No One Should Have More Than 10 Million Pounds | Ash Sarkar meets Ingrid Robeyns
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.พ. 2024
- If you're serious about alleviating poverty, as most liberals claim to be, should there be a cap on how wealthy one person can be?
To discuss this, Ash sat down with Ingrid Robeyns - author of ‘Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth’ - to talk about why she’s reluctant to call herself a communist, a wealth cap on nations and why many of us in the global north are living on stolen money.
__________________________
Can you help fund people-powered media? To be ready for next year, we need 5,000 of you to join our regular supporters and back our work.
Donate one hour’s wage per month, or whatever you can afford at novara.media/support today.
![[UNCUT]"เศรษฐา" โดนบีบให้ลาออก เผยดีลลับ "ทักษิณ" ต้องต่อโปร ไม่งั้นเจอจุดจบ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XlH3k81dxmE/mqdefault.jpg)
Hoarding in any other sense is called a 'mental illness' - but 'hoarding' money is power and achievement - the more they 'hoard' the more power they gain!
💯
The concept of “enough” has been lost in our culture
I totally agree both with Ingrid and you. Enough has been replaced with worshipping greed. Kind regards to you, your family and friends.
@@Howeverwhatabout it is strange that the concept of enough has disappeared considering how everyone including corporations are so environmentally aware.
@@larrycoldwater1964 I hope you're being ironic. In commerce and industry, environmental awareness looks like nothing more than greenwashing for economic advantage to me. FFS, BP is an environmentally aware corporation! "Enough" is the antithesis of capitalism - when capitalism is totally depoendent on infinite growth. As for individual economic awareness, it's very rare. Just look at how the vast majority want more, faster, bigger, newer without any consideration of the consequences.
@@davidpalk5010 yes you are right. Capitalism demands continuous growth. A key indicator of this is the so called immigration crisis. Hordes of immigrants and refugees fleeing dysfunctional countries to the UK, Europe and the United States. Why? To keep the wages low and the rents high in UK, Europe and the USA. Population growth = economic growth. We are about to get 2 million refugees from Palestine to further expand the economies of UK, Europe and the USA. War = Refugees = 💰
It's only a matter of time until the elite are reminded of the consequences of having 'enough'.
I love it when someone constructs a robust theory around something I've been thinking for years. Fascinating interview!
Also loved how she was able to say she hadn't fully thought some aspects/questions that Ash raised through yet, and not just fudge something on the spot! Really refreshing.
Nothing is black or white. I live in Poland and when communism felt, economy was ruined - people had money but there was nothing to buy. People had jobs but they didn't really work. Communism is sick system beacuse it promotes midiocracy and not doing more than average. What's the point of working harder if at the end they will take away your whole Income? You can't take away peoples money beacuse you think he earns to much, it's not you that can make this decision but market - he earned it beacuse lot's of people find his product/services usfull. Europe has mixed type, where some frigile sector as education, healthcare, culture is funded from taxex by goverment but other than that - let's allow people to clash with market.
Ash is a wonderful interviewer. Thanks for interviewing Ingrid.
Out of the entire Occupy Wall Street era, the single protest picketing sign I saw that I remember that will be with me forever said, "Consider A Maximum Wage."
Wages aren’t the problem, wages get taxed.
@@Vtwin_Superbikes I remember this fascinating story from many years ago about a wife of this one guy whose suddenly just dropped dead and she needed to contact her husband's lawyer to get part of her inheritance,
TLDR : she get sucked into a private world of how super rich avoiding their taxes (by siphoned their wealth through a long chain of intermediary, turn it into real estate in developing country, Tax haven, etc.) and by the end of it she was completely shock by how much her husband actually owned and how EVERYONE in the elite world is doing it.
So no, If you got paid high enough you don't necessarily get taxed.
Yes!!! That would have significant impact especially when we base it off of the minimum pay at that company
@@Vtwin_Superbikes ? Some wages are high enough to allow tax avoidance. Did you learn some Game Theory, Economic Mechanism Design, Social Architecture (applied on all levels from the middle corporate up), Social Choice Theory (which can be called mathematical foundations for any conceivable form of democracy)?
In short, Ingrid Robeyns has made some observations, not terribly deep, to boot, and conjures some solutions which are not implementable.
Aaron Bastani had a talk with Peter Turchin on this platform. Although far from open and honest it comes much closer to the heart of the matter. Such talks are falling ever further from doing the job they should. Rather than reading books, read scientific articles on the subject (Turchin published some and they contain few but poignant precious thoughts)
Last but not least, how are you going to earn this symbolic 10.000.000,0 of some abstract monetary unit (proper formulation would be 5 bedroom/bathroom house in the suburbs, holiday home, private school for 2.3 (steady state reproductory rate), 2 full time holiday and 3 short brakes, two cars, possibly 15 feet yacht, other than serving some corporate multi billion interest?
When the matter was being considered seriously, (1940-1960 as a consequence of shock which second total war in 20 years brought about on the intellectual class) the talk was about wage spread and the discussion was should it be 3.5 or closer to 7. Even with the spread of 3.5 (!) the problem of accumulation of wealth emerges. It requires a very carefully designed consumption policy to manage society within some limits of equality which do not "blow up" into extreme stratification.
To come back to your original thought. Taxation as a redistribution measure is only possible when very moderate and will hardly ever be perceived as acceptable by most of society. The problem can be solved much more ease with engineering a relatively flat distribution. There are means in form of monetary policy allowing to bring some kind of rather flat distribution of incomes and wealth and is not beyond wits of an average person to imagine them. The mood of society now, though is to survive a day longer than your neighbour and this kind of attitude is not conducive to sharing some simple thoughts on the matter.
How do Marxists propose wealth redistribution, collectivizing farms, and taking ownership of factories without repeating a Holodomor or going full Mao? What a load of garbage.
Social and economic sustainability......
People work 50 years but still can not earn enough to save ...!!!
That’s because we have a socialist
Country that prints money to pay for a welfare system it can’t afford. That money printing is paid for through inflation since you can’t tax that much and get away with it so the hidden tax of inflation is used to steal the wealth of workers to pay for the masses. Government swells as a result and eventually the economy implodes.
Socialism and the welfare state is the REASON we’re in a total fucking mess.
Thats because of inflation. Inflation is a Tax.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE 🌎
PEOPLE OF THE WORLD UNITE ..✊.
Except for Greg... Screw that guy... 😂
PEOPLE OF THE WORLD UNTIE!
@@griffinsdad9820 dyslexics of the world untie!
LARPERS OF THE WORLD UNITE
Great discussion. I live where Microsoft Amazon and Starbucks are headquartered. The amount of homeless here is just staggering.
I left Seattle 6 years ago. I lived in a warehouse in the industrial district right down the street from Starbucks headquarters. That town's shot. So depressing watching all the flavor get pushed out in less than 15 years. It was so great once upon a time
Hoarding in every other sense is considered a mental illness, but with money, we give them the keys to society.
Yea, and the hoarded wealth mountain is the debt mountain of another guy.
Seriously the tax rate needs to be incremental to 99% with no loopholes.
It was almost that in the 70s. Many professionals left as a result.
@@user-hu1yi8ox9zdon't americas have to pay tax even if they work abroad now?
@@lukedegraaf1186It has been that way for a long time now. BTW I’m a US citizen.
@lefty-bw1zp well your government can chase skilled workers around the world for pocket change, they should be able to follow money to panama or wherever the next hiding spot it. Imo.
The whole fear of acknowledging/defining communism when it clearly applies is incredibly disappointing and I’m grateful that younger generations don’t have this irrational aversion.
I don't think fear and aversion are interchangeable.
@@jannette8800they didn't use them interchangeably, really. Fear more often than not leads to aversion
MOST ACCURATE WILL BE ..
…IN THE WEST IS MORE HIPED TO HISTERIA OR A FOBIA, AGAINST EXAMINING
ONE SELF!
People have a problem with admitting it, as it has continually failed over time, in multiple different guises and geographical locations.
Communism can ONLY be applied via force. It is inherently violent and immoral.
on Capitalism vs communism: It's often forgotten that one of the reasons why there was such a crisis between the US and Cuba was in part to take attention away from some of the successes that came from communism: Cuba, at the time of the crisis had one of the best developed healthcare systems and produced an incredible amount of medical professionals, which basically was something that showed that there were definite benefits to the socialist system on which the country was then built.
👌💯
If it's so successful then why does it always collapse?
@@Stoddardianhow has it collapsed?
Cuba still exists, Vietnam still exists, China still exists too.
Wtf you talking about?
USSR? The entire Eastern Bloc? and China is very capitalistic. @@AvelierPlays
@@Stoddardianif it is doomed to fail, why do capitalist countries have to try to sabotage or sanction socialism every time it pops up?
Oh man I’ve been telling my dad that Philanthrocapitalism won’t save us for years now, can’t wait to make him watch this :P
Tell him that he got SCAMMED by market radical fairytales.
The title : the exact perspective that comes to my mind each time I saw a documentary on the Dutch VOC as the most valuable company of all time... The wealth garnered by some western nations was pretty much stolen from their occupied regions around the world....
And now we're still living in the era were some of these western nations thinks they have the full right to decide what is right and what is wrong... What is permissible and what's not (especially related to resources and global trade).. The audicity is just mind boggling...
Thank you for spreading the awareness. Hope that we all, as the citizen of the world, can build more bright, more just, and more prosperous future together!
- An accounting university-lecturer from Indonesia (en ex Dutch occupied nation) -
@@villhelm if we used your way of thinking regarding the likes and dislikes toward a specific ethnicity/nation, as an Asian, I suggest You to stop using the
(1) toilet (the oldest one was invented in China)
(2) paper (China)
(3) gun powder (China)
(4) rockets (China made the first working prototype in the form of firework)
(4) algebra (Arab/Middle East - ever heard of Al-Khwarismi)
(5) numerals, 0 to 9 (Indian invented it and the Arab refine and spread it)
The list above once again highlights my point. Our scientific and technological progress owes so much to the extraordinary people from different background, different nation, and different ethnicities. Again, we should learn from our past, the good, and of course the bad, and build a brighter future!
I’m not the one who’s complaining about colonial pasts and what was given/taken. You are. I don’t have a problem with my nations history, I don’t feel guilty one bit about it.
The wealth garnered by some western nations was pretty much stolen from their occupied regions around the world....
in apart yes in whole no..ALso they are still extracting wealth.THere is reaon why they crcuhed most of the world with mininal strneght .Tech and organisaion.FOr exampel dutch were known as rich region from middle ages.Dutch army woudsl have problem fighting my puny europena nation but kept millions of indoneasans under their heel on other side of world.Ask youself why.
Beofe you accuse me of beign western apologetic-my coutnryu was bobmed by west 20 years ago and unlike most of colonised whiners we have backone and fight our opressors and had been fighting them for centuries.Ottotomans left my coutnry in worst state themn when they conqured us in 1459.440 year of occupaion bud.
@@villhelmYour sociopathy does not invalidate anyone else’s arguments.
@@villhelm why attacking the original commenter on such a low level???
You didn’t get the point he was making.
The colonialism is still alive, just the tactics and overall way of colonising has changed.
Just look a bit further into eg the history of France with Africa .
To stay with the example. The northern hemisphere needs the global south to stay in that status quo in order to keep the living standard on level. This is not me saying but western economical and political analysts.
For this there will be no real free and fair governance of those former colonial states.
How come every nation pegs its currency to the dollar - yet that piece of paper hasn’t got any real backup (from their OWN) to make the value of it.
Not really a considerable argument you made.
‘Behind every great fortune lies a great crime' Honoré de Balzac
Don't tell Swifties they're getting fleeced
behind every fortune is thousands of stores, businesses, better standard of living
@@taperecorder3 - yeah you’re right. People forget that the wealthy are primarily motivated to do good things. For example: the Koch family produce goods and services that help people first and foremost. The massive profits they make are only secondary. It just so happens that the more good they do for people the more money they make. Capitalism is based on the principle that if you do two or three good things for people in your entire life then you’ll be rewarded with more money than you can ever spend.
8:30 As an American, I need to point out that JK Rowling had the luxury of time to write Harry Potter because she lived in a society where her bills were paid and she had a place to live, food and healthcare covered due to the welfare state in the UK. We don’t have this in the US. Now everyone in that system doesn’t write Harry Potter, but how many have we missed from people in similar circumstances in the US or other countries without a social safety net. JK also seems to have made disparaging statements against the British welfare system.
JK Rowling is a market radicalist
Rather than put a cap on wealth how about that there should be a minimum that people should have which is food, shelter and access to health and education.
I think both these things go hand in hand
I recommend you to check out the concept of “zakat” and economy in Islam. It’s mind blowing.
This almost gets to something that needs to happen: interlinked, international trade unions. Eg Retail unions in the global north should connect with manufacture and resource unions in the global south. Imagine if there was a strike to improve the conditions of garment makers in Bangladesh. And then the garment makers went on strike to improve the conditions of the people working in the Amazon warehouses etc etc. it’s just bananas that capital is global but unions operate within the scars in our minds and landscapes that are borders.
Thanks, finally someone got to know. Consuming other rights, making them refugee. Rest world knows
Both the speakers are very good.
Ash is the first person that actually got me to admit that I’m indeed a communist. I am American and therefore it is ingrained in my upbringing to recoil at a communist.
If only we could have discussion like this on mainstream media
Great interview Ash👍
Fantastic interview, much appreciated 😎
Rhianna, combined with her cosmetics and her music. Is now a billionare. Getting incredibly lucky that she got seen in Barbados.
She still is a capitalist at the end or the day. I love her music. But still.
Food for the thought;
Does her wealth generated from her cosmetic line come from fairly employees?
For each dollar she makes from her music; how much does the recording label make to invest on her art?
JK Rowling came from nothing single parent lived in a one bed rented flat ..I believe she is quite a philanthropist ..
Great to have a political discussion which attempts to address most peoples concerns, as opposed most of the rest.
Talking about how some get lucky and get rich hit hard. Made me think of this.
Yes, talent and hardwork mixed with good luck can make you a multimillionaire... And taking that newfound wealth and finding ways to exploit others in one way or another can make you a billionaire... But being a well connected sociopath and megalomaniac all but guarantees that you become a multibillionaire...
£10 million is MORE than enough for a very fancy house and a very comfortable living, right into and past retirement.
Was nice to hear Robeyns pointing towards more of a vision of degrowth/postgrowth steady-state economics as opposed to communism. Would like to see Downstream interview sone if the ecological economists she mentioned like Kate Raworth and Jason Hickel. Nate Hagens would also be great.
Phenomenal interview. Great interviewer and interviewee. Great discussion. The questions pushed deeper where I hoped and the interviewee was willing to be open and explore them.
Great stuff. Thank you.
Very interesting video! We need such conversations everywhere. We all know that the system is broken, but we don’t have the clarity to make a proper change.
Ash, you should have asked her what she would do if her book sold millions!
My very thought...
Haven't thought about land? ....water?
Just know that wall Street can now short water and make more money when our very limited drinking water dips to dangerous levels
interviewee lost me at this point, every analysis like this has to look seriously at land reform.
I was very struck by that comment too. You'd think an analysis/critique of land ownership would be fundamental to how we think about wealth.
It's the wasteful handling of energy materials and products that angers me living in the west... Just thoughtless treatment of so much stuff and things like it's of little to no consequence... Very little repair or maintenance knowledge or skills, mechanical, electrical or textiles ect...
The market drove the prices down so far that it became uneconomical for efficiency, ironically. Unfettered capitalism is often a ridiculous system. And it reflects in the politics as well: it's a lot less effort to care or do the right thing.
And communism is even worse.
Do you know if the one about the ussr almost wiping out the worlds whale populations, because of ridiculous arbitrary quotas? Look it up.
@@subcitizen2012 It's not that it's inefficient to repair something like for instance a bicycle that needs a fair bit of work, rather than just chuck it on the scrap heap to be melted because no one valued it enough to maintain in decent condition or to take time recondition components and rebuild. It's the externalising of cost the energy required to just melt it down again onto the environment and as such depriving the use of that energy for something or someone else.
We don’t have unfettered capitalism. We don’t have a free market, which is the cornerstone of capitalism.
What we have is a fractional reserve banking system which creates a need for continuous growth, which is the driver behind throw away culture. If we had a hard money system, that wasn’t inflationary, all the problems would be solved.
Unfortunately left wing commentators blame capitalism for the ills caused by a usurious banking system which is founded on central banks and money printing. Central banks are a pillar of communism/socialism not capitalism.
Its sooo expensive to repair.
I totally agree with Ingrid. Bill Gates is a prime example, too much money equals too much influence.
Not only that...I think too much money and power drives you crazy.
It is better to use the term "repurpose" the money than to say "redistribute" it, unless the redistribution is to ethical and responsible agencies that can redirect the money to uplift people to gain abilities to compete fearlessly in society. Mistakes need to be caught and corrected and not just punished. Respectful approaches that discourage fears need to be effortlessly implemented...
you had me until the word "compete". There i think you're still missing the point.
I think it's interesting that she sees her role as winning an argument which is a prerequisite for arguments for communism, it feels like "I'll do the groundwork, you do the revolution".
Amazing. Thank you for this. I think this is the first video i've seen with Ash, really good interviewer!
Fascinating interview as always, well done Ash! Ingrid is a very likeable and persuasive speaker
Amazing talking!!!!
I do agree with the goal structure.
We do want goals, but to worry every single day about having or not having is consuming and frustrating.
I’m like Ingrid, my father was under the regime of the Iron Curtain, so my parents hated communism.
Thank you both. I just asked my library to buy the audiobook.
When Plunder Becomes a Way of Life - Keiser Report
April 21, 2020
RT - Keiser Report
Creating A Desperate Working Class
In this episode of Keiser Report, Max and Stacy look at how the 'fiat moral code' has justified immorality in financial markets and the monetary system around us.
In the second half, Max interviews Will Reeves about the future of bitcoin markets after the halving and the case for individual sovereignty in an age of money printing.
Limitarianism!! Love it. Count me in.
The whole notion of an artist becoming becoming rich because they were lucky to have a hit song or book is bs. The chain of people involved before the consumer gets that product, (it has to become a mass produced product) is huge and most of the people in that chain are exploited and undervalued and underpaid
Lucky that the he has contact or was casually seen and reached by the music industry, and lucky that the industry woks in a way which the studio label gets 40% of the revenue, the big artists get 30 and the other 30 is to pay for the workers. Most artists dont have that luck
Just another educational discussion with a lot to learn from. Good job Ash 👏👏👏
The moral desert question is so crucial. Even Hayek admitted that neoliberalism would not distribute fairly, so why has this pernicious idea that people get what they deserve so hegemonic? We need to attack and frame from the left what “fairness” means in practice. Where resources are finite, fairness is only assessable in aggregate and not on reductive individual level of “I work hard so I deserve xxx money”. Luck swallows everything…
That was a fantastic discussion. Thank you
What a lovely and thoughtful woman. A really nice interview Ash.
Great show Ash! Thank you
Another theme you might discuss is 'What is Money'. You might intervieww Jay Taylor. He is locateced in New York. He's easy to find.
Greetings once again from Norway!
Fab Ash... You really know the questions to ask to get the best out of your interviewees
WOW !! what an amazing conversation. thanks.
Wealth of knowledge in this discussion. Thank you 🙏
Nice discussion. Thank you Ash!
A minimum wage and a maximum one as well.
A lot of people don’t have a concept of what wealth means in terms of spending power. So, imagine that someone has $100m in a high yield savings account earning 5% apr. That means they are receiving $5m a year in interest. Meaning they need to personally spend more than 13,700$ per day in order to start depleting their savings. Even at $10m, they’d be able to spend 41,000$ a month without getting “poorer” if you discount TVOM(basically inflation). Obviously this is discounting income tax, but the point stands. Wealth perpetuates itself in our system, and the point at which you can’t realistically spend it all living a normal life comes much sooner than most people think. Once you’ve had all the coke and bitches that your body can handle, what’re you gonna spend it on? If you answered “investments that make me even richer” you answered correctly. Lol
This was a very interesting interview, excellent questions from Ash. I would say that the terms communist and socialist are very divisive, and the problem of polarisation should not be underestimated.
One somewhat unexplored issue about wealtyh redistribution is that the massive undervaluing of food and basics given they most often result in exploitation of labour and land. This leads to an underestimation of a living wage in which we pay for food, energy, housing, and clothing at their real value.
Ook mooi om een Vlaams accent te horen
What a wonderful interview! From a psychological perspective the needs vs wants distinction is critical.
In the Hindu philosophy (common & foundational to all systems of spiritual philosophies from India), every human being is associated with what is four interests in life. They are (1) dharma [this importantly includes the Golden Rule [sort of claimed to be unique to Christianity], Charitable outlook, forgiveness, redemption and most of all what had been traditionally practiced by ones ancestry). (2) artha -- this interst includes acquiring wealth [both spiritual and material wealths]. Material wealth explicitly has no value if it doesn't subserve ones spirituality; in this case (with no sense of spirituality) the person is supposed to show only animal tendencies -- a life without a willingness to share with fellow man in need etc. This way artha serves ones interests in dharma. (3) kāma (not karma) - this is a broad term that has been translated as desire. If a person has desires (at various stages in life), then working for them is natural -- but that should not violate dharma (see above). Obviously, the desires encompass artha also! Infact desires should fulfill dharma and artha (within the dictates of ones conscience and traditions). The offshoot of these three can be seen to be Harmony within oneself and among the beings around him. Under these conditions, the individual is likely to experience the purity in his or mind -- which is then set to be hate-free and fear-free. In time, one effortlessly sees the culmination of 4th interest called moksha (or salvation or total contentedness) at which point -- in the opinion of a Hindu -- he can be elevated to the level of Godliness! The filthy rich, of all the people, wallows blindly in his so-called riches [not being spent on the needy] being oblivious to the purpose of ones being!
I find it astonishing just how much land and property is owned by the Grosvenor family.
really great discussion
Thank you. 😎
Agreed it is stolen - distribution of the extreme wealth is necessary. Perhaps inheritance should be the limiting area - offspring get an agreed amount and the balance goes back to the nation.
But that’s not gonna work either. This new system needs to be based on an extremely strong anti-imperialistic mindset. Otherwise, the richer nations are going to harass others.
That sounds ideal, but it will never happen!
I think having 100% inheritance tax instead of income taxes would be best. You can work to earn more to provide for your family while you are alive but everyone has a more similar starting point. I imagagen people would find ways around this though.
Those entrepreneurs create a lot of jobs, stimulate the economy should they not have the right to be wealthy. The tax loop holes that are in place that allow them to avoid paying, is where the problem is.
Ethical accumulation of wealth -
no bending of rules
no exploitation
then
after a certain amount of wealth (eg. for EU region from approx 450 €) is kept for a year and more, pay 2.5 % for the poor.
Outstanding interview!
A meritocracy would still have rich and poor, but by eliminating poverty you can ensure that the intellectual potential of our species is fully realised.
Pleasure from money is broadly speaking double your money add one unit of pleasure. We need to reverse the inequity imbalance to maximize societies pleasure.
I absolutely agree with the $10 million dollars/pounds limit.
I also have these discussions with people, intuitively I think that income after a certain level should be heavily taxed. However, on the other hand, I think, what about capital allocation? Can we achieve efficient capital allocation if individuals are not allowed to amass capital? Maybe there should be limitations per asset class? For instance, if you found a company and its shares explode eventually and you become a billionaire in market cap, should the government tax your unrealized gains in the market, should they take your ownership away? To me this sounds difficult to accept. However, maybe when we talk about owning real estate, how much real estate do you need, I could see limitations in real estate because that is something people need, each should be able to afford a place to stay.
Weird not to have an idea about land ownership... Als no mention of patents and copyright
Thanks!
wat en gezellig conversation
Yes you are 😮
She's got my vote...
Well my download & hosting of her book.😊
Sign me up, I am a limitarianist!
That "first stage" she describes does indeed have nightmarishly unfair mechanisms, even criminal. I could tell her some of the horrors I have seen in the lowest levels of the music industry in Los Angeles.
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.
(Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). Just thought you might like that!
I am extremely sorry to ask this but how can you even just start to conceive a fairer economy without thinking about land?
A super-clear example of personal bias masquerading as philosophy. Having said that, being a billionaire is quite obscene. But individuals operate within the monetary and political framework they are in, that framework is the one that needs revision, not individuals.
I have to say I really enjoyed this talk.
Excellent guest!
Just saw this and am so so excited! I've been thinking about this a cpl years now and it makes sense in my head and gut. So curious to see what they say
More importantly is the question of people with lots of money going after absolute power.
I think there are limits on how you can make money called rules regulations and laws. Too often they are ignored or not enforced. Also there taxes which do somewhat wealth however the majority of the electorate around the globe opt for the imbalanced status quo which guarantee's their own poverty whenever they have the choice.
I think it's the natural competitive instinct of males which drives it. The need to own to have the most of every resource, to beat everybody, to win to be a king, is what's behind a system which keeps the world perpetually in wars and conflicts
Im surprised she said she hadn't considered property lol. It wasn't all that long ago, at least in the US, when land itself was free for the taking. If you could cross the rivers and plains and mountains and sustain your explorations,you could stake a homestead out west. These days it's not free anymore but it's pretty cheap. However, understandably, a lot of the worthwhile land has long been settled.
Profiteering Predatory Capitalism
People generally are referring to the "THEORY" of capitalism, not the REALITY of capitalism. There are no moral clauses to the concept of capitalism. It's driven by the wealthy elites, that will ultimately control the currency system and the government and therefore control direction of the flow of wealth.
What happens when capitalism collapses and fails? It appears that it get re-named, socialism. Not corrupt capitalism, Authoritarian capitalism or Totalitarian capitalism. The "theory" of capitalism isn't the same as the "reality" of capitalism. You both should know this.
I like her! ✅️
I'm on ingrids wave length. I've been talking about maximum wages for a long time
Thanks! I knew nothing about her or 'limitarianism' - gonna get the book.
Why would you want 10 million?! Excellent question - what is it you need to buy, to get, that needs that much money? You can get a yacht for less, and realistically how often will you be in your yacht? Is the yacht more fun than an mdma fueled rave in the mud (betraying my age)?? And if you think you need the millions for your kids, how much can they buy? Sooner or later someone is getting buried with a few millions... what is the point?!? Plus, those millions have to be administered, stored, invested probably... which i suppose creates jobs forgot accountants, lawyers and bankers, but is that really something to be encouraged? Surely those guys should get a 'proper job', sooner rather than later😂the whole thing is demented...
But yes, fear plays into it... i bet that today many people rightly freak out about the future of the planet and their offspring having to be able to afford a safe bunker in the mountains somewhere... harder to argue with that...
Ingrid asks "Why would anyone want $10 million?" Well, when everything in our society is commodified including housing, healthcare, food, transportation, education, etc. and retirement benefits are too small to survive on, the drive to want a lot of money becomes a natural one in our lives. The only way to make such a wealth cap viable is if it is done in conjunction with a whole array of robust social programs to ensure that those with very little money still have all the necessities they need for a happy dignified life. So also a high minimum wage and even UBI should be a part of the whole equation.
Great discussion 😊
a lot of good points and solutions, enjoyed listening to this chat.
Having a serious opinion does not make RJ Rawlings transphobic.
For example, having intact biological men in women’s spaces has led to rape. The police report will say a man dressed as a woman raped, or a woman with a penis?
Also, JK Rawlings wrote her first book as a single mother raising a daughter and living on benefits.
She succeeded wonderfully. She deserves the fruit of her sacrifice, labor and talent.
How can you write a whole book about wealth inequality without thinking seriously about property???? Jesus
This was exactly what I was looking for but I couldn’t find the words to express the thoughts.
I will be ordering the book and taking many notes.
Ms. Robeyns has her thumb on “it”.
Ideas and ways to begin to rebuild out of the antiquated structures that have brought us to this critical moment we must be dealing with in the first place.
Thank-you Ash & Novara Media ❤❤❤
Let's implement that then!
Good point, but doesn't "not having or unequal wealth" promote creativity with hard work where as "balanced/shared wealth-limit" leads to stagnancy on linear economic spectrum?
A personal limit of 10 million in wealth hardly stops you from earning more than somebody else! Nor would a minimum standard of living, or a government intervening in economic matters (or the workers controlling the means of production, for that matter). This argument in favour of the status quo never makes any sense!
no
The fact that someone would ask this question within the golden age of information is a depressing example of how far we have yet to go... Do some research on monopoly power relatives to creativity, progress, and overall benefit to cost rationality. The short answer to your question is a resounding no.
“If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists.”
― Friedrich Hayek
one of the biggest problems with our society is that a huge number of poor people do not understand just how rich the rich really are