[andreilys]

There’s a lot of vitriol aimed at rich people right now, regardless of how they attained their wealth.

I imagine it’ll soon be transferred to talented people as well.

Soon we’ll be right where the story predicted, everyone wears handicaps to make themselves equal.

[rmrfstar]

> There’s a lot of vitriol aimed at rich people right now, regardless of how they attained their wealth.

Part of the problem is that our current property regime does not distinguish between property acquired through accession [1] and property acquired through extraction.

There is this weird philosophy that all "market transactions" are equally legitimate and that market price is the correct (and only reliable) indicator of economic value. This view ignores the fact that market prices are as much a product of market structure as they are a reflection of people's preferences.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_(property_law)

[pydry]

Our current property regime evolved that way for precisely that reason. Distinguishing the two and highlighting it would be a subversive, rather revolutionary act, which would attract a lot of hate.

[jaltekruse]

I don't care how you made your money, hoarding it should be looked down on. Greed is bad, we don't need to make things illegal, but I sure as hell am going to think anyone with a privately owned Yacht is a little bit worse of a person than someone reinvesting their money in their community and trying to explore new ideas, or if you are tired and don't want to personally invent stuff or run another business, go find some enthusiastic entrepreneur to support. I am not against rich people having power, I think we should get them to pay their damn taxes and fair share, but beyond part of their money that ought to be allocated by a democratically elected government they can do what they want with their wealth to control the world. But anyone using their money to just show how wealthy they are is going to get serious judgement from me, and I think that is a healthy way to think about rich people.

I think it should be likely obvious from my statement above, I want there to be talented people, and I really don't see a substantial movement to pull down successful people.

What are examples of things people are doing that make you think we are going in this direction?

[dnautics]

but seriously everything you are saying is seething with value judgements.

> should get them to pay their damn taxes and fair share

what constitutes a 'fair share'? Who gets to decide?

it's easy to criticize yachts. Let's say a billionaire did something "you might like" like throw a ton of money into a basic physics project. But what if that basic physics project is looking for superluminal neutrinos? Or maybe you'd criticize that the billionaire just wanted to get their name out, which is, essentially vanity, an obviously negative character trait.

Or we could get into sketchier territory. What if the billionaire spent tons of money in "development" in an "underdeveloped country". Is that bad or good? Who gets to decide?

I mean the ironic thing is that on many metrics, buying a yacht could be the least bad thing of the three things that I have mentioned, at least the likelihood of buying a yacht actively hurting someone else is relatively low.

[jaltekruse]

Absolutely, there are certainly ways to put on a show like you're helping people and not really care.

Finding those people is harder than the Yacht idiots, but that's why we have watchdogs for public charities and can make laws regulating what people can do with a charity.

If people are making investments not as part of a public charity, we have journalists to hopefully keep some high level accountability, but yeah youn can do bad stuff with money in a lot of ways, go figure.

Even people doing lots of good can still be seen on a spectrum, I love a lot of the work Bill Gates is doing around the world, but I think he worked really hard to fight FOSS, and I think the world is worse off in some ways for it.

I'm saying buying crazy expensive luxury goods is never a good thing, it's just a waste of resources to prop up someone's shallow ego.

[jaltekruse]

On taxes this will forever be an evolving discussion. Hopefully with good policies over the next few decades we can even out some of the income and wealth disparities and need a smaller welfare state. When that happens I'm all for tax cuts.

But at this point the capital gains rate is absolutely in need of change. Taxing the rich is really politically popular, across the political spectrum. If someone has to pay %39 on a million dollars of earned income, the "job creators" making billions can pay something closer to that on their income too.

[dnautics]

Well the whole taxation thing, IMO is insane. There was a year when I made 30k and paid a higher proportion of my income to taxes than Bernie Sanders. Anyways if it's income disparity you're looking to fix, taxing the rich isn't going to help. You need to stop stealing from the poor, which is what the government does via policies like QE. Taxing the rich is linear, the QE is compounding damage.

[dleslie]

Yacht builders are people too, y'know. Yachts don't simply materialize when a certain amount of money gathers near a port.

[jaltekruse]

Totally agree, but I believe anyone who has lots of money, and wants to defend they have money because they are smart and successful should realize that merely being a consumer isn't a very impactful way to contribute to society. Using piles of money to just scale up being a consumer to an absurd level is stupid.

I also think I wouldn't shed a year if Rolls Royce went out of business. There are manufacturing, design, welding jobs out there on markets that actually make sense to scale up. Some things in life you can currently buy don't provide enough value to justify them existing at all. They simply exist as a middle finger to everyone with less, propped up by the idiots that but them.

I'm not saying make anything illegal, I'm saying I judge people who support this and would encourage everyone else to do the same.

[dleslie]

Conspicuous consumption is _a_ primary driver of an enormous segment of the economy; it effects housing, electronics, textiles, hygiene, beauty products, liquor, and so on and on. Any luxury that can be experienced as an observer is subject to conspicuous consumption.

It's not absurd and stupid to display wealth, it's a function of being a social mammal. Moreover, it does contribute to society by way of employing legions.

When next you flip open your laptop, or publicly use your phone, or dress nicely, or discuss your vacationing, consider your own words about flaunting your wealth.

[jaltekruse]

If all we can ever do is submit to our most basic instincts we will never make progress.

Thinking collectively is what created civilized society and enabled the modern world.

I agree that consumption has created a lot of good in the world, I absolutely believe in capitalism, successful ideas need to triumph over bad ones.

I also understand that many innovations start out as extremely expensive luxury goods that are eventually commoditized. This is an important part of why I don't believe we should make excessive consumption illegal.

I know there will always be people who submit to these urges and buy fancy crap, and sometimes them doing that will help society at large more than it hurts. Some things are just objectively not helpful and are just gratuitous displays of wealth. I am happy to hear otherwise, but I just don't think that Yacht building has trickled down to a bunch of consumer goods that help the world.

High end fashion and beauty products I think reasonably belong in the same category. I think there are plenty of opportunities for more decentralized markets, local designers, that would be possible if rich people weren't buying so much mindshare and influence. And that's not to say I think the government should regulate everything, some if it just has to be individuals talking about things and changing consumption behavior.

[dleslie]

What you're missing is that "them buying fancy crap" is redistribution of wealth. I don't see how it's worse than your suggestions of investing in entrepreneurs; in both situations, something is bought and there is an expectation to extract value from it. On the one hand, they've bought a yacht; on the other hand, they've bought shares in a company.

I do not see what is objectively unhelpful about buying a yacht, or similar. Trades persons are paid, wealth is redistributed, utility and enjoyment is extracted from the product of their labour.

In all luxury consumption there is a redistribution of wealth; and _unlike_ with investment, there is no expectation to extract future wealth from the labour of others after the point of purchase.

In their own way, investors are parasites. They leverage their hoarded wealth to extract value from the labour of others.

[dariusj18]

Hit-men are people too, people don't magically get defenestrated when they speak out against Putin.

This absurdist remark is just to point out that just because people get paid to do a job, it doesn't mean it's a job we as a society want people to have.

[dleslie]

Yacht builders aren't committing a criminal act, or violating anyone's basic human rights, when engaging in their trade.

The only absurdist remark here is your comparison of Yacht Builders to Murderers.

[komali2]

Ok, but it's still unfair to assume that yacht builders are as good for society as farmers, simply because both food and yachts are purchased with money.

[dleslie]

Consider an industrial farm that only produces almonds at enormous expense to the regional ecology and grossly depletes the topsoil and water table, versus a family-owned yacht builder who builds from sustainable sources.

Nom nom on those roasted almonds and slurp that almond milk, but keep in mind that yacht builder is having less of a negative impact on the planet.

[dariusj18]

> The only absurdist remark here is your comparison of Yacht Builders to Murderers

Yes, that is exactly what I said. I made an absurdist remark ...

But your point is merely valid in a very narrow window of your own morality. I wanted you to reevaluate your perspective and think that perhaps yacht builders, or vulture capitalists, or any number of things that are considered legal, might not be good.

I'm not even trying to say that Yacht building is bad, but a system/society which has yacht builders in it could use a look.

[pydry]

>There’s a lot of vitriol aimed at rich people right now, regardless of how they attained their wealth. I imagine it’ll soon be transferred to talented people as well.

As a rule, few wealthy people extract 100% of their wealth and few earn 100%.

The wealthy that extract 98% sure try to downplay that part and try to pretend that they're among the miniscule number who earned 90+%.

Most manage to self delude themselves that vitriol against the wealthy IS vitriol against talent. Their egos demand it.

[ThrowawayR2]

Perhaps it's here already? We see a lot of posts here on HN denigrating the value of higher education and saying that highly-educated people are gatekeeping.

[logicchains]

I don't think many people here object to education, they just disagree that the university system does a good job of educating people.

[wishinghand]

The objection is not to highly educated people gatekeeping (though they should know better), but that people with a status that helps unlock further wealth are gatekeeping.

[dleslie]

> I imagine it’ll soon be transferred to talented people as well.

It is already, and the logic is something like: talent is largely a function of practice and access to education. Having the means and opportunity to practice and be properly educated is a privilege.

You can find _plenty_ of words written regarding the inherent racism, sexism, ableism et al in various hobbies due to unequal access; from GitHub hobby repos to enjoying nature through hiking and camping.