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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.