Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress. That’s according to the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

  • uphillbothways@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A fever is a symptom and similarly it is one that must be treated directly to save the life of the patient.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the much stronger analogy. Billionaires are a problem in and of themselves, but only getting rid of billionaires will just lay the groundwork for new billionaires

      • eric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It really depends on how you “get rid” of billionaires.

        If you do it in a way that ties a wealth limit to minimum wages, then we won’t have billionaires until they raise the income of the lower class to a point where the economic climate permits billionaires. Tying it to a fixed 1,000,000,000 monies would be a horribly flawed design because it would not be inflation proof and would vary across currencies. After all, a billionaire in dollar$ isn’t the same as a billionaire in ¥en.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Within a socdem or capitalist society, neither of those solutions would be effective at eliminating billionaires or the inequality that comes with their existence. The only solution that could guarantee an elimination of billionaires is to seize their property and wealth (they can only have 1 house) and establish a socialist society.

          • eric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not sure how you got multiple solutions out of my comment. I was suggesting instituting a wealth tax (rather than an income tax), which is literally seizing their property and wealth, so I think we are in agreement here that such a solution would be the only way it works. However, I don’t think it should be a fixed monetary limit, rather one that changes based on economic indicators.

            • trafguy
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              We honestly should just replace every single fixed dollar amount in every law with an algebraic formula. It’s ridiculous that we design laws to become dated and require replacement.

              Minimum wage should be tied to worker productivity, and wealth tax should be tied to the median personal income, including that of non-working adults. Welfare programs should be tied to regional cost of living. Limits on rent should be tied to changes in regional median income.

              We’re already tracking most or all of that data anyway, might as well put it to maximum use.

              • eric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Agreed, and it’s not a novel idea. At least a few smarter countries already create policies that periodically update according to a formula.

              • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fines should scale with wealth. If a billionaire gets a parking ticket, the fine should be tens of thousands of dollars.

                Fun side effect is this might encourage the cops to bother the wealthy instead, which might lead to police reform.