The Case Against Extreme Wealth | Ingrid Robeyns | TMR

[@tricksonafixed]

We live in a society that endlessly contradicts itself and yet does not have the capacity to challenge the power dynamics within our society to bring about any tangible and/or material changes in society.

[@mmsapollo]

Anyone being paid less than minimum/a living wage IS SUBSIDIZING THEIR EMPLOYER

[@noel7777noel]

You have a polite way of saying slavery. And "tax the rich" is a polite way of stating you are against being a slave. Now, those stockholders owe us $5 billion for a new Baltimore bridge. This is not privatized to the gains to socialize the losses. This is not about rewarding savers. it is punishing the borrowers. Some investments lose, and some investments win, for a net total of zero percent returns. AKA a not-for-profit banking system. The rich are organized crime.

[@mmsapollo]

@@noel7777noel Couldn't've said it better meself🤡

[@tomspettigue8791]

tbh in a capitalist system, everyone is subsidizing their employer 🤷‍♂️

[@JoyLearnSallay]

THANK YOU. Excellent analysis on this issue. Gives us the words, the way to share these concepts, to defend ....thank you for this. Dank je wel, Professor, in hou van je!

[@kevinskiles2033]

If everyone was guaranteed housing, food, clothing, medical treatment, education and the opportunity to succeed, why would we need to pass anything on to our children, aside from morality and ethical standards?

[@billyclifton5710]

It wasn't the focus, but the fraying of the social safety net in Europe is real. The crumbling of social democracy in Europe without,as of yet, a significant left alternative, is ominous because the fanatical right's power is growing.

[@Robert_Bob_Bobrob]

That and privatisation of government services... neo-liberalism is making Europe slowly more like America!

[@samuelrosander1048]

It's a seemingly inevitable outcome for any "better regulated" capitalist system. Trying to make rulers rule better will only ever result in temporary improvements. Replacing bad rulers with good rulers will only ever result in temporary improvements. In all cases, those that benefit from those systems most will always claw back their power and undo those temporary improvements, all while trying to convince people that it's "necessary." There is no low they won't stoop to, no rights they won't violate if it means making their profits increase and make people believe that they just aren't working hard enough (or voting hard enough). This is also a function of a disorganized society; the elite will always have vastly more influence as individuals than hundreds or thousands (and in some cases millions or tens of millions) of commoners. Organizing around common democracy practiced by the common folk is the only way to protect the interests of the common folk against those of the ruling class (including party elites). Without it this is all inevitable.

[@Antarctica2025]

Bravo! This is brilliant!

[@tashibalampkin8555]

0:57 - 1:09 I'm hooked. I'm all in.

[@joem1070]

Justice Louis Brandeis- ‘we can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we can’t have both’

[@stephen_pfrimmer]

Ingrid Robeyns, thank you

[@esmaanderson1802]

Thanks for this very important conversation.

[@aguzman11189]

April 1st Episode idea: “The Case FOR Extreme Wealth” 😂

[@TimiTamminen]

🤣

[@kristoffbjorgman8721]

It already exists.. It's called RW Libertarianism and that oxymronic mess Anarcho Crap-italism..

[@kushclarkkent6669]

That would have been hilarious😂 Right wing Sam Seder would be the ultimate villain. We need that.

[@billybigwig1154]

Love the show. Left is best.

[@peace8373]

Another excellent author on extreme wealth and how it influences governments is Anand Giridharadas. He would be a great person to interview. "Persuasion: Calling Out, Calling In, and the Art of Winning People Over", his latest book. There is one called "Winners take all", this is great.

[@SITHbabe1516]

Amazing interview!!!

[@zcorpalpha2462]

Stupid Interview

[@scottybeck100]

This is the most important topic you have covered in a year. Thank you!❤

[@turo9992000]

After dunking on Dave Rubin of course.

[@JasonAtlas]

Dave Rubin should always be dunked on.

[@3XLDave]

We only started this civilization thing 5 to 10 thousand years ago, so it's gonna take us a while to get it right.

[@Icien1]

I love how when people talk about pay gaps as inequality, what they really mean is they want equal representation among wage heirchies; they want more diverse millionairs and billionaires, not wage equality amongs everyone.

[@NiazRaki]

Oh shit. This my jam. Phil Bachelor. John Stuart Mill is a genius. Utilitarianism is one of the great western guides.

[@TheFirstLaughingFool]

3:51 Mark 12:42-44 Then a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth less than a penny. Jesus called his followers to him and said, “This poor widow put in only two small coins. But the truth is, she gave more than all those rich people. They have plenty, and they gave only what they did not need.

[@mistym0rning]

Every now and then the Bible has a good parabola in it 👍🏼

[@TheFirstLaughingFool]

​@@mistym0rningmost of them are pretty good. You just need to read them as a parable and not as the literal word of God.

[@mythiccdxx]

Limitarianism (spelling?) seems like a regulation to a larger system though and not really a thing all on its own. Under the left libertarianism umbrella. She's talking about the excess that's supposed to be redistributed to the bottom under an actual capitalistic system, most economists called for it in some form.

[@hughjorgen3164]

_"She's talking about the excess that's supposed to be redistributed to the bottom under an actual capitalistic system,"_ What does " an actual capitalistic system " mean? How does it differ from the current system? Thanks.

[@mythiccdxx]

@@hughjorgen3164 capitalism requires redistribution to function properly. It relies on everyone's base consumption to determine future ownership of production resources.

[@mythiccdxx]

@@hughjorgen3164 aka we vote with dollars who gets to keep owning production resources, no one is entitled to them.

[@hughjorgen3164]

@@mythiccdxx Sorry,. I don't see how " base consumption" ( whatever that is ) has any bearing on ownership. Please explain.

[@mythiccdxx]

@@hughjorgen3164 whatever that is huh? You a big capitalist are you? I don't think this is going to go the way you think it will champ. Where did this come from? "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."

[@Robert_Bob_Bobrob]

For a long time growing inequality in the west was eclipsed by market growth creating political apathy because people where seeing real progress in their lifetime. Now that the market has reached it's logical limits the inequality can only keep going by clawing it away from other (regular) people that make up the market. Rather than directly stealing it tho they hide it by making the share that goes to regular people stay the same but no longer adjust their share for inflation, or growing the financial aspect of the market that can't be tied to direct production, growing their market share but devaluing the market making the share of regular folks worth less!

[@martinbroduer1976]

Maybe we should inform the public that every single employer is a member of the government IRS agency. Why does the government give the wealthy corporations the right and control to keep records and be the reporters of their employees for the government giving the laborers financial accounting information to be used for tax reporting purposes? The same private companies are the largest tax evaders and the government doesn’t have any way to certify their own monetary accounts to make sure they are not violating any laws that the workers are responsible and are freely supplied to the government without any guarantee or oversight of the corporation and its legal trust of compliance to their own business practices and transparency!! It’s a scam to keep the working class in their respective positions of subservient and compliant service providers! The government is not to represent or align themselves with private corporations or other foreign entities that are not a benefit to the people of America! The constitution mandates that the purpose of the federal government is to distribute the money to the country and citizens to make the public prosperous and the country secure and the economy successful to ensure the future assured existence and freedom!! The people are at the point where we must be involved with our government and its corruption and separate laws that are not in the public’s best interests!!

[@redspock]

I don't have an issue with a billionaire that creates a new revolutionary product. I have issues with the billionaire who made their wealth by gaming the system, hiring lobbyists to get special tax codes or preferential treatment just for their industry and provides little to no benefits to their employees or country. The US has been turned into a joke, corporations want small government but they don't want to pay for healthcare or education or infrastructure. They don't want to dump money into R&D in their own companies because it will hurt their stock buyback programs, so instead corporations tell congress that foreign competitors need to be held at bay with tariffs, and then those American corporations can then kick the can down the road, squeeze more profits out of old tech or just plan on filing for bankruptcy and screw the employees in a few years. The problem here is that European companies are starting to follow the American model whereas countries like China and India are committed to dumping tens of billions into new tech each year, win or fail it doesn't matter to them, they will soon become the next wave of industrialist nations.

[@Antarctica2025]

A child in Gaza versus a child in Tel Aviv! Can a state have universal justice?

[@merbst]

Cute book-cover!

[@mmsapollo]

Most beneficial discussion. Should a copy go to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others?

[@mythiccdxx]

Why them? None of them are for proper redistribution, they all want people to be slaves to the state or they can take a hike.

[@mmsapollo]

@mythiccdxx who would you picture as a non-enemy of the people with enough power to effectuate needed changes?

[@mythiccdxx]

@@mmsapollo currently? no one. all i want is a decent social security plan and not one can even do that.

[@mythiccdxx]

@@mmsapollo we could fix 90% of this with a good SS plan, proper redistribution with an added tier (basic income within wealth and income limits, like NIT) and a medicaid minimum can easily be built into the system.

[@mmsapollo]

​@mythiccdxx I agree 200%, but we need "lobbyists for everyman/woman" Where do we find them? Can we make a letter-writing campaign to Congress? Of course we'll have to clean-up the tax codes, SCOTUS, etc. Everything Sam discusses with Ingrid. I really agree with her assessment of a moral imperative

[@lauriecraw5033]

The "luck" of the market includes having the personality, the natural abilities, skills and education that the market values highly at the time, which changes in one lifetime.

[@kevinskiles2033]

But it's still luck. No one can plan ahead of time exactly what to learn, or which markets or businesses to concentrate on. Many smart and well educated people fail miserably because they have the wrong skills or knowledge.

[@SlickSimulacrum]

By luck, you mean rich parents... The data don't lie.

[@hughjorgen3164]

I'm not sure about the " luck of the market". I would say it's luck in general. For example, if you are born in the U.S, you are automatically luckier than most of the world.

[@SlickSimulacrum]

@@hughjorgen3164 Also known as winning the regional birthing lottery.

[@hughjorgen3164]

@@SlickSimulacrum OK. What do you propose we do about this reality?

[@howardmctroy3303]

The first thing you have to do is demonstrate a society that has successfully limited the wealth of their richest citizens without any unforeseen consequences.

[@howardmctroy3303]

@@orphaotheseeker2770The wealthiest individual in Sweden has $14.9 billion dollars. The wealthiest individual in Norway has $6.6 billion dollars. Are these not instances of extreme wealth?

[@howardmctroy3303]

I rest my case.

[@intcheese]

@@howardmctroy3303 why?

[@hughjorgen3164]

100% correct. No society, ever, has achieved any kind of successful wealth limitation.

[@intcheese]

@@hughjorgen3164 Can you explain what made previous attempts at wealth limitation unsuccessful?

[@stephen_pfrimmer]

Ingrid Robeyns

[@davidfaustino4476]

It's literally hoarding. A case doesn't need to be made.

[@mythiccdxx]

It could be seen as making better use of dormant capital as we're trying to improve our overall economic system and not contribute to the king dreams of some right wing pos.

[@WhatCanSmith]

So...what about the Rothchilds?

[@tricksonafixed]

Oh don’t get me started on the Rothschild family- directly linked with the Biden Crime Family, Inc.

[@Antarctica2025]

There is plenty of class conscious in the US it’s just not said out loud!

[@mythiccdxx]

I don't disagree with her. When you see it as consumption the only reason to accumulate such wealth is in hopes of controlling enough consumption that other people have to do what you say or else and to manipulate markets.

[@martinbroduer1976]

When it comes to the wealth inheritance tax or non tax for inheritance, the financial profits from a property or business venture would most likely be invested back into the business or property that would benefit the corporation and its employees and the children of its owners have the opportunity to earn the position of being an owner or employee of the business! The fact that citizens who don’t contribute any value in society can be provided with substantial monetary benefits that are not viewed as taxable income or assets that needs to be taxed without any consideration of its value directly based on the production of others labor or educational knowledge! The value of the u.s. dollar is a completely imaginary sum that is being stored and undistributed by the banks and stock markets. If the money that is invested in the stock markets isn’t freed up to be used for maintaining the economy and national services that benefit all of society, then very soon the wealth will be completely consumed by the ultra wealthy and the rest of the population will have no physical means of earning an income that could be taxed! This means the government and economy will eventually disappear or the dollar will become meaningless as a currency to trust as actual value! Either way our country dies because of a corrupt government and greedy selfish individuals who want everything and believe that they deserve to keep it, even though they are the ones making the nation bankrupt!

[@martinbell6550]

The best case against extreme wealth is the nature of the wealth and where it came from. No one thinks Elon Musk would have made 100’s of billions without society making a massive contribution. That contribution needs to be given back. We need to talk about what the rich owe, not what they should give. It is about them paying back. Not communism Not socialism Instead it is about returning what they owe

[@Bl4ck_lives_d0esnt_m4tter_KKK]

The owe nothing to no one

[@LeftKinect]

Once you get to a billion, you get a “I won capitalism” trophy, and special parking spots and one day a year, we recognize with a holiday, how cool 😎 you are. Everything above that is taxed at 99.9%

[@fromeveryting29]

I would set it to a million ;)

[@LeftKinect]

@@fromeveryting29 willing to negotiate! ;)

[@SlickSimulacrum]

@@LeftKinect50 million total wealth. Done! Nobody can argue for needing more than that.

[@tricksonafixed]

I don’t like the idea of how she believes we can have some form of capitalism but not this form of capitalism then contradicts herself by using the most extreme examples of wealth inheritance as the main problem with this economic system. Lady- the reason why we have a non-white impoverished underclass in society is a function of not allowing those folks to create generational wealth to pass down to their children, etc. I understand what she is saying but if we want to abolish any notion of passing down wealth to others then you can’t also maintain an economic system / mode of production as undemocratic and anti-egalitarianism then Capitalism- it doesn’t compute! *Edit* Perhaps saying she deems it as the main issue isn’t charitable but as a focal point I tend to disagree on that.

[@idontgetit2938]

dawg ... yeah

[@samuelrosander1048]

The term "democracy" requires nuance. When put into the context of a republic, it is "democracy" only for the people at the top. It's "more democratic" than feudalism only in that the commoners can elect who some of those people representing the people at the top will be, but that does not make it a "democracy" for the commoners; they do not participate in the decision-making process (i.e. "rule," from "rule (kratos) of the people (demos)") in any meaningful way at any level, even at the most local level where councils above them make the decisions with or without their approval. Republics, in short, are technically democracies, but only for the ruling class. Their power structure is not fundamentally different from that of a constitutional monarchy (where there is a parliament that makes laws according to a set of rules that "constitute" their rights as a body), which itself is not fundamentally different in power structure to standard feudalism (where lords practice a form of democracy to maintain some semblance of peace between fiefs and advise the king on various issues). In all cases, the power dynamics are basically the same (not perfectly, just basically), concentrating power at the top while leaving none for those at the bottom. The thing that really separates a republic from feudalism is that the public takes the blame for what their ruling officials do because they didn't "vote hard enough," thereby allowing the ruling class to largely get away with whatever it pleases and not risk uprisings. At least not directed at them so much as their proxy, the government. That's why using the term "democracy" regarding "republic," people need to stipulate WHO THE DEMOCRACY IS FOR. In the case of a capitalist republic it is "bourgeois democracy." In the case of a one-party-rule statist system, it is some variation that essentially means "party elite democracy." It is only in the case of a system where the common folk directly participate in the process of decision-making, not as advisors but as deciders, that it can at all be considered "commoner democracy." Call them commoner, plebian or whatever else you want, what matters is that it is "theirs" (aka "we the people") only if they are the ones making the decisions. Not as individuals elected to do it on behalf of everyone, but everyone together. There are arguments around how practicable such a system of democracy would be, but 99.9999% of the ones saying "it can't work" are based in hypothetical scenarios of particular forms of democracy designed specifically to fail, and rhetoric passed down from the followers of Aristotle and his ilk. None of them are based in actual examples of actual democracy, despite such examples currently and historically having existed on the small scale. There is no example of a society scaling it up (some have tried by approaching it from, oddly enough, the top-down), and therefore no example of it ever NOT working at the national scale...but there ARE examples of it working at a scale on par with a single (US) state, and working "well enough" despite poverty and other disadvantages. There are also no examples of technology HINDERING the practicability of democracy at any scale. In short, arguments against democracy ARE NOT BASED IN FACT, ONLY FICTION AND PROPAGANDA. For those interested in how to build a democratic society, consider doing a search for terms like "community building strategies" or "how to organize around democracy." As an alternative there's a blog linked to my profile with an approach that I've spent time developing (no restrictions on use or copying. Just don't put it behind a paywall). There are options and guides for how to pursue them. They just have to be pursued or nothing will significantly change for the better on anything resembling a fundamental level.

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

There is Vulture Capitolism and there is Quaker Capitolism. The Prosperity Gospels say you are rich because God favors you.

[@SlickSimulacrum]

Religion makes people dumber than sh*t.

[@scientificsolace]

gary stevenson would be a great asset in this discussion

[@hughjorgen3164]

Isn't Gaza a millionaire too?

[@Antarctica2025]

And Taylor Swift? And concert tickets?

[@Antarctica2025]

The Brits love the Royal family, no?

[@Mnkey252062]

"Morally undeserved", reverse engineering Catholicism.

[@liesalllies]

Bandwidth limitarian

[@ninja1antelope]

Eat the rich…

[@QuietGrave]

bruh emma mic spamming jones over here, bind mute to a hotkey dude

[@darrelldadams]

Love the the Show, but i gotta say that this whole interview falls under the leftist category of " No Shit, Sherlock ".

[@fromeveryting29]

Still important to beat the drum, though, so good on her!

[@norikadolmy7274]

Wow the billionaires got to her, they cut off her wifi lol

[@chriscollins1525]

Loved the discussion. But the guests snarky and patronizing remarks about Reagan are what get on my nerves about Northern European intellectuals.

[@mistym0rning]

Why? Reagan was awful…

[@chriscollins1525]

I understand. I don’t care. I just hate Europeans getting smug and patronizing about America. Criticize your own colonialist and 2 catastrophic war history before blasting any of our presidents.

[@anthonyrowland9072]

@@chriscollins1525 He was factually a ghoul though. So was Thatcher at the same time over in the UK.

[@gen_xecutioner]

Your stuff doesn’t get the views it usually does when you start talking about billionaires. Think YT / Alphabet’s investors might be squelching your message?

[@danielscott3178]

Belgium isn't real

[@wheresallthezombies]

Is this a channel for losers? People without drive? What is this?

[@wexwuthor1776]

MR is full of it. They want to protect workers, consumers, and the little guy right up until it's time for a jab. Then it's shut up and do as you're told.

[@fromeveryting29]

What do you mean..?

[@wexwuthor1776]

@@fromeveryting29 They are anti-establishment until it's time to force a vaccine on people.

[@Robert_Bob_Bobrob]

@@fromeveryting29poor baby is scared of the mean doctors with their needles!

[@wexwuthor1776]

@@Robert_Bob_Bobrob I assume this response was to me and not @fromeverything29. Typos happen to us all. Yes, I am afraid of the doctors and what's in their needles. You should be too. You can't shame me into compliance.

[@Ninthtail9]

@@wexwuthor1776 Vaccines have saved millions of lives... No scientific clinical studies are saying they cause autism or long-term issues in humans. THey all point to them being completely safe.

[@mythiccdxx]

The laffer curve isn't even interesting, it's saying people won't want to make money which is stupid. You only get taxed on profits.

[@AlphaConservative]

The case against lazy poverty excuses for communism government aide😮

[@zcorpalpha2462]

Good Thing your video is completely uslesss 😂 Nothing wrong with Success & Thank God we have enough people who still realize that Woman is Nuts Professor Huh 🤔 Sad