Share this comment
"I believe billionaires will go to war before they allow any government to limit their wealth."
They don't have the numbers to play that game; the poor have far more foot soldiers.
The wealthy will run before they fight - if one country raises their taxes they'll just move to another. That's why any serious attempt to close the loopholes …
"I believe billionaires will go to war before they allow any government to limit their wealth."
They don't have the numbers to play that game; the poor have far more foot soldiers.
The wealthy will run before they fight - if one country raises their taxes they'll just move to another. That's why any serious attempt to close the loopholes would require international cooperation.
As for Steven Pinker's point, you're right that it boils down to human nature. As I put it in another post, too much inequality is destabilizing - the "have-nots" will only tolerate falling so far behind the "haves" before they start warming up to the prospect of redistribution by force. The French Revolution is a case study in what eventually happens when inequality goes unchecked for too long.
Good points.
I don't believe warfare these days is about foot soldiers, though. I believe it's about controlling the flow of information (which they do). It's also about controlling the government(s) by first controlling the political parties (which they do). So there won't be an actual war -- nor will there be any massive redistribution of wealth without the consent of the billionaires.
But I agree that they would leave if the ruling class starts to turn on them (I just don't foresee that happening).
And I agree with you about the French Revolution. However, lessons from then bear only so much insight on the present given the weaponry, including information, involved in modern warfare.
One thing that's true of both conventional warfare and democracy: numbers matter. Even rich people only get 1 vote at the ballot box.
That said, there are basically 2 ways to get billionaires to swallow some redistribution. One is national emergencies, like WWII when tax rates on the rich went way up, major corporations were co-opted for the war effort, etc.
Another is if billionaires are faced with a choice between agreeing to "tolerable" concessions, or risking an uprising that could cost them way more. Sort of like how Malcolm X made MLK's life much easier, because he could sell his vision of Civil Rights as the less extreme version of reform.
If the mob is outside their front doors with torches and pitchforks, you'd be surprised how quickly billionaires will agree to a wealth tax.
Preeeeetty sure you actually don't agree if you understood his point, which is that the mega-rich within our society are buying up the flow of information and creating a disinformation cartel.
You think the Deep State controls the billionaires; Greg is arguing that the billionaires control the Deep State.
I've heard Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk called many things, but "Marxist" definitely isn't one of them. Your tinfoil hat is showing again.
If you replay the suggestion that the pitchfork people are trying to steal the torches, the torch people will eventually go to war with the pitchforks. The billionaires don't need the numbers to play the game. They just need the connections and the relationships.
Even the threat of a Bernie Sanders can be enough to scare some concessions out of the rich. Sadly, Trump ran on "sticking it to the elites" and then as soon as he won started cutting taxes for the rich, so it's important to beware false flags.