Looks great! I wonder if this could be used to create some kind of podcast-based sponsorblock equivalent? I know there are issues with podcast- (providers) inserting sponsor reads and ads at random / unknown times, so, not sure how it could be done reliably.

Collateral for loan is realised gain. Nice. I always wondered what a good mechanism against that kind of tax cheating would be.

Racist, misogynist, xenophobic, bigoted, made-up story about a company hiring women+minorities into dedicated departments which then don’t do any work

They must have a lot of departments full of white, straight men to compensate, otherwise the company would surely go under. /s

edit: before anyone thinks I actually meant this seriously…I was reacting to a ridiculously bigoted comment by some troll (I know…I shouldn’t have reacted) claiming their company had entire departments full of women+minorities not doing any work. The comment no longer exists of course. I

Yup, this aligns closely with my own impression of what needs doing. I’d only add to this that people need to be aware how billionaire wealth works. Nearly nobody receives just a billion in their bank account every year. Billionaires’ wealth is stored in investments (normally a company they’ve founded, or bought, owning loads of shares, which then blow up to create unbelievable wealth). But this isn’t liquid, accessible money. Billionaires use this wealth to borrow against, which banks happily do, knowing that it’s safe to do so, considering the billionaire’s leverage. This is one mechanism by which billionaires avoid paying taxes, for example. Here, things become tricky: How do you take this power away from the billionaire? How do you tax share ownership? There are some approaches, but I’m not sure any of them have ever been tried. If you just force the billionaire to sell 90% of their shares above 1,000,000,000 in value, the share price will plummet immediately. That doesn’t really work. You could prohibit borrowing against value held in shares, but you’d somehow need to limit this to ultra-rich people. Or you somehow devalue shares held beyond 1,000,000,000, so that this isn’t actually wealth the billionaire can use (to buy elections, or media companies). But then what’s the point of having 299 billion worth of shares just sitting there doing nothing (in Elon’s case, for example). It’s a surprisingly difficult problem to solve. You could split the shares across many people. So any shares above 1,000,000,000 in value have to be divided evenly across the workforce of your company or something.

This is all theoretical though, because most billionaires would happily murder every last human being with their bare hands before giving up 0.0000000000001% of their wealth.

This is utterly fascinating. Thank you for providing this link. Funnily enough, my thoughts immediately went to “is Milgram any better?”. Seems like he might be, somewhat. The question for me then becomes:

• can people be trusted with authority, on a general level? Are there studies to prove / disprove the adage that power corrupts / that people with personality disorders such as psychopathy or narcissism seek out (or thrive in, or are promoted to) positions of power?

Thank you again, I shall revise my opinion from now on and seek out more studies on the matter.

What I find interesting is that reigning in abuse at the behest of bosses / management / leadership would solve a gigantic number of problems in today’s society. ‘Nobody wants to work anymore’ is actually ‘nobody wants to be treated like shit by power-hungry psychopaths’. BUT, it is so difficult / impossible to change the intrinsic human assholification of anyone with power (see Stanford prison experiment), that companies will try anything else.