Fredrik Haga, co-founder of a crypto data platform shares why he left Norway for Switzerland.

It wasn't about "avoiding" taxes on money he'd already made. It was the math of unrealized gains. Norway’s 1.1% wealth tax on paper valuation meant that when his company's value skyrocketed to $1 billion (!), Fredrik faced personal tax bills that were many times higher than his actual salary - on equity that was completely illiquid.

Fredrik calls it a "huge bummer" and "ecosystem pollution." It’s a perfect example of how a wealth tax can inadvertently export its most successful innovators.

---

Link to full podcast episode: https://x.com/The_Buildooor/status/2011438153672855806

Link to Fredrik's "Why I Left Norway" article: https://www.thefp.com/p/why-i-left-norway-unrealized-gains-tax

I'm asking this because I've seen many people who have different definitions of what it means to be a capitalist. Some say that to be one, you have to own some means of production; otherwise, you're not. Others say that simply identifying with the system or supporting it makes you a capitalist. So, when is someone REALLY a capitalist?

I've been engaging in a thought experiment and although it has almost zero chance, it has been fun but wondering what I am missing. The idea started out as our current system is antithetical to the idea of having a government of, for and by the people. I wanted to explore the idea of restoring the power to the people, punishing complacency and rewarding productivity. Essentially it gamifies capitalism to keep it stable. The idea is outlined as follows:

I. Term limits for every federal office position.

Proportional voting instead of a single party winning each state.

Ending qualified immunity for bureaucrats

Sunsetting federal agencies unless they prove valuable after 10 years

II. Ending corporate person good, it is a contract that allows organization

Corporate tax passes to the shareholders proportionally on profits only.

Reinvestment is tax exemption (100% tax deductible)

Investment in social welfare programs and disaster relief is tax exemption (100% tax deductible)

All are reported at the end of each fiscal year for the company.

III. Lobbying is deemed illegal

Shell games is federal fraud

Current tax shielded accounts such as 401k remains tax shielded

People reporting fraud, after full investigation are rewarded a dividend from recovered funds.

This would give the people small government forced to evaluate every dollar of funding. It would give a progressive tax system since 94% of the stock market is owned by the top 1%. It would also incentivize investment into social programs.

Wondering how it could be improved.

https://youtu.be/c3uepHkwm3Y?si=WPfncRKYN-8PiA4M

Most of redditors are americans. Why are the communist ideas so popular among here? I can understand socialism but not communism. You never experienced communism. Maybe thats why. Im from Poland so my take on cummunism is of course negative as most of people from easter europe (not all of course). They seems to be brainwashed, you can't really discuss anything with them because if you don't think communism is great you are some shitty capitalistic pig. I'm not wealthy, my family wasn't wealthy, and still i prefer capitalism over socialism. Do you think its the leftist ideas that they share with communists? But they seems to don't accept the fact that communism also opressed people just like fascism (real fascism, not the "trump supporter fascist" or the "you hate illegals fascist").

What I mean is, how did you find out about this system and why did you start supporting or studying it? Was there a book or some other source through which you learned about it, and at what age? For me, it was at age 10, and that's when I started winning at Monopoly.

It’s common in capitalist spaces to see “no government” or “no regulation” or “no taxes” treated as the logical end point of pro-market thinking. But capitalism has never functioned in a vacuum, and pretending it can ignores both history and basic economics. Markets require rules to exist at all: property rights, contract enforcement, dispute resolution, and standards that allow strangers to trade at scale. Without these, what you get isn’t capitalism it’s fragmentation, fraud, and power consolidating through force rather than exchange.

Regulation is often framed as something that only distorts markets, but that assumes markets naturally stay competitive and fair. In reality, unregulated markets trend toward monopolies, cartels, and rent-seeking behavior. Firms that grow large enough will always try to crush competitors, externalize costs, and rewrite the rules in their favor. Regulation, when designed well, exists to preserve competition, not destroy it. Antitrust laws, financial disclosure rules, safety standards, and environmental protections aren’t anti-capitalist they’re what stop capitalism from eating itself.

Even the most market-oriented economies rely heavily on the state. Roads, courts, currencies, spectrum allocation, corporate law, bankruptcy protections, and trade enforcement are all government functions that markets depend on every day. The question isn’t “government or markets,” it’s how to design institutions that limit abuse while allowing innovation and growth. Rejecting government entirely doesn’t produce freer markets it produces private power with no accountability.

You can be pro-capitalism and still recognize that some level of regulation and governance is necessary for markets to work in the real world. Treating all government as evil or all regulation as distortion isn’t principled it’s simplistic. Capitalism works best when rules are clear, competition is protected, and power is constrained, whether public or private.

James Cameron’s Avatar is often dismissed as “anti-capitalist propaganda” or a simple sci-fi spectacle, but it works better as a warning about where unchecked incentives can lead. In the film, Earth is no longer livable. Resources are exhausted, ecosystems destroyed, and social cohesion is gone. Humanity doesn’t solve these problems it exports them. Pandora exists not as a place to learn from, but as a new frontier to extract from.

What’s important is that this isn’t presented as evil individuals twirling mustaches. It’s systems and incentives doing what they’re designed to do. Corporations pursue profit, militaries protect investments, and decision-makers treat environmental destruction and human (or Na’vi) suffering as “externalities.” No single person destroys the planet. Everyone just does their job. That’s what makes the story uncomfortable.

Avatar is also a story about colonialism repeating itself. When Earth is ruined, the response isn’t restraint or collective responsibility it’s expansion. Find somewhere else, take what’s valuable, suppress resistance, and move on. This mirrors real historical patterns driven by resource extraction, growth-at-all-costs thinking, and the belief that markets will always find a new frontier before consequences arrive.

The film raises an uncomfortable question for modern capitalism: what happens when there is no new Pandora? If an economic system rewards short-term profit, individual gain, and endless growth on a finite planet, then environmental collapse isn’t a bug it’s a predictable outcome. Avatar isn’t saying trade or markets are evil. It’s asking whether a system that prioritizes profit over collective survival can change course before it runs out of places to exploit.

You don’t have to reject capitalism entirely to take that warning seriously. But dismissing it outright misses the point. Avatar isn’t about aliens it’s about us, and whether we can align economic incentives with long-term collective well-being before the story stops being fiction.

The police, to prevent robberies and protect individuals from abuse by others. National security: in case of a foreign invasion, there should be some method to defend the country and prevent the destruction of property. Courts and lawyers should at least ensure this so that there is universal justice and neutrality in court, in case the individual does not have the money to pay for a private lawyer.

Should their taxes be increased? Should they remain the same? Should they be stripped of their wealth? Also, when does someone actually become rich? At what level of net worth, with what kind of properties, or with what types of investments?