My fear about curbing it is that we seem to lack a collective understanding of pernicious root causes, or even a majority viewpoint
It also seems to be one of the few (non-war) ways to research & kick start an industry that has an extremely high barrier to entry.
Flight, rocketry, railroads, steam, telegraph, physics breakthroughs, etc.: All arguably required big capitalist periods and/or escalating conflict in to get their start (not to entirely dismiss government initiatives, nor innovations made during lean times).
So I am equally wary, and partly because this is how we can most peacefully 'plant trees that future generations can sit under'. Those trees might just never exist if we don't go all-in at some point.
Having said that, I would support certain anti-competition breakups.
This is the intense appeal of the billionaire-you-agree-with. They can use their resources to accomplish what you and they want, bypassing or defeating the forces that maintain the status quo. It’s essentially a superhero fantasy, with a bit of operatic revenge as well.
Some CEOs or VPs hold this appeal as well, telling the middle managers to stuff it while the workers cheer.
Sure, I am definitely concerned that my high level worries are being nudged to and fro by certain parties subconsciously (and the resulting rabbit hole of locating the actual source / counter, counter-counter propaganda etc...)
But on the ground, I would be considered an enemy of the billionaires.
SMEs and large corps would benefit, but billionaires and trillionaire mega corps would sacrifice a lot.
The progressive income taxes I implemented would probably seem absurd to most HN readers (negative at the bottom, ridiculously high at the top)
The inheritance taxes: same.
Corporation taxes: same.
I would propose that X is forced to sell to the US gov (unless large changes are implemented), which would seem absurd to even most centrists and many leftists. (If it's indeed a town square, then we will make it a proper town square).
I would force breakup of most of the largest companies in very specific ways (and think it's feasible, without sacrificing a nation's competitiveness and productivity).
My idealistic stance is that the very top can effectively be curtailed while letting the innovation and big business continue either undisturbed or empowered. I.e. it is not 'have my cake and eat it too', but 'There are two tiers of elites to deal with in very different ways'. Remove the billionaire playground, keep the capitalist innovation.
Comments
It also seems to be one of the few (non-war) ways to research & kick start an industry that has an extremely high barrier to entry.
Flight, rocketry, railroads, steam, telegraph, physics breakthroughs, etc.: All arguably required big capitalist periods and/or escalating conflict in to get their start (not to entirely dismiss government initiatives, nor innovations made during lean times).
So I am equally wary, and partly because this is how we can most peacefully 'plant trees that future generations can sit under'. Those trees might just never exist if we don't go all-in at some point.
Having said that, I would support certain anti-competition breakups.
This is the intense appeal of the billionaire-you-agree-with. They can use their resources to accomplish what you and they want, bypassing or defeating the forces that maintain the status quo. It’s essentially a superhero fantasy, with a bit of operatic revenge as well.
Some CEOs or VPs hold this appeal as well, telling the middle managers to stuff it while the workers cheer.
Sure, I am definitely concerned that my high level worries are being nudged to and fro by certain parties subconsciously (and the resulting rabbit hole of locating the actual source / counter, counter-counter propaganda etc...)
But on the ground, I would be considered an enemy of the billionaires. SMEs and large corps would benefit, but billionaires and trillionaire mega corps would sacrifice a lot.
The progressive income taxes I implemented would probably seem absurd to most HN readers (negative at the bottom, ridiculously high at the top) The inheritance taxes: same. Corporation taxes: same. I would propose that X is forced to sell to the US gov (unless large changes are implemented), which would seem absurd to even most centrists and many leftists. (If it's indeed a town square, then we will make it a proper town square). I would force breakup of most of the largest companies in very specific ways (and think it's feasible, without sacrificing a nation's competitiveness and productivity).
My idealistic stance is that the very top can effectively be curtailed while letting the innovation and big business continue either undisturbed or empowered. I.e. it is not 'have my cake and eat it too', but 'There are two tiers of elites to deal with in very different ways'. Remove the billionaire playground, keep the capitalist innovation.