I mean 35% is not so much higher than many consumer credit cards in America. If you're doing a microloan you might as well [go for 100%](https://americancynic.net/log/2018/12/6/some_thoughts_on_kivas_interest_rates/).
I feel like of all the places that money was going to go, "let Yud write fanfic" is probably one of the least harmful ones. Like, yeah, obviously you could give that money to combat poverty, disease, or starvation, but equally obviously the people who give money to Yud are not going to do that.
Wait, I thought these types were in to effective altruism? You could
build and staff 1000+ state of the art hospitals with that money, or
vaccinate every single person in the world against most common diseases,
or a hundred other things.
You'd have to be some sort of deranged Randian freak not to; but how can you also not condemn them for *not* giving away their resources? Becoming and remaining a billionaire is completely morally and ethically indefensible.
Think of what percentage of your annual income 00 is!
We take for granted, of course, that the “you” he’s addressing isn’t
one of the four billion people who live on less than a day, for whom
that 00 would be a very significant percentage of their annual income.
Certainly not one of the 80-odd-million Congolese people living on less
than .25 a day, for whom it would be almost three months’ wages.
They don’t have smartphones or computers, so they’re not on Twitter,
so they’re not real.
I mean, it’s a good argument against the “the world/country would
work great as it is, we just need to tax billionaires” take some libs
have, but Yud seem to think that if billionaires not having enough money
for everybody in the world to live comfortably forever makes means they
don’t have much power.
Also, focusing on the top 10 is asinine; the global billionaire wealth is more like $10T, so you could give everyone $1,000 while still leaving each of the 2,200 billionaires with over $1B each. So long as we're thought experimenting seamless wealth transfers.
Of course the real issue is the obscene amount of political power that comes with 2,200 people having as much wealth as the bottom 4,000,000,000, which allows them to rig the game toward ever increasing inequality and exploitation. Obfuscations upon obfuscations.
No no someone takes that on in the comments! Obviously rich people aren’t influencing elections, because there’s no evidence of them directly influencing elections, so we don’t need to worry about it. I am very smart.
> I mean, it's a good argument against the "the world/country would work great as it is, we just need to tax billionaires"
Is it? Someone in Yud's audience will probably have heard of that "effective altruism" thing where you observe that the same $100 a Bay Area resident might shrug off as pocket change means a lot more to someone in rural India or sub-Saharan Africa, where incomes are in high three- to low four-digit range. [$100 would be a 10% increase to the global median household income.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country) And that's only considering an anecdote of 10 hoarders, and assuming you give everyone a flat amount instead of progressive distribution.
He’s misunderstanding (willfully or not) why people focus on
billionaires. They may not have the majority of wealth, but they have
disproportionate impact. Also their very existence is absurd. But yeah,
any reasonable tax policy has to tax the dentists too.
That feeling when you argue that one single person on the planet is
contributing at least a million times more productivity to the global
economy than any other single person. Does Eliezer really believe that
all of these billionaire’s wealth comes from being paid a wage? Of
course he doesnt, hes just playing political twatball.
He's saying that billionaires don't actually control much since their combined wealth is a tiny fraction of the combined annual income of everyone else on earth. What the fuck?
Yud is allergic to engaging with anything at the object level. So if someone says there's a problem with the existence of billionaires, or claims that there's such a thing as "having too much money," he can't form a model for how billionaires are capable of (and have) used their economic power in specific ways that people with less money can't. Instead, he can only engage with the concepts of "billionaires" and "having money" in the aggregate, and since he has no theory of power I can discern, he looks at proportions as the only indicators of where power actually sits.
Yud's just dusting off a decade-old [Republican talking point](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/oct/20/paul-ryan/ryan-says-100-percent-tax-millionaires-would-only-/).
No see the “what percentage of your annual income is $100” point. He’s saying in the grand scheme of things, the top 10 billionaires have an irrelevant amount of ~~money~~ wealth (and therefore redistribution is not sensible? idk the conclusion to be inferred)
Very America-centric point, $100 is like 3 months income in the poorest countries
Edit: Wealth, not liquid money, for accuracy’s sake
where others would only distribute money as needed to key figures in
politics and industry, yud understands that in our global direct
democracy you have to give to everyone.
You can’t just give poor people 100 bucks, everyone knows this has no effect.
You should microloan it to them at 35% annual interest rate though, that has been shown to really work.
[deleted]
Wait, I thought these types were in to effective altruism? You could build and staff 1000+ state of the art hospitals with that money, or vaccinate every single person in the world against most common diseases, or a hundred other things.
We take for granted, of course, that the “you” he’s addressing isn’t one of the four billion people who live on less than a day, for whom that 00 would be a very significant percentage of their annual income. Certainly not one of the 80-odd-million Congolese people living on less than .25 a day, for whom it would be almost three months’ wages.
They don’t have smartphones or computers, so they’re not on Twitter, so they’re not real.
Dog biscuits for good behavior.
same as for everyone else who does it. they do it for the fucking money
I mean, it’s a good argument against the “the world/country would work great as it is, we just need to tax billionaires” take some libs have, but Yud seem to think that if billionaires not having enough money for everybody in the world to live comfortably forever makes means they don’t have much power.
He’s misunderstanding (willfully or not) why people focus on billionaires. They may not have the majority of wealth, but they have disproportionate impact. Also their very existence is absurd. But yeah, any reasonable tax policy has to tax the dentists too.
That feeling when you argue that one single person on the planet is contributing at least a million times more productivity to the global economy than any other single person. Does Eliezer really believe that all of these billionaire’s wealth comes from being paid a wage? Of course he doesnt, hes just playing political twatball.
What a stupid comparison
am i too high already? he’s saying the billionaires wouldn’t miss the money, right?
where others would only distribute money as needed to key figures in politics and industry, yud understands that in our global direct democracy you have to give to everyone.
[deleted]