, haven’t been especially backwards on science and engineering. Nor have countries with strong progressive taxation regressed to barbarism. When the weak join forces to win themselves a chunk of the pie, that can sometimes be nasty, but it isn’t necessarily, definitionally nasty. I’m convinced it can be done in a good way.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to fearmonger. I agree with pretty much everything else in this comment. European social democracies seem pretty nice, and communism isn’t necessarily always the worst thing in the world (although I usually avoid saying that on LW because it gets me downvoted). However, communism didn’t end up working out anything like the way early communists envisioned, and countries that ended up communist or social democratic had to go through specific historical events that ended up making them that way. Right now billionaires seem unwilling to make concessions because they think under the current circumstances they will win in a showdown with the public, and I don’t really see why they’re wrong. Why do you think they’re wrong?
Maybe they’ll just win. Or maybe the public can get more coordinated and get a better bargaining position; moving the needle toward that seems good.
In particular, a lot of billionaires choose to “spend” their wealth on continuing to control the company they founded. Almost all of Jeff Bezos’ wealth is “spent” on owning Amazon, for example.
How do you stand towards pluralism or democracy? There is some tension there with people having billions of dollars of steering influence but of course there is with taking peoples money away as well. Money could also be used to steer towards a more pluralistic society etc. …
Anything to read which approximately describes you view there?