> The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here
It was not so abstract when Musk came up with 44 billion to buy Twitter... The details are complicated but in the end it's still wealth.
> Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
Presumably he would sell the stock to pay the wealth tax (or whatever mechanism is there to limit wealth)?
As for the voting control: when you're down to 9% this ship has sailed hasn't it? Anyway I don't think society has a moral obligation to allow individuals personal control of a trillion dollar company because they founded it (and if society disagrees with me, super-voting shares can be used as Alphabet does).
Isn't there also an effect like the second billion dollar being easier to get than the first? I mean all your points are good but the fact that the system allows you to leverage your wealth to increase it is probably the most important factor to get to $250B.
Absolutely, the more money you have the more risk you can take. That's fractions-of-a-martingale level money so you can probably chalk up a win before you lose it all. Musk uses the same playbook. Losing is for small fry.
Proverb from my granny to contemplate: the devil always craps on the larger heap.
Right, and the risk aspect is only a second order effect. The main effect applies even when you restrict yourself to low-risk investments: it's simply that the more you have, the more you can invest so the more you make on average. But yeah, higher risk tolerance means you can also aim for higher returns.
> Going from zero to billionaire in two generations actually says something remarkable about our system.
This data point doesn't distinguish between a system that fairly rewards abilities, and one that works like a lottery. My guess is that the US is in between: it unfairly rewards abilities, and chance plays a large role.
Taking Jeff Bezos as example: 1) he certainly has remarkable abilities but maybe not 1,000,000 times more than the median American, yet he has about 1,000,000 times the wealth; 2) it's plausible that the US population of 350M includes several people with abilities similar to Bezos yet no notable wealth due to various circumstances. Both points suggest an unfair system.
Why are you assuming that “fairness” requires a linear distribution between ability and wealth? A winner-take-all system may be undesirable in many respects, but it’s not necessarily unfair.
Yeah there's no reason it should be a linear function, but it's a moot point anyway until we define what it would mean to have "X times more abilities".
My point is that having tycoons with 1,000,000 times the wealth of the median person is not a fair distribution, no matter which reasonable function you choose.
If you think superficially of "fair" like in a game, then yes a winner-take-all system can be fair. But when talking about socioeconomics, I think fairness goes a bit deeper. For example I would say a society with a lottery that picks one winner and tortures all others is not fair to those who lose (even though it's game-fair).
I think you have the right idea, if poorly worded. The economy is not a zero sum game, but the idea works when you apply it not on wealth but on wealth increase. That's more or less the famous r > g formula of Piketty: when the rate of return of capital is larger than the growth rate of the economy, wealth gets more concentrated. Its application has been disputed but the basic principle certainly applies in many situations.
With two “--force” options, that is essentially equivalent to “echo o > /proc/sysrq-trigger”, isn’t it? I would think that one “--force” would have the actually desired effect.
The udev developers decided that it made sense to move udev into systemd. If you disagree and want choice, you can fork udev. Actually some people did that, so you can run xterm with eudev instead of udev and thus avoid systemd (though eudev seems hardly maintained now, with the latest release in 2023).
I think it's true that it's an exhausting battle to keep all those parts independent when 95% of the devs/money agree it's better to integrate them. But it wouldn't be fair either for the 5% to put on the others the burden of keeping things independent because of their own preferences...
eudev was just a copy of the udev part of systemd, with some patches to build on musl, and work without systemd.
All of that has been upstreamed now, LFS has instructions on how to build udev from the latest systemd release, without building systemd itself.
"Any job you can do is eligible" is highly inaccurate. I went through this after my PhD funding in NL ran out, which is considered a layoff. I only had to demonstrate that I made some applications to relevant jobs. No pressure whatsoever to go work in some unrelated job.
Yes, the UWV [1] unemployment benefits are not perpetual (I don't recall the exact formula used to calculate the eligibility length). But even after your unemployment benefits stop, depending on the level of your savings, you may be eligible for receiving other benefits (e.g. health insurance and rent).
Overall, it is a very pro-worker system, with the major benefit of it being not "free money" (as US readers may assume), but the decreased leverage your employer has over you.
Do note that you could be in the active group of an experiment if you had WW in the past 5-6 years. There was (is?) an experiment where they check some people less and even not force you to look but let you work it out on your own.
> Overall, it is a very pro-worker system
Having had to deal with parts of the Dutch system, I'm positive it's rigged against you. And you pay for it, it's literally a tax (WW premie, part of the "werknemersverzekeringen" aka employees insurance).
It was before 2020, so I don't think there was any experiment. I had to regularly submit proof of job applications, and had to meet with UVW in person a few times.
The Dutch system is definitely rigged in the health insurance part, where they more-or-less applied US-style privatization.
But unemployment benefits are quite ok. Yes, we pay for it, the money have to come from somewhere. But it's not that your employer would handle you the money if you didn't have WW. And it's definitely better and more stress-free than GoFundMe campaigns (either as a donor or a recipient). And, again, the tilt in the employment power dynamics in your favour is priceless.
> Isn't prostitution legal in the Netherlands? A brothel can offer you a job and you have to accept?
It's in a somewhat comparable job but without regard for payment level or educational/promotional equivalence so you have to accept lower pay. The most extreme is a temp job but you have to be far gone to get there and even then there are limits.
Also, switching from a desk job to a physical job (which in this case is very physical) is not something the UWV (the goverment part which handles this) will try to bring up to a judge if you refuse as Dutch law has a "reasonability" principle and you can very easily argue that would be unreasonable.
The again, this is the UWV we are talking about. They task people with chronic fatigue syndrom to work for 20 hours a week in the fields because "their sheet says so".
The length of unemployment benefits is calculated in work years: 3 months are guaranteed, for every year worked you get 1 extra month up to 10, then 0.5 per year (changed in 2016 because the right has been in power for over 15 years).
I doubt that you will end up in the red light district but it’s possible that a middle management position will end up in an Amazon distribution center as an order picker or has to harvest strawberries.
Not that bad and you might learn some Polish or Romanian while doing those jobs as you will likely be the only Dutch person there.
Victim meets with police, signs affidavit, prosecutor goes to judge with affidavit, warrant written specifically for those items only. Should be simple and even digital if we wanted it to be.
An airtag alone will never be enough for a search warrant. They are not accurate enough and don't prove any actual crime was committed (maybe someone found your looted backpack in the trash). If there was security camera footage of the theft or you knew the thief and the cops could verify where they lived, that could likely be enough.
I guess the question would be how easy it is to fake this evidence. I don't know this tech. Could I throw my airtags in someone's bag and just take that to the police station and say look here on my phone, that's where my bags are, and then it's a he said/she said? Then the airtags aren't really adding anything to just your word "they took my bag".
reply