patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,783 comments by 14,904 users - GNL, Onvacation online now
Billionaires are desperate to keep you from talking about the harm billionaires do, and a tax plan to stop it
invite response
2020 Nov 30, 8:26pm 2,406 views 96 comments
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 96 Next » Last » Search these comments
41
PaisleyPattern
2020 Dec 1, 11:46pm
mell says
I agree that a distinction can be made between wealth derived from free market capitalism versus monopolistic Control of a market, which is often the outcome of a free market. There’s definitely a case for a blend of free market capitalism with some form of socially controlled restraint and market control. In that sense, The restraint could be in the form of a limitation on monopolies, or a limit to the fruits of the monopolies, which would deter the pursuit of them.
The point I was making is slightly off-topic, but it is that upper middle class wealth, as it is described in the original post, basically having a few million dollars, when viewed relative to the average wealth of all people on the planet, can also be seen as a form of obscene wealth.
Also that level of wealth comes as a result of benefiting from a very uniquely advantageous positioning in time and place, which allowed a small fraction of the US population to benefit from the United States dominance of world finances, Fed currency manipulation, and asset inflation. These benefits seen from the perspective of most of the worlds population, would also be judged as predatory and in need of some form of restriction, so that the entire worlds population could more equally benefit from the worlds resources.
PaisleyPattern saysPatrick, it’s totally possible if you live in America, were born at the right time, have the benefit of the global reserve currency, the Fed juicing the economy, stocks and real estate, at the expense of future generations and the 80% of the population who didn’t acquire any assets before they were all grossly inflated.
If you happen have been born in most areas of the world, Asia, Africa, Central America etc. forget it, not possible, and if those populations could vote to strip Americans with a couple of million dollars of their wealth, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Not really. This is where the duck was more right than wrong. It's not a zero sum game, but wealth is still limited, even though you can create more you can't create it as fast as billionaires can siphon it. So yes it's possible but only at the expense of others. You can be a free market proponent an...
I agree that a distinction can be made between wealth derived from free market capitalism versus monopolistic Control of a market, which is often the outcome of a free market. There’s definitely a case for a blend of free market capitalism with some form of socially controlled restraint and market control. In that sense, The restraint could be in the form of a limitation on monopolies, or a limit to the fruits of the monopolies, which would deter the pursuit of them.
The point I was making is slightly off-topic, but it is that upper middle class wealth, as it is described in the original post, basically having a few million dollars, when viewed relative to the average wealth of all people on the planet, can also be seen as a form of obscene wealth.
Also that level of wealth comes as a result of benefiting from a very uniquely advantageous positioning in time and place, which allowed a small fraction of the US population to benefit from the United States dominance of world finances, Fed currency manipulation, and asset inflation. These benefits seen from the perspective of most of the worlds population, would also be judged as predatory and in need of some form of restriction, so that the entire worlds population could more equally benefit from the worlds resources.
42
Misc
2020 Dec 2, 12:05am
The peasants are always dumbfounded when the uber-wealthy cannot pay their bills. I have a feeling a great many ponzi schemes are gonna blow up in 2021 and I think some big ones are.
43
HeadSet
2020 Dec 2, 6:12am
HeadSet
2020 Dec 2, 6:12am
Misc says
Is that right? Or will they get another Ben Benanke to bail out all the rich (including bonuses) with tax payer money.
The peasants are always dumbfounded when the uber-wealthy cannot pay their bills. I have a feeling a great many ponzi schemes are gonna blow up in 2021 and I think some big ones are.
Is that right? Or will they get another Ben Benanke to bail out all the rich (including bonuses) with tax payer money.
44
ignoreme
2020 Dec 2, 7:01am
Patrick says
That’s an even worse idea. At least if the government had it they could possibly direct the money towards important projects that the free market isn’t addressing well.
I’m too lazy to use exact numbers, but let’s say you did your plan. Firstly, you’d force all the billionaires to sell off most of their assets which would crash the stock market. But let’s ignore that.
I’ll guesstimate that you might get 1 trillion from that (probably less since the billionaires can afford good accountants)
Split that amongst 300 million people and everyone gets 3 grand. Woopie, we can all take a nice cruise or pay for a year of community college. Except consumer prices would inflate, so you’d probably get less then that.
After that, you wouldn’t get much at all since all the billionaires would become Canadians.
So like I said above, don't give it to the government. Give it directly to all the non-billionaires.
That’s an even worse idea. At least if the government had it they could possibly direct the money towards important projects that the free market isn’t addressing well.
I’m too lazy to use exact numbers, but let’s say you did your plan. Firstly, you’d force all the billionaires to sell off most of their assets which would crash the stock market. But let’s ignore that.
I’ll guesstimate that you might get 1 trillion from that (probably less since the billionaires can afford good accountants)
Split that amongst 300 million people and everyone gets 3 grand. Woopie, we can all take a nice cruise or pay for a year of community college. Except consumer prices would inflate, so you’d probably get less then that.
After that, you wouldn’t get much at all since all the billionaires would become Canadians.
45
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 8:33am
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 8:33am
Misc says
Peasants will bail out the uber-rich, as usual. See 1998, 2008/9, 2020...and many before
The peasants are always dumbfounded when the uber-wealthy cannot pay their bills. I have a feeling a great many ponzi schemes are gonna blow up in 2021 and I think some big ones are.
Peasants will bail out the uber-rich, as usual. See 1998, 2008/9, 2020...and many before
46
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:16pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:16pm
Zak says
@Zak It isn't good because most of this advertising is designed to get patients to pressure their doctors to scam insurance companies. It's described pretty well here:
From https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/20/the-amish-health-care-system/
The advertising is not for the good of the patient, or to help doctors, or anyone else. It's to scam insurance companies for the benefit of Big Pharma, massively driving up costs for the rest of us when we want to get insurance.
There's a reason that Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America is in the top 20 bribers of Congress:
https://www.businessinsider.com/lobbying-groups-spent-most-money-washington-dc-2018-2019-3?op=1#pharmaceutical-research-and-manufacturers-of-america-17
The reason is to prevent laws which block these scams so that you and me and everyone else reading this has to fork over more money every year and get nothing extra for it.
Big Pharma == Pure Evil
Are you mad at the ad agencies that charge Pharma the money to advertise? Why isn't it a public good to get the word out about life saving medications, given to Pharma (and the people) for free?
@Zak It isn't good because most of this advertising is designed to get patients to pressure their doctors to scam insurance companies. It's described pretty well here:
I’ve written before about how a pharma company took clonidine, a workhorse older drug that costs $4.84 a month, transformed it into Lucemyra, a basically identical drug that costs $1,974.78 a month, then created a rebate plan so that patients wouldn’t have to pay any extra out-of-pocket. Then they told patients to ask their doctors for Lucemyra because it was newer and cooler. Patients sometimes went along with this, being indifferent between spending $4 of someone else’s money or $2000 of someone else’s money. Everything in the US health system is like this, and the Amish avoid all of it. They have a normal free market in medical care where people pay for a product with their own money (or their community’s money) and have incentives to check how much it costs before they buy it. I do want to over-emphasize this one, and honestly I am surprised Amish health care costs are only ten times cheaper than ours are.
From https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/20/the-amish-health-care-system/
The advertising is not for the good of the patient, or to help doctors, or anyone else. It's to scam insurance companies for the benefit of Big Pharma, massively driving up costs for the rest of us when we want to get insurance.
There's a reason that Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America is in the top 20 bribers of Congress:
https://www.businessinsider.com/lobbying-groups-spent-most-money-washington-dc-2018-2019-3?op=1#pharmaceutical-research-and-manufacturers-of-america-17
The reason is to prevent laws which block these scams so that you and me and everyone else reading this has to fork over more money every year and get nothing extra for it.
Big Pharma == Pure Evil
47
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 12:27pm
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 12:27pm
Patrick says
+ a lot of research leading to best selling drugs is financed by NIH or other gov't institutions. I recall that Taxol was developed by NIH/National Cancer Institute, the semi-synthesis was developed at Florida State University, and all of that was appropriated Bristol Myer Squibb, who earned untold billions.
Have to agree with @Patrick that drug companies are Pure Evil (TM)
Big Pharma == Pure Evil
+ a lot of research leading to best selling drugs is financed by NIH or other gov't institutions. I recall that Taxol was developed by NIH/National Cancer Institute, the semi-synthesis was developed at Florida State University, and all of that was appropriated Bristol Myer Squibb, who earned untold billions.
Have to agree with @Patrick that drug companies are Pure Evil (TM)
48
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:58pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 12:58pm
My father-in-law was a professor in the medical school at a well-known university. It seems to me that he made a lot of money by providing the official Seal of Approval(TM) from well-known university to the drug industry for whatever new drug they were touting. I think they would give him "honorariums" for "objectively examining" the new drug.
49
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 1:00pm
Bd6r
2020 Dec 2, 1:00pm
Patrick says
+ speaking gigs. If you get in loop with drug companies, you can earn a fortune talking there and consulting them.
I think they would give him "honorariums" for "objectively examining" the new drug.
+ speaking gigs. If you get in loop with drug companies, you can earn a fortune talking there and consulting them.
50
Zak
2020 Dec 2, 2:51pm
>Have to agree with @Patrick that drug companies are Pure Evil (TM)
I agree that there is the traditional slimy sales bullshit that happens in Pharma, but its just like every other industry. Is "Big Food" evil because of corn syrup? The remainder of your complaints actually come from a different source though: income tax. As you mention, everything is driven through insurance, and the reason for this is because employer provided insurance is income tax deductible. Medical costs only recently have become "deductible" via FSA and HSA accounts under the 10% income base excluded for healthcare costs.
As Patrick notes, when there is a direct pay for service model for the majority of standard care, costs drop dramatically. The best way to facilitate this is to change the system so that ALL of your expenses to improve your life are automatically excluded from tax, and you don't have to try to funnel them through an insurance system for tax savings. The most straight forward way to do this is to just eliminate the income tax entirely. You get to spend your own money how you want without the myriad of government control schemes to influence your behavior. The taxes that would have been collected in aggregate can just be levied directly onto business (that would have paid them anyway via your salary).
It strikes me, that this is the conclusion the original framers of the constitution came up with, and hence is the reason they outlawed income taxes. We did just fine without them prior to WW1, and I say we go back to that model.
I agree that there is the traditional slimy sales bullshit that happens in Pharma, but its just like every other industry. Is "Big Food" evil because of corn syrup? The remainder of your complaints actually come from a different source though: income tax. As you mention, everything is driven through insurance, and the reason for this is because employer provided insurance is income tax deductible. Medical costs only recently have become "deductible" via FSA and HSA accounts under the 10% income base excluded for healthcare costs.
As Patrick notes, when there is a direct pay for service model for the majority of standard care, costs drop dramatically. The best way to facilitate this is to change the system so that ALL of your expenses to improve your life are automatically excluded from tax, and you don't have to try to funnel them through an insurance system for tax savings. The most straight forward way to do this is to just eliminate the income tax entirely. You get to spend your own money how you want without the myriad of government control schemes to influence your behavior. The taxes that would have been collected in aggregate can just be levied directly onto business (that would have paid them anyway via your salary).
It strikes me, that this is the conclusion the original framers of the constitution came up with, and hence is the reason they outlawed income taxes. We did just fine without them prior to WW1, and I say we go back to that model.
51
RWSGFY
2020 Dec 2, 2:54pm
RWSGFY
2020 Dec 2, 2:54pm
Zak says
Solves our Chy-Na problem too.
It strikes me, that this is the conclusion the original framers of the constitution came up with, and hence is the reason they outlawed income taxes. We did just fine without them prior to WW1, and I say we go back to that model.
Solves our Chy-Na problem too.
52
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 5:27pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 5:27pm
Zak says
@Zak I agree with you here.
Income tax discourages work. That's bad.
Sales tax discourages commerce. That's bad too.
The best tax is the Georgist land value tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Except!
Billionaires should not exist. They are all a pure harm for every country from which they extract their monopoly rents. There should be 100% tax on all assets over $1B.
The most straight forward way to do this is to just eliminate the income tax entirely. You get to spend your own money how you want without the myriad of government control schemes to influence your behavior.
@Zak I agree with you here.
Income tax discourages work. That's bad.
Sales tax discourages commerce. That's bad too.
The best tax is the Georgist land value tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Except!
Billionaires should not exist. They are all a pure harm for every country from which they extract their monopoly rents. There should be 100% tax on all assets over $1B.
53
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Dec 2, 5:31pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Dec 2, 5:31pm
One thing we've learned in the past 10 years is that the old libertarian idea of "Don't worry about billionaires, they're a net positive" has some serious real life caveats outside the von Mises chalkboard theory
Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, Bloomberg, Bezos, Soros... all use their vast fortune and the political and cultural influence it buys to push their preferences on everybody.
"B-b-but, the government lets them do it". Yep - because they use money to control the politicians and government. Hell, at this point they control both the Deep State and it's feeder universities/NGOs like Georgetown and the CFR. And they own the Media (WaPo, CNN, etc.) to back them up.
Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, Bloomberg, Bezos, Soros... all use their vast fortune and the political and cultural influence it buys to push their preferences on everybody.
"B-b-but, the government lets them do it". Yep - because they use money to control the politicians and government. Hell, at this point they control both the Deep State and it's feeder universities/NGOs like Georgetown and the CFR. And they own the Media (WaPo, CNN, etc.) to back them up.
54
AD
2020 Dec 2, 5:35pm
AD
2020 Dec 2, 5:35pm
Patrick says
Yes, and Bezos owns Washington Post. And you never see the Washington Post push for a billionaires tax as much as the other outlets do.
.
Our news is designed to divide us against each other, wildly exaggerating racism, sexism, or whatever it takes to not talk about the harm billionaires do. If we are divided, or at least distracted, then we are not talking about the criminal billionaires and their defeat of democracy.
Yes, and Bezos owns Washington Post. And you never see the Washington Post push for a billionaires tax as much as the other outlets do.
.
55
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 6:52pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 2, 6:52pm
Patrick says
Looks like James O'Keefe is getting close:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2020/12/02/james-okeefe-embarrasses-cnn-tapes-revealing-their-poisonous
More about this: https://ground.news/article/rss_1654_1606888362660_1/this-may-be-a-felony-cnn-calls-police-as-project-veritas-leaks-audio-of-outlets-daily-briefings-with-president-jeff-zucker
Zucker is supposedly only worth $60M or so:
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/jeff-zucker-net-worth/
But he is certainly connected to the Epstein and Clinton trail of slime:
https://truepundit.com/photos-surface-of-cnn-president-zuckers-wife-at-multiple-parties-with-jeffrey-epsteins-lady-pimp/
It would be fun to catch the billionaires pulling the strings of the media, telling the nominal "editors" that divisive stories get top billing every night. Their slimy trail can't be that well hidden because it's all day every day in all the mainstream media.
Looks like James O'Keefe is getting close:
To see the president of a media conglomerate barking orders at his reporters and journalists, telling them what to cover, what not to cover, that's not what anything was in plain journalism I know. I run an organization with a few dozen reporters. They come to me with facts. They’re not — I'm not — they’re not yessing me. In fact, they are challenging me. And what — what Jeff Zucker is doing on these phone calls is telling what the story is, telling them what not to cover. This is — this is propaganda and I think when citizens have to exercise their rights and duties, the consent need to be inform. This is manufacturing consent and we’ve never actually seen it, fly on the wall. You can actually hear the president of the company instruct his vice president, instruct his reporters what the narrative ought to be. This is the farthest thing from journalism that I know. And I think that CNN owes an apology to the people. I mean, this is — this is disgraceful and this is the first time we’ve actually seen it. You can actually hear it.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2020/12/02/james-okeefe-embarrasses-cnn-tapes-revealing-their-poisonous
More about this: https://ground.news/article/rss_1654_1606888362660_1/this-may-be-a-felony-cnn-calls-police-as-project-veritas-leaks-audio-of-outlets-daily-briefings-with-president-jeff-zucker
Zucker is supposedly only worth $60M or so:
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/jeff-zucker-net-worth/
But he is certainly connected to the Epstein and Clinton trail of slime:
Anti-Trump CNN Chief Jeff Zucker's wife is gal pals with Jeffrey Epstein's lady pimp Ghislaine Maxwell. Pictures tell the story here more than words. Numerous photos have surfaced of Caryn Zucker spending time in public with Maxwell as well as Huma Abedin, the wife of child sex-offender Anthony Weiner.Huma is Hillary's personal lacky and presumed lover, and spy for the Saudis.
https://truepundit.com/photos-surface-of-cnn-president-zuckers-wife-at-multiple-parties-with-jeffrey-epsteins-lady-pimp/
56
AD
2020 Dec 2, 9:11pm
AD
2020 Dec 2, 9:11pm
.
CNN staffers and reporters are unfazed because they are all of the same mindset and political agenda of Zucker.
https://www.thewrap.com/network-staffers-unfazed-by-project-veritas-expose-cnn-campaign-no-one-really-cares-about-this/
,
CNN staffers and reporters are unfazed because they are all of the same mindset and political agenda of Zucker.
https://www.thewrap.com/network-staffers-unfazed-by-project-veritas-expose-cnn-campaign-no-one-really-cares-about-this/
,
57
Patrick
2020 Dec 3, 8:37am
Patrick
2020 Dec 3, 8:37am
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-has-pinkerton-agents-surveil-workers-who-try-to-form-unions
According to documents, Amazon reportedly runs a surveillance program to track activism among its workers. NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Lauren Gurley of Motherboard magazine, who broke the story.
More than a century ago, the titans of industry hired private agents to crack down on labor strikes and union organizers at steel mills and factories in the U.S. Those agents were called Pinkerton detectives. Now the giant of a new industry is using the same approach. A story from Vice magazine's Motherboard reports that leaked documents show that Amazon hired Pinkerton operatives in Europe to surveil workers. The story also reports that Amazon monitors workers who try to form unions or take part in protest movements. We need to note that Amazon is an NPR funder.
58
Patrick
2020 Dec 3, 8:55am
Patrick
2020 Dec 3, 8:55am
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55173063
Gosh, both Amazon and Google squashing attempts at worker unions? Who next? Apple?
Google fired employees for union activity, says US agency
Google unlawfully fired employees for attempting to organise a union, a US federal agency has said.
A complaint filed by the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleged that Google unlawfully monitored and questioned its employees about their union activity.
It fired a number of staff for violating data security - but the NLRB said the rules were applied only to those engaging in union activity.
Gosh, both Amazon and Google squashing attempts at worker unions? Who next? Apple?
59
Bd6r
2020 Dec 3, 9:42am
Bd6r
2020 Dec 3, 9:42am
Patrick says
but orange man is just like Hitler, hates poor people and minorities.
Gosh, both Amazon and Google squashing attempts at worker unions? Who next? Apple?
but orange man is just like Hitler, hates poor people and minorities.
60
Reality
2020 Dec 3, 9:46am
Perhaps a better solution is not outright taxation but less stringent government enforcement of "intellectual property." The overwhelming majority of Billionaires' wealth come from "intellectual property" (especially the big pharma and the software/internet companies). Reducing government regulation on the enforcibility of "intellectual property" in terms of duration and if something that is really important / extremely profitable yet deductively/intuitively obvious (e.g. people can not patent natural laws and try to profit from the discovery of gravity or quantum tunneling) would go a long way towards promoting competition, which is a better way of whittling away Billionaire concentration in favor of more beneficial entreprenuership for the vast majority of consumers who can benefit from the competition.
Union activity in an industry is indicative of too much market power concentration. Breaking up the firms into smaller competitors so that workers and consumers can both price-shop would be a better solution than either big bosses busting workers (like around 1930) or workers turning out unreliable cars (like in the 1980's, when Japanese cars made a name for their reliability because of the unreliable American cars made by union workers and management catering to those union contracts).
Union activity in an industry is indicative of too much market power concentration. Breaking up the firms into smaller competitors so that workers and consumers can both price-shop would be a better solution than either big bosses busting workers (like around 1930) or workers turning out unreliable cars (like in the 1980's, when Japanese cars made a name for their reliability because of the unreliable American cars made by union workers and management catering to those union contracts).
61
HeadSet
2020 Dec 3, 9:54am
HeadSet
2020 Dec 3, 9:54am
Gosh, both Amazon and Google squashing attempts at worker unions? Who next? Apple?
Not just no unions, no employees. There is no reason Amazon delivery drivers should not be full benefit employees of Amazon, rather than gig workers.
Not just no unions, no employees. There is no reason Amazon delivery drivers should not be full benefit employees of Amazon, rather than gig workers.
62
Bd6r
2020 Dec 3, 10:03am
Bd6r
2020 Dec 3, 10:03am
Reality says
This will be quite difficult, at least in Pharma. Some new drugs, such as newest anticancer antibody type ones, are extremely expensive to develop, so no one in his right mind will do it if they can not reap profits afterwards. After the first one develops (and earns a lot of money), competitors rip the idea off and create clones. Then again there is no reason why drug companies can use basic research from other places basically free, while patenting their own research.
Perhaps a better solution is not outright taxation but less stringent government enforcement of "intellectual property." The overwhelming majority of Billionaires' wealth come from "intellectual property" (especially the big pharma and the software/internet companies). Reducing government regulation on the enforcibility of "intellectual property" in terms of duration and if something that is really important / extremely profitable yet deductively/intuitively obvious (e.g. people can not patent natural laws and try to profit from such discovery) would go a long way towards promoting competition, which is a better way of whittling away Billionaire concentration in favor of more beneficial entreprenuership for the vast majority of consumers who can benefit from the competition.
This will be quite difficult, at least in Pharma. Some new drugs, such as newest anticancer antibody type ones, are extremely expensive to develop, so no one in his right mind will do it if they can not reap profits afterwards. After the first one develops (and earns a lot of money), competitors rip the idea off and create clones. Then again there is no reason why drug companies can use basic research from other places basically free, while patenting their own research.
63
Reality
2020 Dec 3, 10:07am
Dbr6 says
I didn't advocate removing all patent rights. Reducing patent duration and/or the ability to extend drug patent through minor modifications can go a long way towards enabling generic competition. Also, if the basic research is from public funding, then what we need are generic drug companies that have some staff to help the transition from public research results to generics, perhaps a 5-10yr patent profit window for the manufacturing process (i.e. 10-15yr window from original drug discovery), instead of the current massively expensive marketing outfits holding onto exclusive patents for many decades via minor modifications.
Furthermore, this shorter patent window would also induce more research towards cures instead of research towards creating patient dependency (i.e. drugs that don't cure but would put the patients on the expensive drugs for the rest of their lives, decades at taxpayer expense, which is bankrupting the society)
This will be quite difficult, at least in Pharma. Some new drugs, such as newest anticancer antibody type ones, are extremely expensive to develop, so no one in his right mind will do it if they can not reap profits afterwards. After the first one develops (and earns a lot of money), competitors rip the idea off and create clones. Then again there is no reason why drug companies can use basic research from other places basically free, while patenting their own research.
I didn't advocate removing all patent rights. Reducing patent duration and/or the ability to extend drug patent through minor modifications can go a long way towards enabling generic competition. Also, if the basic research is from public funding, then what we need are generic drug companies that have some staff to help the transition from public research results to generics, perhaps a 5-10yr patent profit window for the manufacturing process (i.e. 10-15yr window from original drug discovery), instead of the current massively expensive marketing outfits holding onto exclusive patents for many decades via minor modifications.
Furthermore, this shorter patent window would also induce more research towards cures instead of research towards creating patient dependency (i.e. drugs that don't cure but would put the patients on the expensive drugs for the rest of their lives, decades at taxpayer expense, which is bankrupting the society)
64
Zak
2020 Dec 4, 10:15am
http://paulgraham.com/ace.html
An interesting article about the general hate for billionaires. I think they make a great point about some of these startup founders being focused on the customer, and being motivated and interested in the problem they are solving. It's so much easier to just hate on billionaires and call them evil than to recognize there are 10,000 people just like the bilionaires who are slightly less successful, but still wildly successful, and they are doing it by bringing products to market. It's easier to just focus on targets to hate, and not on the problems in the system, and the individual actions we can take in our own lives to also be successful.
Of course, it's hard to found a startup when you are having trouble paying rent on a one bedroom apartment while working two jobs.
An interesting article about the general hate for billionaires. I think they make a great point about some of these startup founders being focused on the customer, and being motivated and interested in the problem they are solving. It's so much easier to just hate on billionaires and call them evil than to recognize there are 10,000 people just like the bilionaires who are slightly less successful, but still wildly successful, and they are doing it by bringing products to market. It's easier to just focus on targets to hate, and not on the problems in the system, and the individual actions we can take in our own lives to also be successful.
Of course, it's hard to found a startup when you are having trouble paying rent on a one bedroom apartment while working two jobs.
65
SoTex
2020 Dec 4, 7:39pm
SoTex
2020 Dec 4, 7:39pm
So there was a pdf on the interwebs back in the late 90s. It described government collusion (er, I mean reasons) with tech companies to bring in more foreign labor (h1b). Anyone have a link to that thing? I think I've seen it posted on patnet before. It was some pdf or something.
66
Patrick
2020 Dec 4, 7:50pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 4, 7:50pm
Zak says
There should be no billionaires at all, ever.
No one deserves that much money.
The profit motive is great, but that's beyond mere profit.
Maybe I should clarify that money is servants. To have a billion dollars is to have tens of thousands of personal servants. Does anyone need that many personal servants?
People get confused about this. Money is not gold, or dollars. It's control over labor.
https://patrick.net/post/1336214/2020-10-31-readme#Money
An interesting article about the general hate for billionaires.
There should be no billionaires at all, ever.
No one deserves that much money.
The profit motive is great, but that's beyond mere profit.
Maybe I should clarify that money is servants. To have a billion dollars is to have tens of thousands of personal servants. Does anyone need that many personal servants?
People get confused about this. Money is not gold, or dollars. It's control over labor.
https://patrick.net/post/1336214/2020-10-31-readme#Money
67
Bd6r
2020 Dec 5, 8:11am
Bd6r
2020 Dec 5, 8:11am
Patrick says
I did not think that way, but I am coming around to @Patrick point of view. If too much wealth/power is concentrated, it will be used to sustain wealth and power by unproductive means. Last "election" is a very good example. Top 0.01% bought President they wanted.
There should be no billionaires at all, ever.
I did not think that way, but I am coming around to @Patrick point of view. If too much wealth/power is concentrated, it will be used to sustain wealth and power by unproductive means. Last "election" is a very good example. Top 0.01% bought President they wanted.
68
HeadSet
2020 Dec 5, 7:03pm
HeadSet
2020 Dec 5, 7:03pm
Top 0.01% bought President they wanted.
Just like what happened when Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J P Morgan banded together and bought the President they wanted, William McKinley in 1897. But McKinley died in office and their worst nightmare, VP Teddy Roosevelt, took over as President. Today the top billionaires have bought Joe Biden, who will likely not last and we will get our worst nightmare, Kamala Harris as President.
Just like what happened when Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J P Morgan banded together and bought the President they wanted, William McKinley in 1897. But McKinley died in office and their worst nightmare, VP Teddy Roosevelt, took over as President. Today the top billionaires have bought Joe Biden, who will likely not last and we will get our worst nightmare, Kamala Harris as President.
69
SoTex
2020 Dec 5, 7:46pm
SoTex
2020 Dec 5, 7:46pm
just_passing_through says
Bump... It was the 'original' doc that people (engineers) were freaking out about 90s silicon valley. It was a pdf I think but looked like it was written on a type writer. Damn I wish I could find that again.
So there was a pdf on the interwebs back in the late 90s. It described government collusion (er, I mean reasons) with tech companies to bring in more foreign labor (h1b). Anyone have a link to that thing? I think I've seen it posted on patnet before. It was some pdf or something.
Bump... It was the 'original' doc that people (engineers) were freaking out about 90s silicon valley. It was a pdf I think but looked like it was written on a type writer. Damn I wish I could find that again.
70
Patrick
2020 Dec 5, 7:53pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 5, 7:53pm
Dbr6 says
That's a good way to put it. @Dbr6
If too much wealth/power is concentrated, it will be used to sustain wealth and power by unproductive means.
That's a good way to put it. @Dbr6
71
Patrick
2020 Dec 7, 7:57pm
Patrick
2020 Dec 7, 7:57pm
https://news.gab.com/2020/12/07/what-are-populists-fighting-for/
We’re not fighting for the stock market or for the rigged crony capitalist system of the oligarchs. I’m a supporter of real capitalism that has checks and balances against what our current system has become: crony capitalism that overwhelmingly benefits a few at the top at expense of the rest of us.
When billionaires gain $1 trillion in new collective wealth during the pandemic while hundreds of thousands of small businesses are closed for good, we don’t live in a capitalist society anymore.
We live in a crony capitalist oligarchy.
72
Patrick
2021 Feb 6, 2:39am
Patrick
2021 Feb 6, 2:39am
You know, the problem with conservatives is that they are not willing to criticize the billionaires who undermined the last election.
And the problem with leftists is that have allied themselves with the billionaires who undermined the last election.
And the problem with leftists is that have allied themselves with the billionaires who undermined the last election.
73
PeopleUnited
2021 Feb 6, 3:34am
PeopleUnited
2021 Feb 6, 3:34am
Patrick says
I’m glad you came around Patrick. I’ve been saying these kind of things for over a decade, and was hated by the left (and right, but primarily the left) for it.
https://patrick.net/post/23997/2009-11-12-pfizer-and-kelo-s-ghost-town-government-gone-wild-again#comment-659297
https://patrick.net/post/25923/2009-12-01-this-isn-t-capitalism#comment-660768
The problem I have with your comment above is that wealth in and of itself is not evil, nor is having wealth evidence of evil. But it is evil to violate the 10 commandments, and specifically all commandments can be summed up as this: love God and your neighbor. If people violate other people’s rights using wealth, government or power to do so, that is evil.
You know, the problem with conservatives is that they are not willing to criticize the billionaires who undermined the last election.
And the problem with leftists is that have allied themselves with the billionaires who undermined the last election.
I’m glad you came around Patrick. I’ve been saying these kind of things for over a decade, and was hated by the left (and right, but primarily the left) for it.
https://patrick.net/post/23997/2009-11-12-pfizer-and-kelo-s-ghost-town-government-gone-wild-again#comment-659297
https://patrick.net/post/25923/2009-12-01-this-isn-t-capitalism#comment-660768
The problem I have with your comment above is that wealth in and of itself is not evil, nor is having wealth evidence of evil. But it is evil to violate the 10 commandments, and specifically all commandments can be summed up as this: love God and your neighbor. If people violate other people’s rights using wealth, government or power to do so, that is evil.
74
richwicks
2021 Feb 6, 6:14am
richwicks
2021 Feb 6, 6:14am
PeopleUnited says
Really? Let me remind you what they are.
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”
Religion and common morality unites us, but it's not within religion. Tell me - where is pedophilia condemned in the bible? I condemn it, but the Bible never did. I'm sure you do as well. I expect your heart is in the right place, but you depend on a foundation of sand and not of rock. I didn't forget all my religious teaching.
You make yourself a moral person, God doesn't. We must have a moral society regardless if there is an afterlife or not. This is our duty. We must be a moral species. Even if there is nothing after this, we must be moral. Our fight is "what is moral?"
But it is evil to violate the 10 commandments
Really? Let me remind you what they are.
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”
Religion and common morality unites us, but it's not within religion. Tell me - where is pedophilia condemned in the bible? I condemn it, but the Bible never did. I'm sure you do as well. I expect your heart is in the right place, but you depend on a foundation of sand and not of rock. I didn't forget all my religious teaching.
You make yourself a moral person, God doesn't. We must have a moral society regardless if there is an afterlife or not. This is our duty. We must be a moral species. Even if there is nothing after this, we must be moral. Our fight is "what is moral?"
75
PeopleUnited
2021 Feb 6, 6:32am
PeopleUnited
2021 Feb 6, 6:32am
richwicks says
See commandments 7 and 10.
richwicks says
This is where most people err. The 10 commandments were not written to give us the ability to be moral. They were written to prove to us that we are all immoral. In fact if you examine the 10 commandments you will realize that you are immoral just as I have realized the same. The only solution is forgiveness. That can only be found in Jesus. And He can give you the ability to want to avoid sin, though you will never be perfect nor will I.
Tell me - where is pedophilia condemned in the bible
See commandments 7 and 10.
richwicks says
You make yourself a moral person
This is where most people err. The 10 commandments were not written to give us the ability to be moral. They were written to prove to us that we are all immoral. In fact if you examine the 10 commandments you will realize that you are immoral just as I have realized the same. The only solution is forgiveness. That can only be found in Jesus. And He can give you the ability to want to avoid sin, though you will never be perfect nor will I.
76
Booger
2021 Feb 6, 6:49am
Booger
2021 Feb 6, 6:49am
Patrick says
Nope. After they acquire a billion, they leave the US. That's assuming they even stayed past 100M under this proposal. And these numbers would need to be adjusted for real inflation as well, since there is going to be a lot of upper middle class soon enough with 100M with the hyperinflation we are going to get with all the new welfare programs the Democrats are going to enact.
So there would be a limit on how rich you can get in America: one billion dollars in assets. After that level, billionaires stop hogging everything and let others have a chance too.
Nope. After they acquire a billion, they leave the US. That's assuming they even stayed past 100M under this proposal. And these numbers would need to be adjusted for real inflation as well, since there is going to be a lot of upper middle class soon enough with 100M with the hyperinflation we are going to get with all the new welfare programs the Democrats are going to enact.
77
mell
2021 Feb 6, 8:34am
Booger says
Not that easy. Many have multi million dollar mansions across the US and after all it's their homeland, family etc. Until the US turns into a 2nd world shithole they will likely live in the US at least partly. Plus taxes follow you even as an expat, you'd have to give up your citizenship. It's easier for corporations to move abroad than for
individuals. But yes, capital flight always needs to be taken into account.
Patrick saysSo there would be a limit on how rich you can get in America: one billion dollars in assets. After that level, billionaires stop hogging everything and let others have a chance too.
Nope. After they acquire a billion, they leave the US. That's assuming they even stayed past 100M under this proposal. And these numbers would need to be adjusted for real inflation as well, since there is going to be a lot of upper middle class soon enough with 100M with the hyperinflation we are going to get with all the new welfare programs the Democrats are going to enact.
Not that easy. Many have multi million dollar mansions across the US and after all it's their homeland, family etc. Until the US turns into a 2nd world shithole they will likely live in the US at least partly. Plus taxes follow you even as an expat, you'd have to give up your citizenship. It's easier for corporations to move abroad than for
individuals. But yes, capital flight always needs to be taken into account.
78
Patrick
2021 Feb 6, 10:38am
Patrick
2021 Feb 6, 10:38am
PeopleUnited says
@PeopleUnited
I read the whole bible about 20 years ago, and I distinctly remember prohibitions on touching children too much, somewhere in Leviticus, I think.
So it's in there. Also a line on men not wearing women's clothing and vice versa, if I remember right.
richwicks saysTell me - where is pedophilia condemned in the bible
See commandments 7 and 10.
@PeopleUnited
I read the whole bible about 20 years ago, and I distinctly remember prohibitions on touching children too much, somewhere in Leviticus, I think.
So it's in there. Also a line on men not wearing women's clothing and vice versa, if I remember right.
79
PeopleUnited
2021 Feb 6, 1:46pm
PeopleUnited
2021 Feb 6, 1:46pm
For sure there is reference to men dressing like men, and not women.
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/deu.22.5.kjv
Others that condemn pedos would include: “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”
Ephesians 5:3-12 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/eph.5.3-12.kjv
And
“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”
Mark 9:42 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/mrk.9.42.kjv
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/deu.22.5.kjv
Others that condemn pedos would include: “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”
Ephesians 5:3-12 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/eph.5.3-12.kjv
And
“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”
Mark 9:42 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/mrk.9.42.kjv
80
Bd6r
2021 Feb 6, 2:05pm
Bd6r
2021 Feb 6, 2:05pm
My issue with Christian religion is that its adepts killed off half of my ancestors a while ago in Northern Crusades because they were pagans. One branch of my ancestors were basically wiped off the face of Earth. So, it seems that just like socialism, which is good on paper, religion is also mostly good on paper.
Non parum animus noster
Non parum animus noster
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 96 Next » Last » Search these comments
Sure, there are fawning fellating articles that go on and on about how generous billionaires are when funding programs that divide us further so we can't unify against them, but nowhere ever in the press will you find an article which flat-out states the truth that the billionaires are the problem, and in no way the solution.
This is why the news is nothing but deliberate divisiveness. It would be fun to catch the billionaires pulling the strings of the media, telling the nominal "editors" that divisive stories get top billing every night. Their slimy trail can't be that well hidden because it's all day every day in all the mainstream media.
And Americans in particular do not want to hear the nasty fact that wealth at that level is in no way a good thing for the country or for 99.9998% of its residents (literally). The American national religion worships billionaires as examples of what we should all want to be. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Fuck the little people. "Taxes are for the little people." The US tax system is nuts. Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income from actual work?
Who wants to hear about the lifestyles of the two hundred million people between the coasts impoverished by Bezos, who has pretty much wiped out US retail and US manufacturing by selling us all cheap shit from China? Or about how the 5 billionaires of the Walton family killed Main Street with Walmart, also selling cheap shit from China? Or about how Bill Gates set the computer industry back decades by selectively murdering the competition by giving away their products until they died? Or how Larry and Sergei at Google and Mark at Facebook wiped out all real journalism by wiping out the ads that supported it, and now manipulate our elections, spy on us, and sell that data to the highest bidder, or to the government. Those stories are not as much fun as hagiographies. They do not get printed.
Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett collectively have more wealth than the bottom 160 million Americans.
Three people.
Three.
They are all Democrats.
Behind every billionaire is a long trail of bodies, ruined small businesses, ruined lives, and extreme political corruption. It was not "hard work". Nobody ever did enough work to earn a billion dollars themselves.
It would be so fucking justified to limit maximum wealth per person to one billion dollars, and the economy would surge as smaller competitors would finally have a chance. All of us would be far better off, except for the 800 US billionaires.
And don't bother calling me a communist. I'm all for getting rich, rich enough to retire nicely, but a billion? "Behind every great fortune is an equally great crime."
Billionaires made an extra $600 billion or so from the pandemic by wiping out small businesses.
Here's my tax plan:
0% wealth tax on wealth less than $100M.
10% wealth tax annually on wealth between $100M and $200M
20% wealth tax annually on wealth between $200M and $300M
....
100% wealth tax annually on wealth over $1B
This tax plan would affect only the 5,000 Americans with assets of more than $100M.
So there would be a limit on how rich you can get in America: one billion dollars in assets. After that level, billionaires stop hogging everything and let others have a chance too. Does anyone really need more than a billion? Why? Certainly nobody ever earned that much money through their own efforts. At that level, it's all monopolies preventing the free market from working. If you like free markets, you can't like billionaires. They are opposites.
The biggest bonus: if we keep the limit at one billion dollars, the rich will have a huge incentive to keep inflation at zero. So the saving of the rest of us would be preserved against confiscation by the Fed's printing press.