If you are a true inventor it is a tap you
cannot turn off.
Maybe so, but if your invention is some clever semiconductor design or process, you'll need a few million dollars for prototyping. And even if inventors will do their thing for zero return, investors won't.
I sincerely disagree because the return will likely be greater than zero. I'm amazed how entrepreneurs and investors think that 100x is their birthright. it is perfectly fine to me that works changing innovations only make 1.2x return if it means we as a society watch each other's back the other 90% of time when we fail to produce.
It's all about allocating capital. Even if you only take a 1.2X return (which depending on the length of investment might be a loss), that doesn't mean someone else gets the other 98.8X for other investment. By default it would create positive externalities for customers, competitors, etc.
You would need a mechanism to catch that extra value and redistribute it to real R&D. I'm not saying its impossible, but it's not as easy as just saying lets do it.
I completely agree. However, I propose we put a serious damper on growth. Now, I know I cannot effectively or efficiently dictate how capital is allocated but we can do something almost as good. We can try to disassociate risk and reward.
It is my sincere beliefs that the inventions, the discoveries, and the creation of useful arts will take place sooner or later even without the motivation of the 100x gains. It might take a few years, decades, or centuries but we will get there. Yes, the plan requires a hint of central planning but I think it is acceptable.
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that an effective maximum yearly individual income is pivotal to the success of our society going forward. If adding the value of perks would amount to the annual maximum income would push someone over the maximum individual income then they should rightfully pay the correct income tax on the sum over the maximum income (which I tentatively set at 100 * 2000 * minimum wage per hour, it ought to be lower but we need to be pragmatic).
The reason we need to spend so much money on everything and we need 100x gains is that our enterprises have become too top heavy. The only "simple" way to curtail it that I can think of is to impose a maximum personal income (above which we tax away a large part, lets say 90% of the income). We can make it something more palatable. We have the ability to do it. We just need the will power to effect this tweak in the way our society rewards people.
Now this idea isn't perfect. Right away I can think of a way people will try to game the system by "packing" the board of directors with nephews, nieces, children, grandchildren, butlers, and maids of the corporate officers. I don't have a solution to this yet but I am sure we can fix these bugs as we see them in production. The idea is to get the ball rolling and iterate as we go.
This is true but because it is inbuilt into our current system and not a universal truth. There are mechanisms we could use to change the narrative from all or nothing to a lot or enough.
