i appreciate that you're one of the few serial founders/lifelong technology leaders who i see talking about inequality as a barrier to stability and progress
The issue is NOT the gap of wealth, but a combination of making sure that we have class mobility and freedom and preventing the corruption and big government control that undermines class mobility and freedom.
If I must jump through 10 bureaucratic hoops to start a business, I might only have the time/energy to get through 9, removing the possibility of me opening my business and creating new jobs by both needing supplies for my business and by being successful enough to need help conducting that business.
If I have to jump through 100 hoops, LOTS of people won't be able to make a new business, and that will slow the economy even more... but that also benefits EXISTING corporations because there's less competition from new businesses.
The same goes for high cost of living and high overhead from expensive gasoline/electricity. Those make it harder for the poor to live and for everyone to get ahead.
Redistribution by a bureaucracy means *that the bureaucracy will spend that money where the bureaucracy itself gets the most benefits*. This is why so many government grants and "green initiatives" and more FAIL when the cronies and scammers and connected con men take the money, run, and then donate a chunk of it to the politicians to get more later.
"Economic equality" ISN'T about everybody having the same amount of money.
It's about OPPORTUNITY and EVERYBODY benefitting because the economy grows without the parasite of government holding it back.
And NO, that doesn't mean infinite growth, as there's times where the market will shrink and change because times change. What it means is that the benefits of trusting freedom will ALWAYS do better than government spending money politically
So you are saying we would be better off with communism, because that what Harris aim is.
Its easy to say this... but the great world you built is capalist world. There are poor people who can't afford all flashy things...like nice bodies etc... then there is high sky land fees...
If one truly wants to believe what preach.. they must act on it.
That would be slashing sky high land costs, so there is no profit. or redistribute any profit to users.
You are 'government' of Second Life. Just like 'trump' is government of USA.
Its not true that taxing more will make stronger, if you Philip were tax 80% of wealth... what would answer be... also every rich person can donate extra. but what is a fair extra tax. where do you define it.. and finally... trump government policy can have no effect on this... as rich person. You are in position to convince other rich to donate fair reasonable tax, government does not have option.
“With a Harris administration we might have seen a “rip the band-aid off” moment where a lot of civil unrest or even violence would lead to some reductions in inequality.”
I think it is deeply defeatist to say the only way we as a nation can fix things is for there to be all out war.
But even if you do believe it, will strengthening the establishment make that outcome more likely to occur? 1984 doesn’t end in victory.
Maybe things have to get worse (rock bottom) before they get better? Better meaning genuine reform to economic redistribution systems. Even since the 2008 crash, governments of countries like the US and UK are content to keep "polishing a turd" rather than make any fundamental reforms that would, ironically, ease the anger that has built up for decades among low income people who voted for the likes of Trump and Brexit (as pointed out by economist Mark Blyth years ago).
Those on the right especially in America tend to label any talk of redistributing wealth as communism because that word is so loaded. I’m left of centre, a left-leaning liberal. I am very pro-free enterprise and have also worked in startups. There are miles of daylight between modern socialist-leaning economies and the “communism”fear-mongering that evokes images of the failing USSR.
Anyone who studies history knows you can’t push the wealth gap too far. We don’t need more billionaires but we’re going to get them. We’re just talking about somehow taxing them a bit more. What I find bizarre is the poorer people voting for people in the billionaires club, who only care about one thing 💸
Thanks for your take on this. We are part of this history like it or not. It is what we have meant.
i appreciate that you're one of the few serial founders/lifelong technology leaders who i see talking about inequality as a barrier to stability and progress
The issue is NOT the gap of wealth, but a combination of making sure that we have class mobility and freedom and preventing the corruption and big government control that undermines class mobility and freedom.
If I must jump through 10 bureaucratic hoops to start a business, I might only have the time/energy to get through 9, removing the possibility of me opening my business and creating new jobs by both needing supplies for my business and by being successful enough to need help conducting that business.
If I have to jump through 100 hoops, LOTS of people won't be able to make a new business, and that will slow the economy even more... but that also benefits EXISTING corporations because there's less competition from new businesses.
The same goes for high cost of living and high overhead from expensive gasoline/electricity. Those make it harder for the poor to live and for everyone to get ahead.
Redistribution by a bureaucracy means *that the bureaucracy will spend that money where the bureaucracy itself gets the most benefits*. This is why so many government grants and "green initiatives" and more FAIL when the cronies and scammers and connected con men take the money, run, and then donate a chunk of it to the politicians to get more later.
"Economic equality" ISN'T about everybody having the same amount of money.
It's about OPPORTUNITY and EVERYBODY benefitting because the economy grows without the parasite of government holding it back.
And NO, that doesn't mean infinite growth, as there's times where the market will shrink and change because times change. What it means is that the benefits of trusting freedom will ALWAYS do better than government spending money politically
That is much better view. It's not a bandaid where government just spends more money and taxs.
Well said, Philip.
So you are saying we would be better off with communism, because that what Harris aim is.
Its easy to say this... but the great world you built is capalist world. There are poor people who can't afford all flashy things...like nice bodies etc... then there is high sky land fees...
If one truly wants to believe what preach.. they must act on it.
That would be slashing sky high land costs, so there is no profit. or redistribute any profit to users.
You are 'government' of Second Life. Just like 'trump' is government of USA.
Its not true that taxing more will make stronger, if you Philip were tax 80% of wealth... what would answer be... also every rich person can donate extra. but what is a fair extra tax. where do you define it.. and finally... trump government policy can have no effect on this... as rich person. You are in position to convince other rich to donate fair reasonable tax, government does not have option.
Maybe people have to lose it all before they realize they've been conned.
“With a Harris administration we might have seen a “rip the band-aid off” moment where a lot of civil unrest or even violence would lead to some reductions in inequality.”
I think it is deeply defeatist to say the only way we as a nation can fix things is for there to be all out war.
But even if you do believe it, will strengthening the establishment make that outcome more likely to occur? 1984 doesn’t end in victory.
Maybe things have to get worse (rock bottom) before they get better? Better meaning genuine reform to economic redistribution systems. Even since the 2008 crash, governments of countries like the US and UK are content to keep "polishing a turd" rather than make any fundamental reforms that would, ironically, ease the anger that has built up for decades among low income people who voted for the likes of Trump and Brexit (as pointed out by economist Mark Blyth years ago).
Mark Blyth! Yes.
Those on the right especially in America tend to label any talk of redistributing wealth as communism because that word is so loaded. I’m left of centre, a left-leaning liberal. I am very pro-free enterprise and have also worked in startups. There are miles of daylight between modern socialist-leaning economies and the “communism”fear-mongering that evokes images of the failing USSR.
Anyone who studies history knows you can’t push the wealth gap too far. We don’t need more billionaires but we’re going to get them. We’re just talking about somehow taxing them a bit more. What I find bizarre is the poorer people voting for people in the billionaires club, who only care about one thing 💸