2250
Lets test the theory
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
2250 points (98.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
5846 readers
880 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Billionaires hold a tiny percentage of their wealth in money, so taking all their money away wouldn't even make them stop being a billionaire.
Let's remove their control of all that wealth, then. If they're so good, they'll soon be in control of more.
I’ll take some Amazon shares from Bezos.
I would honestly hold them and demand more ethics from the company that I now “own a part of”.
If enough people do this…
In this experiment, you wouldn't have that power because you would only get a tiny fraction of the shares. The interesting bit would be to see what would happen to the company if everyone had a tiny say in what happens. Judging by the fact that most people are quite selfish, I think it may not be too much better for the workers.
That would be fascinating to find out. It would be such a badass move, too, if one of them were to give everything away to show they could do it again. I think it actually would be fine for quite a few of them. Their reputation would get them in so many doors and get them so many investors for whatever they get into after the big giveaway. To really do this experiment well, they would need to get plastic surgery and change their identity so they can really have a fresh start.
It would also be interesting to see the effect it would have on whatever they were doing before their exit. I guess it really depends on who gets their shares/power. If it goes to the government, then in most cases, things would probably get worse, I'd imagine. If it somehow gets evenly distributed amongst the world's population, that could be interesting. How would amazon fair if we all got 1/8B of Bezos shares? That would be quite interesting.
You’re a little biased against public sector, and seem to be in favor or privatization. I assume your incorrect understanding of public versus private sector efficiency is based on the cliche that public workers are so lazy or whatever.
But here’s an interesting article discussing the issue. I myself am biased against private sector in favor of the benefits of public sector efficiencies (no profit motive for example). But it’s an interesting article.
https://theconversation.com/pursuing-efficiency-in-the-public-sector-why-privatisation-is-not-necessarily-the-answer-13142
What did I say that made you think I have an "incorrect understanding of public versus private sector"?
Do you mean that because I think the government wouldn't be good at running a business that I misunderstood something? The us government is famously bad about spending outrageous amounts for simple things. Cups that cost over $1,000, toilet seats for over $10,000.. there's tons of things like this. That may be fine when you don't have to worry about being profitable, but it won't fly when trying to run a business.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/opinion/pentagon-budget-military-spending-waste.html
IIRC the reason military spending is so extreme is because the US military is required by law to have the paperwork to prove their entire supply chain is domestic, as part of a worst case readiness thing. Could be wrong though, not like I've really looked into it all that much.
The US military gets so much stuff from other countries. There was a "Buy American Act" about 100 years ago, which still stands, but it allows for so many exceptions that get used very often. There have been a few other similar acts since then, but they all include well-used exceptions.
What does this have to do with comparing the public us military to a similar private organization?
When the service provided is influencing world politics and securing our country, I don’t think efficiency means the same thing. I also don’t think there are any other private sector businesses that could compare to us military. And even if there are, I would assume that all of their workers were trained by the us military.
I’m not sure the United States military is the example you think it is
You're so cryptic. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but you really don't answer clearly or explain your reasoning.
I mean, I guess the us military is the largest military in the world apparently even if you added up all the other militaries together.
So by your logic there is no other private or public military that is better than the United States, but their goal is being the best, so but, and
If you are suggesting that the military of a government can be better run by a private organization, such as a corporation…. I mean, I guess you are saying that oligarchy and corporate rule is better than democracy?
To start with such a large organization won’t benefit your argument in any way
, and I suppose the service of the military is being the best?
By what metric do you think the US has a military larger than all other militaries combined? The firepower index puts the US at the top, but most other metrics don't. Even with the firepower index, though, no stretch of the imagination would put the US above all other militaries combined.
The reason the US military is as powerful as it is is not because it is such a well run organization. It is because it gets so much money from taxes. It has nothing to do with governments being able to run things more efficiently than for-profit companies. So many issues in the world are a direct result of how hyper efficient companies are. Running more efficiently doesn't mean it is better for the world. The opposite is true.
So, my question would be what private company are you trying to compare to the United States military?
Well, my whole point is that just that government doesn't usually do as good at running things as private companies. Another big example would be NASA vs. SpaceX. I think it is much easier to come up with examples of private companies getting more bang for their buck than governments. My hunch would be that it has to do with profit incentives. Government workers generally get a set salary whereas private companies stand to gain a whole lot more if they have big innovations.
Also, oftentimes, there is an incentive for government agencies to get involved in worse deals if it means siphoning money off to friends, whereas this makes less sense in private companies.
Well, again. Show me an example of a private company that is comparable to the United States military.
In the case of space x. It is precisely space x’s ability to waste money that made it so that it could do the research and development.
NASA would never be allowed to test and blow up ten rockets to build a new space ship.
Your own examples are proving you wrong
And now you are just rambling
Yeah, the freedom to research is a good thing and leads to increased efficiency. SpaceX was able to make reusable rockets in a fraction of the time that NASA has been around. It's astonishing how badly you want to cling to this narrative that governments run highly efficient organizations. This isn't even something that people generally debate about. NASA is literally hiring SpaceX to make their rockets because they are so much better at it. Your stance is that Billy is better at making burgers than Sally and yet Billy is literally buying Sally's burgers instead of making their own. The issue is that you came into discussion with a conclusion, and now that you are trying to justify it, it's just slipping between your fingers. There's no shame in taking some time to rethink things if it's not adding up.
What you're describing would amount to either eminent domain or civil asset forfeiture, both things that you really shouldn't be resorting to for money unless you've run out of all other options to cover a budget and have a spectacular plan to get the country back onto regular revenue with that money already in place, because that window can only be broken into once.
This is a silly thought experiment to point out that billionaires do not earn their own wealth, and you treat it like it's proposed as an actual economic plan for the whole country?
... rofl
Why not? What about it being a silly thought experiment invalidates wanting to look closer at it?
Because it is specifically NOT an economic plan. At all. It's a basic concept that would have to be fleshed out in order to even have an actual mechanism to test. Eminent domain is silly, because very, very few people want billionaires' wealth going to the government.
Billionaires do not earn their wealth. That's the through line.
The purpose is wealth redistribution, not financing the State. Ideally, that money would go to a one time expenditure like a tax rebate for lower earners or a stimulus or something. Revenue neutral for the State.
I feel like that almost makes it worse
Even assuming we could just get all the money with no complications, every billion seized this way would redistribute something like 3 dollars to the average american, because there's a fokkin' lot of us.
What'd be better would be to turn that money into a sovereign wealth fund that can be tapped for crisis moments or unexpected budget deficits. Basically as a "fuck you we don't need austerity" piggy bank whenever economic downturn prompts the right wing nutcases to start complaining how things like a functioning government are a waste of money.
Why piggy bank it when there are things right now that could, and would, use the money?
Crumbling road infrastructure, social programs, implementation of better public transit, EV rebates, homelessness programs, library attorney's fees, replacing lead pipes for water delivery systems, forest fire management, employment insurance, boosting food and cash aid for the needy, etc.
Because we currently have money for those things and just aren't spending it on them.
Building up an actual lean time fund for actual lean times instead of engineered poverty that can and should be addressed with what's already there is just good policy, growth is not infinite, and having an emergency fund available to make up differences can significantly smooth over bust times for the working class.
Not necessarily. If you want to do a new thing, make a new rule
For example, send them a tax bill for 99% their net worth. Offer to accept assets at the calculated market price and the government can sell it slowly, or let them sell it off for pennies on the dollar and submit their new net worth for an adjusted amount
Obviously that's super heavy handed, but you can slice it a million different ways
Take their assets.
Give them to who?
The people who built them.
That would be interesting. Anyone who has over a billion dollars is forced to distribute their wealth across anyone who has ever worked for them. Even more interesting than this would be to do it for anyone who has ever worked for anyone else. All boss/employee relationships. I wonder how this would change the world.