Slashdot Mirror
Linux As a Model For a New Government?
An anonymous reader writes "The hedge fund investor who prided himself on achieving 1000% returns, Andrew Lahde, wrote a goodbye letter to mark his departure from the financial world. In it, he suggests people think about building a new government model, and his suggestion is to have someone like George Soros fund a new government that brings together the best and brightest minds in a manner where they're not tempted by bribery. In doing so, he refers to how Linux grows and competes with Microsoft. An open source government. How would such a system work, and could it succeed? How long before it became corrupt? Would it need a benevolent dictator (Linus vs. Soros)?"
I'm all for open government, which is not to say a government based on an open source software product development group.
Any one who has taken a poli sci class or a history class that covered ancient rome, athens or the founding of the US should see that the organization of ideas and resources in order to build a good software product is a vastly different paradigm than organizing a 'good' government.
First, the argument should be about what government means. I'm less concerned with what a government provides me ( a product ) than what it denies me. The moment government thinks it's supposed to produce a product as opposed to leave me alone, I would describe that government as tyrannical.
The bad mortgage/bad credit crisis was in large part created by people who felt it was the government's job to ensure anyone could get a house, regardless of ability to afford it. This is but one example of how government by good intentions invokes the law of unintended consequences for disastrous results.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
I've got ten bucks that says he was stoned while writing that. The letter is very scatter-brained. He sounds like he's at a frat party when he's arguing about the legality of marijuana. Not that I disagree, I'm just saying that when you write your good-bye letter resigning as the head of a hedge-fund, you're probably better off leaving the "weed talk" out.
'...have someone like George Soros fund a new government that brings together the best and brightest minds in a manner where they're not tempted by bribery.'
This is an old idea, of course, most recently known as 'meritocracy', a term that many people are unaware was originally intended to be pejorative. Here's what Michael Young (who coined the term in the 50s) had to say about this type of system in business and politics back in 2001, well before the current economic mess:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
'The business meritocracy is in vogue. If meritocrats believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that their advancement comes from their own merits, they can feel they deserve whatever they can get. They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side. So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.'
Because communism has nothing to do with openness.
Quite the contrary, virtually all communist systems (there are many flavours) of past and present are particularly jealous of interference, be it from the inside or outside and it is probably one of the most conservative systems around.
I therefore suggest you start reading up on the subject before you fuck up during a next election.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Berkshire Hathaway is Warren Buffet's company. Berkshire Hathaway does not specialize in "estate tax insurance and planning" which is not a "huge part" of their business. Berkshire Hathaway sells all sorts of things including electricity, candy, and insurance. But nobody sells "estate tax insurance" since people can only insure themselves against risks not known liabilities.
Before anybody listens to the parent's allegations of conflict of interest (which he curiously portrays as a phenomenon unique to the Democratic Party) I think it's fair to demand the following evidence:
BTW, I'm really excited to hear that url for estate tax insurance. Gosh, maybe he even sells other tax insurance, like income tax insurance! That would be awesome. Geeze, it seems like I have to pay that one every year.
Wait-a-minute! That's why buffet is supporting Obama's tax hike for the rich: He's going to make a mint selling the income tax insurance! Oh Buffet, you are a wiley one!
Warren Buffett gave $28,500 in 2008 to democrats this year according to this site. Is that "huge scads of money"? He is "pouring even more money into their coffers"? Where do you get this stuff?
You are arguing that he is for the estate tax because he makes money on estate tax insurance. Sure. I'm sure it is has nothing to do with values about where the tax burden is least harmful. Taxes have to come from somewhere unless you want to just print money or borrow another $trillion from China.
I think the consensus on the bailout bill was that there would be catastrophic consequences for the US economy if the situation was not resolved. Do you have money in the bank (more than the then 100000 FDIC limit - btw the FDIC would go bankrupt pretty quick)? Do companies have money in banks? There was consensus among people who understood the situation that something needed to be done (except maybe Jim Rogers). The representatives risked their own re-election for the good of the public. Maybe it is a conspiracy that both candidates supported the bill and other countries are doing the same thing. Or maybe the average person does not understand our economic system. You decide. BTW I think they are getting ownership of the banks directly instead of buying debt instruments.
Buffett has been for raising the capital gains tax and I think Obama also. That is where he makes most of his money. The other way to get money out of stocks is dividends which is taxed as income. Of course you are not taxed until you sell a stock, but if you don't sell it you never get any money do you?
Business can deduct their expenses. So money used for growth is not included in "income" and is not taxed as your post would imply.
Smart people will profit from whatever the government does. I can understand disagreeing with their ideology, but suggesting that liberal multi-billionaires support raising taxes for their own FINANCIAL benefit seems a little far fetched.