Hacker News

points by N_Lens 1 day ago | 0 comments

Either you buy into the rich as job creators (myth) or you see them as parasites extracting all spare capacity and wealth from society.

[–] Steltek 1 day ago

Wouldn't they retain a lot of ability to do that from abroad? A wealth tax targets wealth in your country. We've seen plenty of loopholes for foreign political influence lately and I don't think there are any laws against non-residents holding majority shares in US companies, right?

[–] throwaway27448 1 day ago

That's hardly a reason to not attempt to rein them in.

[–] reliabilityguy 1 day ago

USSR had no rich and everyone one was poor (except for the party’s apparatus).

So, how would it work here? Why eliminating the rich (whatever is the definition) would achieve a different outcome than that of communist regimes of the past?

[–] throwaway27448 1 day ago

This doesn't even make sense. Poverty is a relative term. Poverty requires wealth.

Anyway what little meager juice that these ideological labels had after the cold war is now gone with china as king of the hill. We can all agree private investment = rapid growth, and state intervention both in terms of social safety nets and actively ensuring fair competition (where that is necessary—banking, anti-trust, food/med production, etc) = stabler economies (or we agreed on this for a few decades after the great depression anyway). It's what the point of the economy is—to serve the disproportionate interests of rich or the collective (one might even say... democratic) interests of people—where there remains substantive disagreement. I hope we can leave this farce behind that how we talk about ideology has any relation to how the terms were actually defined in lieu or acknowledging material reality for a change.

[–] reliabilityguy 1 day ago

> This doesn't even make sense. Poverty is a relative term.

It makes perfect sense. Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west, didn’t have access to the same variety of food, cloth, etc.

I do remember all these things from my childhood, and my parents made more money than the average because they worked for the oil and gas industry that paid extra. So, when people are trying to sell me the whole “collectivism” and anti-rich sentiment, I am a bit wary because no one can explain how “this time” is going to be different — it seems none of the activists/advocates actually lived in such systems, so they have no clue. I lived the consequences, and I do not want it for myself or anyone else.

I would say the point of the economy is to ensure that both the rich get what they want, but also to ensure that others are not poor and left behind. This is not the case today, and thus a series of reforms is needed. But it’s doesn’t make a believer for the “let’s abolish the rich” thing.

[–] whoanoway 1 day ago

> Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west

Because of internal corruption and external embargoes and a government budget that could fund a global cold war.

> collectivism

What kind collectivism can happen when anyone can snitch on their neighbour over made up reasons?

https://www.history.com/articles/kgb-soviet-russia-secret-po...

Just don't do the above, and you're fine.

[–] reliabilityguy 18 hours ago

> Because of internal corruption and external embargoes and a government budget that could fund a global cold war.

The west also funded Cold War, and is not free from corruption.

> Just don't do the above, and you're fine.

How else would you ensure the purity of thought?

[–] throwaway27448 1 day ago

> Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west

Well that's because we're a bunch of greedy bitches who never learned how to play nice with the other kids—capitalism. It would take a hell of a lot more wealth generation for humanity to justify this kind of economic dysfunction.

[–] reliabilityguy 1 day ago

Sure. What else is Americas fault? Did the US force Stalin to make gulag?

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

[–] throwaway27448 1 day ago

I mean we made something far worse than the gulag with the american prison system (basically, the punitive theory of rape). It seems we just became all the evil that the soviet system was allegedly supposed to cause from the western perspective 50 years ago.

[–] reliabilityguy 18 hours ago

Yes, taking the whole families in the middle of night and sending them to Siberia to build railroads is exactly the same as American prison, access to attorney, etc.

[–] IAmBroom 1 day ago

Antibiotics don't cure cancer. That doesn't mean we shouldn't administer them where they are effective.

Also, you are strongly implying the USSR taxed the wealthy disproportionately. They did not, so your entire argument is silly.

[–] reliabilityguy 1 day ago

> Also, you are strongly implying the USSR taxed the wealthy disproportionately. They did not, so your entire argument is silly.

They absolutely did. The tax was 100% and then camps for the whole family.

My argument is not silly, in fact I did not make any. I asked how exactly we are going to be better off without the rich, and what kind of metrics were used to make the analysis. So far there was no answer.

Saying someone’s argument is silly and then walking off is silly.