To be fair, it helps that Norway suddenly got rich by selling ecologically disasterous products to the rest of the world while avoiding them itself.
And this is America right now:
Housing and food - yes, be angry that there’s no money for that.
But healthcare? Money is not the issue - US healthcare, yes the precious private healthcare, is already getting a ridiculous 16% of the federal budget. For context - their military gets around 4%!
The money is already in the system, it’s the system itself that must be changed and made to work for the general public instead of shareholders.
It also contributes to the climate catastrophe by providing copious amounts of oil. It also enjoys the fruits of the exploitation in the Global South, hence it can redistribute said fruits of imperialism to its people, which is indeed better than the US oligarchs hoarding it all, but not by a lot.
That last line nails it: it doesn’t cap success, it just makes sure failure isn’t catastrophic.
It does cap the wildest, antisocial forms of success that are insane excess.
Progressive taxation should mean you can never gain enough power, which capital is, to warp your society with power beyond your single vote, whether that power is expressed through direct bribery, lobbying, or mass media propaganda to try to trick your fellow citizens into voting and advocating against their own interests with your booming, capital powered voice that drowns out those you disagree with merely because you’ve exploited more capital into your private account than others.
I don’t see any shame, horror, or problem with putting a hard cap on how much an individual can accumulate, as other people live here too.
Despite what Elon Musk believes, this whole planet shouldn’t be his personal playground, but that’s what it means to become a trillionaire, entire governments will bow at your feet. That’s perverse. No unelected, unaccountable individual should hold so much power, unless humanity wants to live in a hell of its own making.
lobbying is direct bribery, isn’t it?
But that’s one of the primary tenants of conservatism! What will conservatives do if people are allowed to continue living after they fail?
Great. Now do both.
If they don’t put a ceiling on it too that floor is going to fall out from under them eventually like it did in the US.
It’s not as perfect as this screenshot portrays though:)
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good
3 people in America each have several times as much wealth as the entire bottom half of America. It’s ok to have a ceiling nobody contributes 400B to society. For reference that is more than every teach and every doctor make in America. Does anyone believe that Elon is individually more valuable than the either profession?
“doesn’t put a ceiling on wealth”
eeeeehh. maybe we fucking should?
increased privatisation is happening all over the Nordics. I don’t know how much in Norway compared to here in Finland, but being in my fourth decade I can definitely see it happening and intensely. I can’t get a fucking public dentist anymore. Hell, children aren’t given free dental care anymore.
If no one were living in poverty I would be more accepting of the ultra-rich’s existence.
Except that that’s hard to happen.
The very existence of an ultra-rich means that there was someone who managed to get extraordinarily high amounts of extra value from someone as compared to what they paid that ‘one’ for it and then did it over and over again, essentially leeching value out of the system, making it a -ive sum game for anyone inside it.
So when you take more than you give, you end up breaking the original meaning of money (that was “proof of work/goodwill”) and when you do that enough, the worth of work gets warped and those who do similar work, end up indirectly losing more than what they give.
The whole point is that the floor is the important thing. In Scandinavian countries, they have a fairly firm upper bound. But they don’t suffer when people above that upper bound flee to avoid taxes
The critical part is the lower bound
In Scandinavian countries, they have
Sounds like you don’t actually live here.
We don’t have a “firm boundary” on people being rich. We just don’t have multi-billionaires. Or if we do, they’re the silent type, not the Musk/Bezos type. And even those are pretty different.
But like, how many multi-billionaires do you know from like Minnesota, Louisiana, Oregon & Oklahoma?
The progressive taxation we have is for income, not capital gains. So essentially you can never get rich by working, but if you’re just profiting from having a lot of capital (renting properties etc, even airbnb, and tons of other ways for rich people to shift their income from “labour income” to capital gains), then you have a flat 30% tax rate. And if you’re actually a billionaire, you’d just shift it all to a tax haven to avoid even the 30%.
Sure, yeah, I agree there’s a certain type of bottom — insofar that we don’t allow people to die to starvation or the elements — but that’s a fucking low bar, don’t you think?
I bet you’re one of those people who actually believe Finland is the happiest country in the world. (It’s like North Koreans talking about freedom lol.)
Jesus Christ, you have no idea…
Our ultra-wealthy pay literally nothing in taxes. They take out loans against their holdings, and when they do sell they use losses on paper to offset their gains, so they get away with paying nothing
And most of ours fly under the radar too. There’s around 300 resorts and compounds worldwide where the billionaires live their social lives away from cameras, not counting their more personal compounds
We do let people die of starvation and to the elements. In fact, we regularly have fights over if poor children deserve to be fed, and the results recently have been “no”
Lately, we’ve been criminalizing homelessness to put a capstone on decades of regularly tearing down whatever shelter they manage to cobble together.
Hell, a church got sued for letting homeless people shelter during a cold snap. People get arrested and charged for feeding the homeless in some places
And don’t get me started on medical care… It’s literally worse than you could imagine. You wouldn’t believe me even if I sugar coated it
I’m sure your life isn’t perfect, but have no idea how bad it’s gotten over here. I’d kill for a system as imperfect as the one you take for granted
You probably think I’m exaggerating about all this, but I’m really not. Luckily the administration is incompetent, because otherwise we’d be neck deep in a genocide right now. Instead, both of our political parties have settled on mass death, just so long as it’s indirect
Sheesh I hate it when Americans are like “you have no idea”.
Yes, we do. We have the internet here as well and you can’t really avoid hearing about American shit.
Why would you think I don’t know what a tax-haven when I specifically mentioned that any “proper” billionaires can get around paying even the 30%. And that’s private citizens. Google is equally a tax-avoiding scumbag company for us Nordics as it is for you. There’s just so many laws the extremely wealthy corps and individuals can use to avoid paying anything. Google’s tax rate is literally zero.
We do let people die of starvation and to the elements
Yes, we know. Hence me explicitly mentioning we don’t?
Lately, we’ve been criminalizing homelessness
And that’s clear here as well, despite there being very few homeless and practically none of them live on the street. For some 9 months at least it’s mostly too cold to sleep outside. Yet the silly hostile architecture for benches and whatnot has pervaded into the Nordics as well.
We don’t need it, but they’re still there. So there are people here working on getting rid of even the most basic securities that allow us to function like this. Also, I’m on the same latitude as Juneau, Alaska, about. And I’m in the very SW corner of Finland, on the level of Stockholm.
Does Alaska have a large homeless population? I doubt anything like in the States where the winters are milder?
People get arrested and charged for feeding the homeless in some places
I’ve seen the videos. You’re still pretending as if we don’t have selfish people here who would rather just kill all the poor. You at least have people who care and help others. Here in the Nordics, due to there being a system people can point to, personal responsibility for anyone doing badly is extremely small. People are apathetic and just default to “the system should be helping them.”
Hell, when I was properly suicidal, my mom literally just went “well what do you want me to do about it” and called the social workers with a care notice or something. The funny bit being that she is a social worker with higher education. What could she do? Idk, give me a ring sometime, or come to visit so I don’t feel as bad. But no. People just default to “the bureaucracy will help them, the bureaucracy is infallible”.
I’d kill for a system as imperfect as the one you take for granted
Except you’ve very clearly demonstrated that your assumed version of our system is pure fantasy.
There’s a reason we’re quite high in the suicide stats. Because we’re definitely not even close to being “the happiest country in the world”. I don’t ever remember my grandma laughing. She died cold and alone, hallucinating basically dream paralysis demons. With not even a nurse who would’ve know her, because the care home was being run down and there were just random nurses for a few shifts and then new ones again.
So I implore you, don’t put the Nordics on a fucking pedestal. Dismissing the problems we have, pretending this is some Lintukoto.
Would you rather be in prison with a dozen of your best mates, or literally forever alone without even the possibility of emotions and if you talk about them, you’ll be shunned?
You probably think I’m exaggerating about all this, but I’m really not
Again, just because you don’t know things about the Nordics nor see our news does not mean we don’t see yours.
What’s the point of competing who has it worse? That’s literally whataboutism that’s just dismissing Nordic problems. And you’re not even Nordic. Trying to have this discussion with fellow Nords is very hard, because lots and lots literally won’t allow themselves even an inch of wrong-think.
Our police seem very skilled, don’t they? I never had problems with them, always good interactions. Then I got arrested for weed. They put me in an isolation cell for 3 days while denying me my prescription medication, the lights were on constantly and there wasn’t even a mattress to sleep on or a blanket. Just the cold ground. Was the cell prolly cleaner than average jail cells in the US? Probably.
But would I be able to sue the shit ouf of them for literally torturing me, breaking Geneva conventions? At one point they turned of my water for hours. I have a congenital kidney malformation and due to that slight inefficiency in left kidney so I must keep good hydration.
I drew over 300 words in my own blood on the walls.
In the US there’d be a queue of lawyers on my door for all the violations, and I’d be looking at tens of thousands to millions in compensation.
Here in Finland, I can’t literally even get people to accept it happened. The only one who does is my therapist and he was born and raised in the UK only moved here later in life.
So we really don’t have to compete which sort of horror is the worst.
In the US, I’d probably be on the streets or in prison. But after years of literal solitude and nothing else, I’d actually welcome it. My own fucking mother went “weeeelll, you know, I can’t actually now what happened in the cell” when I phoned her to cry about my injuries and the injustice of it all. She implied it was my own fault that the police tortured me. And that’s the most anyone’s spoken to me about it. Finns always decline and refute it at first, then when I produce some photos (I only have those because they claimed I vandalised the cell. We then asked for the security cam footage as evidence of the crime. Weirdly it was suddenly completely lost and the charges dropped.
I would rather get beaten up and kicked than do that again. But again, both suck, they’re just different. So what’s the point in competing who has it worse and by how much?
There’s clearly problems in both places. I’m not critical of everything in the Nordics, but nor am I critical of everything America either, despite having been actively arguing against your foreign policies and criticising you in general for a few decades online.
And don’t get me started on medical care… It’s literally worse than you could imagine. You wouldn’t believe me even if I sugar coated it
Do you think the free healthcare here is some superior quality? No. The best in classes go to private clinics, the worst end up in the public system. And the wait times are ridiculous. Some of the doctors have confidently said things that are just plain untrue. I could genuinely list 30+ years of bad experiences in the public healthcare system. Sure it’s not bankrupting me, but it’s also not doing jack shit for anything and genuinely gets like 80% of their guesses wrong when it’s even the least bit subjective. You wouldn’t believe half the shit I’ve heard from supposed “professionals”.
So again, every different, but neither is good, is it? So don’t think you’d “kill” to switch places with me, when I’ve spent a good deal of the past few years considering just killing myself.
I honestly don’t think the problem is that Capitalist’s don’t understand that concept; they very much do.
They also understand that the money for raising that floor would likely come from taxes on them; and so keeping the floor low means that they can keep even more profit.
It’s not a lack of understanding. It’s pure unadulterated evil.
I think its more than that, they already have all the money, but wealth is relative so if they can make everyone else twice as poor then their wealth relative to everyone else just doubled.
The rich capitalists sure, but there are plenty of poor capitalists being fed misinformation, in order to maintain the status quo. And when it is the many vs the powerful few, then the more we have on our side the better
Capitalist generally refers to people who own and control capital, not to fans of the system. One cannot be a poor capitalist, it’s a contradiction.
I used to use the term the same way as you, but I think using it the way it’s meant is better.
That seems an odd definition to me, to my knowledge all other definitions of ideologies depend only on ones own beliefs or values, not upon ones physical possessions or life situation. What else would you call a poor person who fervently believes that capitalism is the best system for the world? If Bezos suffered some catastrophic business collapse and went broke, would he suddenly no longer be a capitalist?
Edit: also I thought the traditional name for those who own capital is “bourgeoisie”?
There are definitely bad actors out there trying to convince people of misconceptions, and I’m sure they have a non-zero amount of success. I recall being told some overly simplifying misconceptions of socialism when I was young.
this is the reason social democracy rarely works in practice.
The reason social democracy doesn’t work is because it doesn’t change the power structure. It’s treating a symptom and not the root cause. By leaving the root cause untouched, the symptoms will always come back.
that’s pretty much what happens in my country. without other countries our rich can extract value from, it’s still business as usual and purchased/pressured politicians because money is still power.
I’m of the opinion that that doesn’t go far enough
We need to put hard limits on personal wealth (and the wealth of companies too). After 10 million networth in wealth, all your income should go to taxes 100% until you’re below that limit… something similar should exist for companies
Same goes for power and fame. I don’t want or need a president, or a CEO that directs billions of dollars
Keep everything small, keep everyone small. Mega projects can still be done by multiple companies together, for example
End the rich!
You can’t just tax wealth, you need to tax net controllable assets and cap that.
After 10 million networth in wealth, all your income should go to taxes 100% until you’re below that limit…
This would be trivially easy to circumvent if it was put into place, just so you know.
US billionaires:
“Wait, you mean to say that we can keep our current quality of life, dabble in our little space projects, and that those we employ won’t suffer???”
“Lol naw fuck that.”
Exactly. The cruelty is the point. They enjoy making people suffer.
I feel like it’s a means of creating a further distance between the rich and poor when conventional means have reached their limit, though i imagine there is likely at least some sadistic pleasure they derive from it (and there are very likely some that get a lot)
Here’s a comparison that came to mind for me: when i make dinner, i like to make my wife and i a salad but I’ll go out of my way to make a very nice presentation of the various ingredients on my wife’s salad. I will have the exact same ingredients for mine, but intentionally slop them onto the plate with hasty abandon and even take measures to try to make it look even worse. I like to argue that my wife’s salad is the better of the 2, that there is a hierarchy that’s immediately distinguishable–even though it’s the exact same stuff. That her salad is actually even better than if they both had been presented the same way–that i can make that basic salad even better than previously thought possible by creating a severe inequality in its presentation to the other one. Of course, that’s a very harmless comparison but i think there’s something in it.
I mean, it’s like the rich can only be so pleased with their riches and the luxuries it affords them. Not to mention a lot of that stuff probably becomes trite/commonplace even if it’s a giant yacht or fancy food or living space or whatever. They can only be so happy, and sustaining that happiness is probably not easy when you’ve burned through the conventional happiness-granting activities. It would seem that they find more nuanced, and perhaps even perverted means of pressing the happiness button. I suppose Epstein’s Island really kinda drives home that whole disgusting “someone has to suffer in order for me to be happy” kinda dynamic.
It’s disgusting to think people derive pleasure from making others suffer like this, but it’s not the least surprising to discover. 🫠
I notice a lot of wealthy people spiral out with drugs or plastic surgery, they’re just desperately grasping to get the magic back.
There also seems to be a distinct lack of meaning for life for the wealthy. Any changes they could effect with their money means they wouldn’t have the money anymore, so they stop caring about any problems their money could fix (which is a lot of them). Ultimately leading to complete callousness over human suffering.
They are already at that point when they decided to invest all of that money that was sitting for 30+ years into AI instead of humanity’s problems.
Yeah… It’s like the mobile f2p games. The paying players need the f2p players so they can stomp on them.
Unfathomable wealth isnt enough, they also need to rule.
You mean, instead of having $ 99.9, I would only get 99? Over my cold, dead body!
Depends. I actually fully support putting a ceiling on wealth.
The analogy I always come back to is nuclear weapons. We don’t let private individuals own them. We don’t make you get an atomic bomb license. We don’t tax nukes heavily. We don’t make sure that only the kindest and most ethical people are allowed to own nukes. We simply say, this is too much power to be trusted to one individual. No one should have that level of power.
And yet, would anyone doubt that someone like Bezos, all on his own, can cause an amount of damage comparable to a nuclear bomb? If Bezos had it in for an entire city, could he not destroy it? Could he not buy up the major employers and shut them down? Could he not buy up all the housing and force the citizens into penury? Could he not buy up and shut down the hospitals? I have no doubt that, if he wanted to, Bezos could single handedly destroy a city. And how many lives would that take? How many would drink themselves to death or die by their own hand after Bezos came in and destroyed their entire lives? How many would die from lack of resources and medical care, etc?
Bezos could absolutely, if he wanted to, single-handedly cause a level of destruction and human misery comparable to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
And that is a power no one should have. The only way anyone should have that level of power is through democratic elections.
This is why I support wealth caps. I would personally set the maximum allowable wealth at 1000x the median household income. In the US, this would be about $80 million USD. That’s about the maximum fortune a person that actually works for wages can amass in a lifetime, if they’re a very high earner, live very frugally, and marry someone of similar status. 1000x median household income is the limit of what I consider to be an honest fortune - one made primarily through your own work, rather than sponging off the labor of others.
Bezos could absolutely, if he wanted to, single-handedly cause a level of destruction and human misery comparable to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
I get your point but that’s insulting the victims of the most heinous act against humanity ever committed. Those people, mostly civilians, died that day.
What you describe would definitely drive people into poverty, and maybe death, but it wouldn’t instantly kill them.what is the insult?
Excellent points. I like your analogy of economic power to nuclear power.
We’ve already seen Musk throwing his economic weight around like a nation, threatening to turn Starlink on and off over war zones based on his own needs, and not the national security of any of the nations involved.
When Sociopathic Oligarchs with Hoarding OCD, start accumulating such economic power that they can compete with nations, then they have reached their limit. It will only get worse, as more and more of them start negotiating their own deals, possibly to the detriment of the very nation of which they are a citizen.
Then it’s only a matter of time before these Oligarchs start building private Armies, and then form alliances that can really throw their weight around. Or worse, start wars with each other over private beefs, that catch innocent citizens in their crossfire.
These things are easily predictable, if something isn’t done to blunt the power of these out-of-control fortunes. Otherwise, we will be sitting here in the not-so-distant future, wondering why we didn’t do something about these psychopaths when we had the chance.
it’s only a matter of time before these Oligarchs start building private Armies
Just to be clear, this is why governments exist. Not to stop people from building armies because it’s bad. But to avoid the waste that comes from economic competition becoming militarized.
Bezos and Musk both make more money by NOT engaging in warfare with each other. But if warfare between them would give them an edge, then the government is the structure they create with other capitalists to rejigger the incentives so that Tesla doesn’t start bombing Amazon.
Bombing is a waste of capital.
But of course there’s the corollary - if Musk and Bezos get richer not bombing each other, then they could probably get more richer if they joined forces and bombed other people.
And that’s what the US military and CIA do. They are the military arm of the capitalists, so there is no need for private militaries. The capitalists all get together and bomb people not part of their in-group as a way of making themselves richer.
If the people of the US manage to gum up the works and stop the military from maximizing profit for the capitalists, then the capitalists will form private militaries and coordinate them to maximize their profits by bombing people not in their in-group. Today that means periphery, 3rd world, and socialist countries. Tomorrow that could mean the technologists against the financialists.
The OCD that drives them to hoard vast amounts of money, also makes them control freaks. They aren’t going to wait for the government to do their job and protect anyone from anyone. They are actively weakening America, and other countries, just so the governments will be corrupt enough for the Psychopathic Oligarchs to bribe their way to anything they want, but still be too weak for the govt to fight back when they finally realize they’ve created a monster.
And eventually, after they all have trillions of dollars, with trillions more pouring in, it won’t be about making more money, it will be about taking the other guys’ money. By then, governments will be irrelevant, and we will be back to monarchies, and the expense didn’t keep the old European kings from warring with each other.
Stop psychologizing the present day oligarchs in a vacuum. It’s not about the government protecting anyone.
This is the definition of government.
The reason oligarchs don’t have an incentive to build private armies over the last several centuries is because competing with other oligarchs through warfare DESTROYS CAPITAL.
It’s not about protection. It’s about waste. It’s less wasteful to win Bezos yacht in court than it is to bomb it and sink it to the bottom of the sea.
To be more succinct, the way I always describe it is wealth is not just money, money is too abstract. Wealth is power and that degree of power should not be so concentrated in so few private individuals.
Bezos could single handedly destroy a city And Musk actually did this with Boca Chica.
Also the power to launch a nuclear strike is shockingly consolidated. The president can if they decide to, and they’d likely get positive support from military command.
Anyways, I’m in full agreement even if I’m poking at your examples and metaphors.
The president can if they decide to, and they’d likely get positive support from military command.
Last i heard military murican command on the news, the vibe was “That’s not quite true.”
There’s a whole bunch of steps for that to happen and no guarantees the chain of command would acquiesce, given the orange clown is in the white house.
worth noting how norway is rich off of oil
True and the Nordics have plenty of poverty themselves once people look closer.
(This is just saying it exists, nothing more)
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Not even a successful society is perfect. It certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. It’s still better than what most of the rest of the world is doing.
It certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Nobody said we shouldn’t. The point is, we shouldn’t look away from the issues in a country just because they are doing better than others in some cases.
It means that when people advocate for improvements, YOU SHOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY PLAYING CRAB BUCKET.
Let better be better and then sure raise some issues. Your comment seems intentionally obtuse.
It means that when people advocate for improvements, YOU SHOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY PLAYING CRAB BUCKET.
…your argument is that we literally should not criticize ideas until they’re actually implemented and proven to be lacking? How does one establish that something is better without open critique?
deleted by creator
You’re seeing a motivation behind my comment that isn’t there, so you really shouldn’t call me obtuse. Is Norway doing pretty good? Yes! Could they also do better? Yes! I’m not playing crab bucket, but I’m also not sticking my head in the sand here.
Maybe next time open with the “pretty good” stuff. Before this comment everything cooking was negative which sure looks like crab bucket (not just from you, but also from you) and I’m still leaning toward obtuse by omission tbh.
I’m sorry I didn’t spoon feed my comment for you, mister obtuse.
Norway relies on the exploitation of billions in the global south, as all of the western world does.
What does that even mean? For those of us who aren’t in the know like you are, that phrase doesn’t mean anything to us.
And if you’re open to a friendly suggestion, nix the “western world” propaganda; focus on explaining the “exploitation of billions in the global south” part.
Norway doesn’t produce cocoa beans. Norway doesn’t produce cotton, or bananas, or iron ore, or cobalt, or gold, or most basic raw materials you need to run a society. Neither do Spain, or Germany, or France, or the USA. Instead, these countries focus on the production of high value-added goods and services, which they can do because they are historically highly industrialized, developed, and have high levels of education, infrastructure and concentration of productive capital.
In this manner, Germany imports iron ore from poor countries in the global south at low prices, and exports cars at high prices. In the international market, therefore, one hour of German/French/Norwegian work is exchanged often for tens of hours of work from India, or Congo, or Mexico. This is unequal exchange, and is the pillar of neocolonialism.
Through political, economical and military powers, the western world has ensured that the global south remains underdeveloped. IMF predatory loans and neoliberal policy impositions, support for fascists or monarchists, coups, or outright military invasions are some of the most common tools the west uses to maintain these countries underdeveloped and with cheap labor.
In the international market, therefore, one hour of German/French/Norwegian work is exchanged often for tens of hours of work from India, or Congo, or Mexico.
Is the argument here that developed goods are worth more on the market than their raw materials & shouldn’t be? Or that a unit of time of more skilled labor to develop those goods from raw materials should earn the same as less skilled labor, so the disparities in their market value is exploitation? If they could earn the same with less skill, then why bother developing skill?
It’s not like they govern the foreign countries of international businesses they trade with for raw materials. Is your argument that they shouldn’t trade internationally for raw materials?
Care to give some sources to that?
With quick google-fu Nordics seem to be in pretty comfy positions in world wide rankings. Not at the top but certainly in the best 20%
Also there is huge difference in the sense that even if you are poor in the nordics you still have right to healthcare and education. At some places you would just be fucked.
There are people who slip through the cracks (usually those with mental health/drug issues), and that the “basic level” of support hasn’t caught up with inflation…
But regardless, it’s 10000x better than the US system/the system in most other countries.
Worth noting that most of the time oil (newly discovered natural resources really)makes a country poorer than richer. See Venezuela and such.
So good on Norway to not give in to unbridled corruption and out that money on a public fund to make its own citizen wealthy
Well yes, Norway’s leader wasn’t assassinated by the US, followed by sanctions and throwing money and weapons at militant factions. I wonder why…
This is bad analysis. Natural resources don’t make countries poorer, they make the US/UK/France/Spain/Italy invade you.
Libya, rich in oil, was the richest country in Africa (and highest Human Development Index) until the west bombed it and triggered a civil war. Iran was on the way to use its oil for its own profits by nationalizing it under the democratically elected leftist government of Mosaddeq until it got blockaded and couped by MI6+CIA and a corrupt monarch got reinstated. Venezuela took millions of people out of poverty until US sanctions came in an attempt to kill the socialist government and put millions through hardship. Saudi Arabia, having a government very cozy with the US, gets away with no US coups, but has 70% of the population being effectively slaves.
There was a full-blown civil war in Libya well before the intervention of NATO (which had unanimous support from the UN security counicl).
There was a full-blown civil war in Libya
And how did the bombing help exactly? Not to mention the western participation in the formation of the civil war itself, with its constant meddling and sanctioning against the Libyan government.
Not unanimous, but not vetoed either (Russia and China abstained from voting).
Sarkozy’s personal interest in the matter also make me doubt France’s wouldn’t have been different under any other government
Edit: I’m not disagreeing with the whole “the UN allowed it”, and the general unrest in Libya before the intervention. Just adding context
Sorry, got confused with the unanimous vote before it, which sanctioned Libya.
Worth noting that most of the time oil (newly discovered natural resources really)makes a country poorer than richer. See Venezuela and such.
Hmm, somebody should let the Middle East know that they’re poor.
More likely, the discovery of oil attracts the worst kind of industrialists, who will exploit the workers into abject poverty, and take all the wealth. It isn’t the oil that makes the people poor, it is the government who sells them out.
I don’t get your point? The US is one of, if not the wealthiest, country in the world. We made money off of slaves, oil, gold, child labor and now taking advantage of our working class without paying for healthcare. It also used to be innovation, but that’s going away. We should be doing even better. How many of the wealthiest in the world live here?
The argument isn’t that the US can’t do it, it’s that there are only a few countries that ever could. It’s pitched as some sort of universal fix, but can’t be done without a vast amount of pre-existing wealth.
It’s pitched as some sort of universal fix, but can’t be done without a vast amount of pre-existing wealth
Right, which we have. There are also enough wealthy countries and the EU that could stop causing chaos in developing countries while supporting our own, that would make everyone’s lives better.
You were the first person in this comment chain to mention the US (important to note that the post doesn’t, either). Nobody said the US couldn’t do this, they just explained the reason Norway can.
Worth noting that the Nordic model made Norway, and other Nordic countries, quite rich even before they discovered oil.
It is replicable, and continued to make Nordic countries without oil, rich as well.
Eh, no reason to discard the idea of putting a ceiling on the rich. Even if you took away all of the money people had that was over 1 billion dollars, that wouldn’t cause any of those people to suffer.
1000x the median household income. That should be the cap. It’s a nice round number; people can understand it. And it indexes automatically with inflation.
Moreover, this is about the maximum lifetime fortune achievable by someone who actually works for a living. In a US context, 1000x median household income is about $80 million USD. That’s still an incredible amount of money, though just barely achievable by actually working for wages. It’s the kind of fortune two neurosurgeons could amass if they both worked long careers, lived extremely frugally, and invested everything they made. 1000x median household income is what I consider the largest possible ‘honest’ fortune. In order to earn beyond that level, you have to earn your money not through your labor, but the labor of others. You have to start a business and start sponging off the surplus of your employees. 1000x median income is about as large a pile as you can get without relying on exploiting someone else’s labor. And that seems like a reasonable place to set a cap. Still high enough to provide people plenty of incentive to work hard, get an education, better themselves, etc. But no so high that people amass fortunes that are threats to national security.
You’re thinking of wealth of a person. There’s not even a tax on capital yet.
Indeed, whilst it’s more difficult to raise a floor, it’s certainly a good idea to have a roof close enough to it to keep the heat where the people exist
What if we just burn the rich as firewood instead?
It would probably be environmentally friendly even
no reason to discard the idea of putting a ceiling on the rich.
There is a very good reason to discard the idea of assigning an arbitrary ‘maximum wealth’, two actually:
- it’s effectively impossible to actually enforce
- it will cost us more to try to enforce it, than we will gain in revenue
It would be tremendously expensive resource-wise, logistically, to even reliably determine if one has reached that ceiling (net worth figures for individuals that you see in the media are guesses, not the result of actual auditing), much less calculate with any degree of certainty how far over the ceiling someone is, and that ‘research/enforcement cost’ is practically certain to completely cancel out (and then some) any potential added revenue, especially because it’s also trivially easy to circumvent by creating debt, etc.
- it will cost us more to try to enforce it, than we will gain in revenue
That sounds to me like an assertion that has no basis in reality.
That would most likely be because you are ignorant of when it has already literally happened in the past, in other nations.
On multiple occasions in multiple countries, wealth taxes primarily aimed at the wealthiest demographic have been tried, and then repealed because overall tax revenue literally decreased as a result. There is a reason the vast majority of countries that have implemented such taxes have either since repealed them, or ‘loosened’ them such that they’re no longer primarily aimed at said demographic, and have become a much more ‘typical’ tax that the middle class pays.
It would cause them to move to a country without such regulation. Maybe somewhere in Africa or Southeast Asia, or South America. Though maybe there they lose a bunch of their money to corruption so overall it’s a win.
If billionaires decide to leave the country then the factories and businesses run by workers producing the billions they made will remain. You can’t pick up a building and take it with you.
It’s exceedingly rare that they actually do this because they don’t want to live in a third-world country. The irony, ofc, is that their actions are turning the U.S. into one.
This what they so to literally every positive economic policy ever discussed and yet every one of those places still has rich people and overinflated companies. Maybe we should stop believing their lies?
If that were true, they would have already done it.
They scream about taxes and such, but they know that they are in the very best country in the world to get super wealthy. It’s relatively easy to get access to money, systemic corruption is relatively low, and legal bribery is build into the system. The government is literally based on Capitalism.
Sure, they threaten to leave if their billion dollars is threatened with a 1% increase in taxes, but they won’t, because they know that the American economic system is what gave them the billion dollars in the first place. They’re just being whiney little bitches.
These people will lie to you to make you help them get what they want, at YOUR expense. You aren’t obligated to believe them, or help them.
The issue is a bit more… circular than that.
Certain things, certain ventures, need more money than that. And in a free, capitalist society you want people to be able to achieve such goals and ventures.
Problem is, once you pool that wealth into a company (the very meaning of the word, like companion, meaning “together”, or more literally “with others, in a multitude”), imbalances will occur. What if you start it out as a group of 5, each putting in a billion, then the company, without employees, becomes successful, but due to how it worked out, one person was the main brain behind the success so they get a bigger share? Suddenly the company is worth 25 billion, 15bn belonging to the genius, and the rest having 2.5bn stake. How do you regulate that?
Also what if that money is truly for operating costs, because this company is setting up a brand new town, so they’re literally paying dozens of construction crews, establishing shops and whatnot for people to use once they move in, and so on? Do you just take any excess wealth away?
Or do you let them continue operating knowing full well that someone in the company will try to use the operational funds as their personal bank account?
The idea of a wealth limit in an optimal society is good, but in our current imperfect crap, it’s never going to work, because it will put limits to what we can achieve in general.
Mind you I do agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist and should be taxed out of existence but that’s not done with a wealth ceiling.
Companies shouldn’t be creating towns, period. If we need new cities, their locations and forms should be chosen by the people. By elections. Not by some lone asshole whose only urban planning qualification is that he happens to have a large pile of money.
Towns were just an example of scale - a more realistic example would be, albeit futuristic, is whatever space-faring vessels we’ll build, and I don’t mean Musk and his rocket toys he keeps blowing up, I mean actual interplanetary and deep space ships, which will cost about the same to build as a small town.
Do you want the right to building those to be retained by the government only? Or would you prefer if the right people with the appropriate resources could do it too?
The billionaires ARE the right… they’re the ones with all the money to be pushing those right-wing narratives and the ones that profit most from the success of those narratives. Mussolini himself admitted that Corporatism was a more fitting name for his ideology than Fascism, because it is a merging of the state and corporate power. If the corporations and billionaires didn’t privately capture all those billions of dollars, what, do you think that wealth would just evaporate? No! It’s us doing all the work and making all the sacrifices, we should have control over the profit we generate and a say in what we are willing to sacrifice for it!!
Whatever spacefaring vessels are going to be built should be built at the behest of the people, for the interests of the people. Not by and for whatever person is able to lie, cheat, and steal the most wealth out of our hands. What is the point of building a rocket if all it’s going to do for us is generate another few billion dollars for one guy, who already has more money than god, at everyone else’s expense?? It’s our cake, we are the ones who spilled our blood sweat and tears over it, and we’re gonna just give it away to a guy that’s pinky-promising to drop some crumbs behind him? Fuck that!
Repeat after me: THE INTERESTS OF BILLIONAIRES ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOSE OF THE PEOPLE.
Suddenly the company is worth 25 billion, 15bn belonging to the genius, and the rest having 2.5bn stake.
This doesn’t just happen. How did the value go up so much? Are their sales not taxed? Will the liquidation of this value not be taxed?
The core of literally any anti-billionaire economic policy needs to be the taxing of loans made on potential valuations. With that, the numbers you gave are effectively irrelevant because there’s no more infinite money glitch. They have to liquidate assets to spend money, and must pay taxes on that.
Man, so interesting. Why do we have to pay those workers to build something that society needs? Is it because the workers need to eat? Why are the workers starving? Is it because the food they need is locked away in a hoard of wealth that only gets distributed by people who own the hoard? Why won’t they just feed people? Oh they only feed people if it means they’ll make a profit?
Hmm. How does a system this cruel stick around? What’s that? 90% of the wealth of the world is owned by a vanishingly small number of people who will only deign to feed people if it makes them a profit?
Man. Real “imperfection” you got there. I’m sure we can fix it with some reforms though once we learn more about economics…
15bn belonging to the genius
Oof.
Anyway…
The regulation part is absurdly easy: they get a tax bill, they sell their shares, they pay the tax bill.
Operating costs don’t have anything to do with personal wealth. The company pays the operating costs. If the company’s revenue is greater than its costs, it pays dividends or reinvests and in theory, the stock prices goes up. See above.
The problem isn’t the logistics: point gun, take money. That’s pretty straightforward. The problem is ramifications. If billionaires can no longer grow their wealth, what would happen? Well, for one their control over these companies would wane. If Musk can’t own more than a billion, then he’d have to sell a bunch of stock, which means he would have less control over the board, and thus less control over decision-making. But is that such a bad thing? Are the skills and personality that cause a company to go from zero -> public the same ones you want once the company has grown to a large size? Idk, maybe ask Zuckerberg about Oculus Rift and the Metaverse.
I don’t think anyone actually knows what would happen. But we do have a lot of data on what happens if you significantly increase the marginal tax rates for upper income brackets, and it sure seems to benefit society as a whole, but depends on what outcomes you’re targeting. And that doesn’t actually target the ~900 billionaires in the United States because most of them earn money through capital gains rather than regular income.
It is kinda done with a wealth ceiling if you tax the higher wealth more, but yeah let them make infinite money somehow if they are at the top end paying 99% of it back into society.
If a company gets so big that it “needs” billions of dollars to build its own town then that company’s profits and decisions should be split among its stakeholders (i.e. all of its employees).
If someone starts a company then they should be rewarded with profits if it succeeds. Contrary to capitalist arguments. The big brains behind companies don’t do it to make 15 billion dollars. They do it instead to get obscenely rich, and despite our completely warped views with companies like Tesla and Amazon, “obscenely rich” starts in the hundreds of millions of dollars maybe a billion dollars if someone was an idiot.
On top of that there are thousands of examples throughout history that show that people don’t invent things solely to make money and the original big brains behind company innovations were not necessarily profit motivated.
