[adambaybutt]

Sam's proposal doesn't avoid the wealth tax compounds simple arithmetic that PG notes.

And yes many important questions for society to answer on this, e.g. how much does is disincentivize entrepreneurs if they have half of their wealth taxed away over the decades compared to current taxation system?

[xrd]

<joke>

Just a thought experiment: let's say we take Sam's ideas alongside something like UBI, where everyone has a baseline of income provided by the society they live in.

You succeed wildly, and get rich as an entrepreneur. Sadly, in a generation or two, your grandchildren will be back with the rest of the plebeians, despite grandpops launching YC, writing books on art and coding and creating an bunch of amazing companies. But, your grandkids are now not motivated by escaping the poverty they live in, but by a simple desire to live differently than the other normal people out there (also living on UBI).

This seems a lot like what happens in places like Russia or Venezuela or Brazil, where the best and the brightest (often from upper crust there) flee their countries to make it big in Europe, US or the Middle East, but not always because they have such horrible lives there.

Except that, unlike entrepreneurs driven by a mindset that has them feel like it is never enough, these ones are just trying to escape the ennui of boredom of suburbia, and slipping back into that isn't so awful. The alternative drive of escaping poverty does something very different and rapacious: see Tyco and Dennis Kozlowski: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kozlowski, who despite enormous wealth couldn't stop himself from having his company pay for even his rugs.

It's like the best of communism, and the best of capitalism!

</joke>

Seriously, isn't there an interesting space for entrepreneurs in a new world like the one Sam is describing?

[sudosysgen]

Is this actually realistic?

In the Soviet Union, there was no such problem - brilliant people by and large were happy to become scientists and engineers, and scientists and engineers got into the planning agencies and into the government too, in droves. Same in pre 1989 China.

I don't see why the USSR and Mao's China were able to retain (and sometimes even attract) these people, but the society you're describing wouldn't be able to.

Actually, after some digging, I found something Lenin wrote about what to do with the entreprising kind of people - he wanted them to be put to use in organising projects and production, whereas the Kozlowski type were to be ignored (or worse).

So I guess the solution he found was to allow them to create big organizations and projects, but instead of paying them in money, they were paid in social status and achievement. If that worked to retain people like Kolmogorov, Ilyushin, Kalashnikov, Korolev, etc..., couldn't simply socially different positions for people that are enterprising be sufficient?

[nickpp]

The brilliant people that stayed in the USSR had no choice - they were kept there by force either directly (not allowed to leave) or indirectly (leave but your family will pay the price).

But they all wanted to leave. The more you knew how much better your life could be in the west, the more you hated staying.

[sudosysgen]

See, I don't know if that's true. The main counter evidence to your hypothesis were the defections of scientists and engineers to the USSR, the amount of brilliant people that regretted the fall of the USSR, and so on.

For example, one of my brilliant math teachers was from a Soviet state, and had the opportunity to leave all along - he only did so as the USSR fell and he did not see any prospect in the East anymore.

Patriotism is a strong emotion. But beyond that, many brilliant people in communist countries really did enjoy a very elevated social status - if you see what children aspired too, being a scientist or engineer was really up there. And as far as job security and research freedom, for example, there was often quite a bit of it. On the other hand, you had drastically less freedom, but it doesn't seem the ones who chose to stay valued it as much as we would.

[nickpp]

See, I know that is true. I was unlucky enough to grow up behind the iron curtain. I know the situation directly from the choices faced by my parents and their friends and after its fall I watched the best of my teachers slowly but surely emigrate to Canada or the Western Europe.

You can't really understand how it was unless you lived it. First of all, patriotism ceased to exist, except for propaganda. Struggle and fear - abject fear - replaced patriotism as the driving emotion. We ended up hating our country - we're still trying to re-learn how to love it 30 years later.

The ones in elevated status were collaborating with the authorities and the secret police. They ratted out on their friends and family. Everybody hated and feared them because of that.

The freedom was, of course, gone, and we got used to that. Freedom is just not that important when you're hungry. But the feeling that best described our state of mind then was: hopelessness. We did not, could not hope for a better future, for better times for us or our children. We could not see any escape, any chance at change. Because as individuals, there was nothing we could do. We were completely robbed of our agency, of our power, of our rights. The past, present and future was a single color: gray.

People who somehow went to the West came back changed. They just could not believe one could live with so much freedom, choices and wealth. Their stories inspired others. I was maybe 12 and I remember clearly dreaming up ways of running out of the country, to my father's absolute horror. I would cry rivers if my own children would have to go to through that.

[sudosysgen]

I don't doubt the experience.

The issue is, you're just someone on the internet. The real people I know disagree with you, and so do statistics, so while I completely empathize with you, I can't agree.

[xrd]

This is a fascinating and out of the regular narrative of communism (at least to me). Thanks.