Maybe! I don’t think it’s one or the other though. I suspect a ‘them versus us’ approach is not going to be helpful—making worldwide laws forcing people to give away wealth over a certain amount seem both unlikely and problematic. I think working with the ultra rich to make ‘improving education’ as cool as ‘having the biggest yacht’ is more likely to have a positive outcome.
I agree we shouldn’t demonize most of the rich as “the enemy” assuming they made their fortune legally, which most did. However, when a tiny fraction of the population is, well, hoarding 30-40% of the nation’s wealth if we’re serious about ambitiously funding altruistic projects we have to look to where the real money is, and that’s where it is, held by the super rich.
I agree that laws which reduce the wealthy from being super rich to just comfortable are highly problematic, and that’s largely because the super rich will use their vast resources to buy the U.S. Congress so as to prevent such laws.
Most of that money goes to buying TV ads for incumbents, so one change we might consider would be to “make it cool” as you say to not vote for any candidate who runs TV ads. That could be a place to start.
Another approach could be to target rich people who have made their money in a highly anti-social manner, such as tobacco company executives for example. These rich guys kill roughly 1,000 Americans a day, just so they can get even richer, so I see no good reason to have mercy on them.
Maybe! I don’t think it’s one or the other though. I suspect a ‘them versus us’ approach is not going to be helpful—making worldwide laws forcing people to give away wealth over a certain amount seem both unlikely and problematic. I think working with the ultra rich to make ‘improving education’ as cool as ‘having the biggest yacht’ is more likely to have a positive outcome.
Hi Rob,
I agree we shouldn’t demonize most of the rich as “the enemy” assuming they made their fortune legally, which most did. However, when a tiny fraction of the population is, well, hoarding 30-40% of the nation’s wealth if we’re serious about ambitiously funding altruistic projects we have to look to where the real money is, and that’s where it is, held by the super rich.
I agree that laws which reduce the wealthy from being super rich to just comfortable are highly problematic, and that’s largely because the super rich will use their vast resources to buy the U.S. Congress so as to prevent such laws.
Most of that money goes to buying TV ads for incumbents, so one change we might consider would be to “make it cool” as you say to not vote for any candidate who runs TV ads. That could be a place to start.
Another approach could be to target rich people who have made their money in a highly anti-social manner, such as tobacco company executives for example. These rich guys kill roughly 1,000 Americans a day, just so they can get even richer, so I see no good reason to have mercy on them.