Society should be structured such that only a specific percentage of wealth may be amassed by a specific percentage of the population. Aka billionaires shouldn’t exist. Their consistent qualities described in this paper are deeply unpleasant.
"Billionaires" are the few people who can afford tackling large projects, such as developing reusable space rockets (see SpaceX), or putting public libraries across he country (see Carnegie), or founding a really weighty scientific award (see Nobel).
Monopolies (especially via regulatory capture) are bad. Rich folks who actually made the money (not inherited it in fifth generation) are usually pretty okay.
> Billionaires" are the few people who can afford tackling large projects
I disagree: What billionaire "tackled" the Manhattan project, or the US interstate highway system?
Even if we exclude governments/taxpayers for some arbitrary reason, that also leaves corporations consisting of lots of sub-billionaires.
If it seems like only billionaires can do such things these days, perhaps that indicates that other options have been politically neutered by somebody for some reason.
The Manhattan project was a result of a pretty critical situation (the beginning of the nuclear race), and was started by a Nobel laureate, a radical reformer of physics, with a group of other physics luminaries. Not billionaires, but much more rare birds.
The interstate highway project was arguably taken during a very deep and long-lasting crisis by the off-the-charts administration of FDR, who served three consecutive terms, despite whatever traditions, and deeply reworked many American state institutions; talk about overconfidence.
I'd say that the peak power of a POTUS is larger than that of a billionaire; the latter may have a longer planning horizon though, and put in effort and resources for a couple of decades.
That also comes with a lot of downside though. Their overconfidence means that they wade in to topics they have no actual expertise on and force things that are unviable.
> Billionaires" are the few people who can afford tackling large projects
I disagree too.
SpaceX? - How much work and knowledge of taxpayer funded NASA did SpaceX reuse.
Carnegie? - Public libraries isn't a project. Public libraries were always there. It was nice of him to create them but it is nowhere close to creating interstate highways or the Channel Tunnel or the Golden Gate Bridge.
10 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 56.2 ms ] threadMonopolies (especially via regulatory capture) are bad. Rich folks who actually made the money (not inherited it in fifth generation) are usually pretty okay.
I disagree: What billionaire "tackled" the Manhattan project, or the US interstate highway system?
Even if we exclude governments/taxpayers for some arbitrary reason, that also leaves corporations consisting of lots of sub-billionaires.
If it seems like only billionaires can do such things these days, perhaps that indicates that other options have been politically neutered by somebody for some reason.
The interstate highway project was arguably taken during a very deep and long-lasting crisis by the off-the-charts administration of FDR, who served three consecutive terms, despite whatever traditions, and deeply reworked many American state institutions; talk about overconfidence.
I'd say that the peak power of a POTUS is larger than that of a billionaire; the latter may have a longer planning horizon though, and put in effort and resources for a couple of decades.
One example here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/06/...
I disagree too.
SpaceX? - How much work and knowledge of taxpayer funded NASA did SpaceX reuse.
Carnegie? - Public libraries isn't a project. Public libraries were always there. It was nice of him to create them but it is nowhere close to creating interstate highways or the Channel Tunnel or the Golden Gate Bridge.
Judging from the way SpaceX builds, fuels, and flies their rockets and engines, very-very little.
Their contracts with NASA and later DoD did, of course, play a significant role. But I suppose they were chosen on merit.