Opinion on billionaires.

Wanderer78

Ush1 wrote: »

I've said it to you before and I'll say it again, go out for a walk mate.

dont worry, im heading to work soon, tis all good! but the reality is, theres a possibility both of us are in fact wrong in this context, one of us might just be more wrong than the other, and currently that looks to be me,but.....!

ush

The ”big boy” argument can also be applied to someone citing stockholders as arbitrators of a company’s actual value. A whole decade of QE later and nothing is valued for its actual performance or worth. The winners in such circumstances are companies that promise investors near monopol status. Regulate them. Break them up. If not for the sake of democracy, then for the planet. The necessary shift in our societies will be opposed at every turn by billionaire’s self-interest.

Wanderer78

ush wrote: »

The ”big boy” argument can also be applied to someone citing stockholders as arbitrators of a company’s actual value. A whole decade of QE later and nothing is valued for its actual performance or worth. The winners in such circumstances are companies that promise investors near monopol status. Regulate them. Break them up. If not for the sake of democracy, then for the planet. The necessary shift in our societies will be opposed at every turn by billionaire’s self-interest.

great points, theres clearly something fundamentally failing, particularly in relation to wealth distribution, globally, and large corporations such as amazon, are playing a critical role in these failings, but, we dont truly understand exactly how this is occurring. i personally believe its important to de-personalize such arguments, as our reality is far more complex than the accumulation of individuals wealth such as bezos etc. i believe it is true that all or most humans, are in fact self interested, including myself, but we also have a strong need and want for collective action also, i.e. both statements are in fact true, at the same time, and i think large corporations such as amazon are in fact perfect examples of this belief, this wont be easy to solve, but it needs to be, and quickly

Akrasia

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never get the concept of " sharing" wealth. Such bullshít.

Put it this way, entrepreneurs are only in it for the money, hence the exploitation of labour. Please get over it.

You don’t understand the concept of sharing??!

When my kids were 2 I had to teach them to share, they need to be reminded every now and then but they understand the concept

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never get the concept of " sharing" wealth. Such bullshít.

Put it this way, entrepreneurs are only in it for the money, hence the exploitation of labour. Please get over it.

What exactly do you think workers are in it for?

Akrasia

BBDBB wrote: »

I read something on the internet (so it must be true!) recently that made me stop and start to pay more heed to the billionaires in the world and what they do with their money

For a bit of perspective

A million seconds takes about 11 days to pass

A billion seconds takes over 31 years to pass

11 days versus 31 years!

Most of us have occasionally dreamed about winning the lottery and how much we'd need to change our lives, how many million we'd need and how we'd start to spread around a bit amongst family and friends and how we'd support a few charitable works. Even then you'd be living off the interest for the rest of your life. But billionaires is just off the scale of comprehension

Yep, and the way things are going we’ll see the first euro trillionaires before the minimum wage in Ireland reaches 15 euros an hour

The minimum wage is currently about €10 An hour. It would take someone 50 years working full time to earn 1 million euros
50 thousand years to earn 1 billion euros, 50 million years to earn a Trillion euros, but the global political and economic system is so unbalanced now that one man is now capable of adding multiple billions of euros of wealth a year to his net worth while billions of people struggle to put food and water on their tables

Bezos ‘earned‘ his first billion in 1997. He now has 200 billion. On average that’s over 8 billion a year, but in practice his rate of increase is getting faster, probably closer to a billion a month now. How much has he donated to charity in that time?

The correct word for this is obscene

BBDBB

BBDBB wrote: »

I read something on the internet (so it must be true!) recently that made me stop and start to pay more heed to the billionaires in the world and what they do with their money

For a bit of perspective

A million seconds takes about 11 days to pass

A billion seconds takes over 31 years to pass

11 days versus 31 years!

Most of us have occasionally dreamed about winning the lottery and how much we'd need to change our lives, how many million we'd need and how we'd start to spread around a bit amongst family and friends and how we'd support a few charitable works. Even then you'd be living off the interest for the rest of your life. But billionaires is just off the scale of comprehension

And given that Bezos is racing toward a trillion dollars...

A trillion seconds is almost 32,000 years.

Akrasia

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It has been the part time occupation of the disenfranchised for centuries, there really is nothing to see here.

Most rioters are in it for the riot rather than the protest which they are supposed to be there for. People do be into throwing stuff around and burning a few bins. In France protest is like a cultural pastime, it has become perennial rather than a catalyst for radical change. In fact if it is radical change you are after you should be asking the billionaires, they are the ones ahead of the game. Most French businesses factor in industrial disputes as a cost in their annual budgets, it just gets dumped and indexed linked into inflation, they expect it to happen.

"Déficit éventuel des conflits industriels" - You see French billionaires are proactive about getting it done, they need to be.

Which is all fine (for them) until it reaches a point where the Guillotines come out of storage

ush

The concentration of wealth is unsustainable. So its not solely a moral argument about ”sharing”. Its a practical argument about social cohesion and international peace. The kind of inequality that capitalism creates eventually requires authoritarianism; if only to police the army of the underemployed. It gets messy.

Billionaires hoard. That’s basically what they are, hoarders. Millionaires may take risks to get more money. But billionaires are ultimately defensive in their mindset. So they’ll rig the market to their advantage and to society’s disadvantage. Innovation is harmed by the billionaire class. Is Elon Musk that creative?

The kind of inequality we see today is matched by pre-world war periods. People instinctively know something is out of synch. So far many have latched onto crank right-wing ideas to ease their minds. Trump and Brexit fall into this category. Both are ready made by economic interests to misdirect attention.

In short, billionaires act as a brake on innovation and extreme inequality makes us dangerous.

Akrasia

Javon Young Harvester wrote: »

What a ridiculous and idiotic suggestion. If people make billions they deserve it and should not have it stolen from then by idiotic tax systems suggested by some. Communist Russia would be a pleasure compared to some of the suggestion I see people here make.

How about you think about the combined tax paid by everyone employed by a billionaire who would not be paying it was it not for them starting the company, the hundreds of thousands of people who live good lives and spend money in their communities all because the company they work for was founded and made a success by the founder. Billionaires pay millions in income tax and many more millions in other taxes such as vat or the equivalent etc. Wanting to take their money is just pure rotten begrudgery.

What is actually idiotic is the idea that a billionaire would not be motivated to ‘create jobs’ if he was only worth 900 million instead of a billion

Ush1

Akrasia wrote: »

What is actually idiotic is the idea that a billionaire would not be motivated to ‘create jobs’ if he was only worth 900 million instead of a billion

Who are you to decide to put some arbitrary cap on someone elses ambitions?

IAMAMORON

ush wrote: »

The concentration of wealth is unsustainable. So its not solely a moral argument about ”sharing”. Its a practical argument about social cohesion and international peace. The kind of inequality that capitalism creates eventually requires authoritarianism; if only to police the army of the underemployed. It gets messy.

Billionaires hoard. That’s basically what they are, hoarders. Millionaires may take risks to get more money. But billionaires are ultimately defensive in their mindset. So they’ll rig the market to their advantage and to society’s disadvantage. Innovation is harmed by the billionaire class. Is Elon Musk that creative?

The kind of inequality we see today is matched by pre-world war periods. People instinctively know something is out of synch. So far many have latched onto crank right-wing ideas to ease their minds. Trump and Brexit fall into this category. Both are ready made by economic interests to misdirect attention.

In short, billionaires act as a brake on innovation and extreme inequality makes us dangerous.

Please study basic economics for 1 hour, just 1 please.

Have a look at the "factors of production".

If you take an interest in why humans bother their barney to do anything with their lives you might come to recognise that entrepreneurship is actually a real thing.

Your concept ( highly flawed one I will add ) that billionaires act as a brake on innovation makes no sense.

IAMAMORON

Akrasia wrote: »

Which is all fine (for them) until it reaches a point where the Guillotines come out of storage

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that capital punishment is no longer legal in France? Article 66-1.

So unless they start breaking the law they will not get the opportunity again. As salivating an idea as you might find it.

Anyone setting up execution devices in France would likely end up in prison. The current regime in France are very paranoid about any extremist groups ( ie Le Pen & co ) who are advocating the reinstatement of capital punishment. What i am not so sure about is if they must hold a referendum to change their constitution, do you know?

ush

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Please study basic economics for 1 hour, just 1 please.

Have a look at the "factors of production".

If you take an interest in why humans bother their barney to do anything with their lives you might come to recognise that entrepreneurship is actually a real thing.

Your concept ( highly flawed one I will add ) that billionaires act as a brake on innovation makes no sense.

I studied economic history. The classic factors of production are land, labour & capital. So if you were to study the history of economic thought you'd see that the factors of production aren't "set". If you think the factors are fixed then you've studied too much economics. Study to challenge your assumptions, not reinforce them.

Sure, entrepreneurship exists. Some people are innovators. Some people genuinely love their craft and are more like artisans. Thats all good. But the billionaire class is something different. Once they get ahead, they want to stay there. The classic example are the robber barons. Free markets lead to cartels and oligopoly, not competition. They abuse their dominant position and start to seek rent rather than innovate. Economies where rent seeking dominates stagnate.

ush

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that capital punishment is no longer legal in France? Article 66-1.

So unless they start breaking the law they will not get the opportunity again. As salivating an idea as you might find it.

Anyone setting up execution devices in France would likely end up in prison. The current regime in France are very paranoid about any extremist groups ( ie Le Pen & co ) who are advocating the reinstatement of capital punishment. What i am not so sure about is if they must hold a referendum to change their constitution, do you know?

And here was me thinking revolutions were legal. The revolution will not be legalised.

PS

The problem with the french is they have no word for entrepreneur.

ush

Ush1 wrote: »

Who are you to decide to put some arbitrary cap on someone elses ambitions?

Who are we to deny basic human dignity to hundreds of millions living in poverty?

saabsaab

I guess anyone richer than I am is obviously a scheming B'stard and anyone poorer is a workshy lazybones.


Then again two guys I knew well who worked with the funds of the ultra rich said that they were to a man or woman obsessive and unpleasant individuals. I said surely some were alright but was told after a short pause no none!

Mr Meanor

ush wrote: »

The concentration of wealth is unsustainable. So its not solely a moral argument about ”sharing”. Its a practical argument about social cohesion and international peace. The kind of inequality that capitalism creates eventually requires authoritarianism; if only to police the army of the underemployed. It gets messy.

Billionaires hoard. That’s basically what they are, hoarders. Millionaires may take risks to get more money. But billionaires are ultimately defensive in their mindset. So they’ll rig the market to their advantage and to society’s disadvantage. Innovation is harmed by the billionaire class. Is Elon Musk that creative?

The kind of inequality we see today is matched by pre-world war periods. People instinctively know something is out of synch. So far many have latched onto crank right-wing ideas to ease their minds. Trump and Brexit fall into this category. Both are ready made by economic interests to misdirect attention.

In short, billionaires act as a brake on innovation and extreme inequality makes us dangerous.

I would say Crank Left-wing ideas, it sits easier with the young and the disenfranchised. A lot of these people own the media and now the mobs, this is a very old game of blame the establishment.

Marxist useful idiots.

ush

Mr Meanor wrote: »

I would say Crank Left-wing ideas, it sits easier with the young and the disenfranchised. A lot of these people own the media and now the mobs, this is a very old game of blame the establishment.

Marxist useful idiots.

Yes. The media is owned almost entirely by the disenfranchised and the young. The sick and the lame sold their holding in the crash of '08.

Ush1

ush wrote: »

Who are we to deny basic human dignity to hundreds of millions living in poverty?

What?

ush

Ush1 wrote: »

What?

Nevermind

completedit

The problem I have with this idea that Bezo's and co's wealth is actually a bad thing because if you look at it, their wealth has coincided with the best quality of life our humanity has ever enjoyed. Billions lifted out of poverty and given more prosperous and more comfortable futures. I know it's not absolutely across the board and maybe there is like an optimal inequality which benefits as much people as possible but I remember thinking over lockdown how actually good the life's we have in the west are. I think sometimes we lack perspective about how miserable human existence was for the majority of our ancestors. The problem with this outlook is that this lifestyle also comes with mental defects but in general, if you look at Human Development Index, prosperity correlates with happiness.

I don't necessarily think amassing huge fortunes will stifle innovation. As the economy becomes more complex with improved tech, there will be many different new business ideas that we cannot even fathom today. If you're not ahead you're behind and I think this will drive innovation, even among the richest.

ush

I'm looking ahead and I see widening inequality. HDI uses averages; which misses redistribution.

Besides, there were advances before the billionaires of the last 20 years arrived. So I don't see the correlation between the a growing number of cleptocrats and the betterment of mankind.

ush

ush wrote: »

I'm looking ahead and I see widening inequality. HDI uses averages; which misses redistribution.

There's going to be widening inequality regardless of the billionaires. It's the nature of the economies that have evolved, and the societies we have developed. Might as well point fingers at the welfare state as much as the rich for encouraging inequalities to occur. It's not as simple as blaming the rich for inequalities to develop... as much as people want to ignore everything else that encourages such to happen.

Besides, there were advances before the billionaires of the last 20 years arrived. So I don't see the correlation between the a growing number of cleptocrats and the betterment of mankind.

TBH the betterment of mankind means nothing to me. I see very little of that happening anywhere. Everything is based on short term gains, with a PR spin involved. Few are willing to consider making the hard decisions, the unpopular decisions, that would ultimately result in a fairer/better society for all of a population.

completedit

completedit wrote: »

The problem I have with this idea that Bezo's and co's wealth is actually a bad thing because if you look at it, their wealth has coincided with the best quality of life our humanity has ever enjoyed. Billions lifted out of poverty and given more prosperous and more comfortable futures. I know it's not absolutely across the board and maybe there is like an optimal inequality which benefits as much people as possible but I remember thinking over lockdown how actually good the life's we have in the west are. I think sometimes we lack perspective about how miserable human existence was for the majority of our ancestors. The problem with this outlook is that this lifestyle also comes with mental defects but in general, if you look at Human Development Index, prosperity correlates with happiness.

Where are these billions lifted out of poverty?

I live in China, and I've heard the PR spin about a huge number lifted out of poverty, but it's mostly PR spin. They're still extremely poor, and completely reliant on casual hourly waged jobs, lacking in the education or options to achieve a sustainable better quality of life. That's without even considering the downward spiral of the economy which doesn't provide much support for the extreme poor. India is just as bad, if not worse, with their caste system, and their own inherent levels of corruption. More PR spin. And Africa? Meh.

Prosperity tends to also encourage the erosion of community spirit, a withdrawal of sympathy for strangers or the willingness to help neighbors. It tends to follow that people become more selfish and many of the social supports which traditionally existed, are replaced by state supports which usually aren't up to scratch.

completedit

Definitely. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe what we have is perfect but I believe we are only in the beginning stages of our global societal development. I am optimistic about the future but the future of our future generations, that is presuming the threat of climate change can be alleviated through innovation and green technologies to enable sustainable growth. Some see it as a paradox, there's no such thing but I believe we will find solutions as a species. We are still in the doldrums about our capabilities

completedit

completedit wrote: »

Definitely. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe what we have is perfect but I believe we are only in the beginning stages of our global societal development. I am optimistic about the future but the future of our future generations, that is presuming the threat of climate change can be alleviated through innovation and green technologies to enable sustainable growth. Some see it as a paradox, there's no such thing but I believe we will find solutions as a species. We are still in the doldrums about our capabilities

Ahh well, I see climate change to be a moot point because I figure we're going to see a Nuclear exchange at some point within the next twenty years... That'll screw with any climate change theories.

There are simply too many people in the world, with too many belief systems (religious, political, etc), and I fully expect a nasty world war to level, pretty much everything. After that? Sure, I expect we'll see some real movement on human development.

Feisar

Ush1 wrote: »

Who are you to decide to put some arbitrary cap on someone elses ambitions?

No man has a right to say to his country thus far shalt thou go and no further.

ush

There's going to be widening inequality regardless of the billionaires. It's the nature of the economies that have evolved, and the societies we have developed. Might as well point fingers at the welfare state as much as the rich for encouraging inequalities to occur. It's not as simple as blaming the rich for inequalities to develop... as much as people want to ignore everything else that encourages such to happen. [/QUOTE]

No, its not inevitable. Welfare states are being dismantled by economic interests. Namely the interests of unregulated global capitalism.

Deleted User wrote: »

the betterment of mankind means nothing to me. I see very little of that happening anywhere. Everything is based on short term gains, with a PR spin involved. Few are willing to consider making the hard decisions, the unpopular decisions, that would ultimately result in a fairer/better society for all of a population.

I get it. You're disillusioned. But humanity isn't like that. Its become like that because of the pressures the economy exerts on our true nature. But we're far more communal and generous than capitalism allows us to be.

ush

There's something that gets missed in all of this. Someone earlier wrote Bezos and Co. I don't think they're all that representative. The ones that court the limelight, I mean. The majority aren't household names outside of their home countries. Many are families with generational wealth. So Bezos might have this kind of polished image. The public billionaires are socially progressive, or at least they seem that way. Techbro billionaires have inclusive workplaces. There's beanbags and swings and slides in the office. They're friends with Bono. However, cleptocracy and human rights abuses in the supply chain are the common denominators for billionaires. Thieving natural resources from their source countries. Families who own all the industry in a country and decide everything. Most of this can be traced back to colonialism and the structures put in place then. If fairytale textbook ideas of a free market and competition actually existed, then you couldn't get that rich. Billionaires are a sign of a lack of competition.

So don't expect the billionaires to allow new technologies that we can all expand our economies with. They will own the infrastructure. They are not going to allow competing tech on their platforms. They'll keep everything tied to their income streams and collect rent. Was true when the railroads where built in the US and was true when Microsoft got busted. But that required legislators that opened for competition. Anti-trust laws. But the capitalism of today is global and unregulated. This is be harder to pull in.

ush

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are these billions lifted out of poverty?

Thats interesting. China lifted the most out of poverty. And that wasn't done with the western version of capitalism. Western capitalism has otherwise kind of failed on this front. Sure you now live on 5 dollars a day; but you've moved to the city, the rent is a lot more, you miss your kid and you work in a dark satanic mill. But at least you're not poor. Praise Bezos.

Is Elon Musk that creative?

• Revolutionised online payments (PayPal)
• Built a profitable electric car industry from scratch
• Built a profitable electric power industry from scratch
• Built a profitable space exploration company from scratch that outcompetes even the Russians on price and everyone on quality and reliability
• Busy developing a human brain / computer interface
• Is going to provide the whole world with broadband at a cost of only 10 times the Irish Rural Broadband scheme, and will probably have it finished before they do, and will be almost certainly cheaper and more reliable to the customer. I mean the tech and genius in how that works alone is phenomenal.
• Actually understands and is involved with the engineering and physics of the products his companies make, unlike Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson etc.
• He could actually be much richer than he is if he actually took on the likes of amazon and beat them - but that's not his goal. He wants to genuinely improve the world.

So that would be a yes. There's a reason he called it Tesla instead of Edison.

IAMAMORON

ush wrote: »

There's something that gets missed in all of this. Someone earlier wrote Bezos and Co. I don't think they're all that representative. The ones that court the limelight, I mean. The majority aren't household names outside of their home countries. Many are families with generational wealth. So Bezos might have this kind of polished image. The public billionaires are socially progressive, or at least they seem that way. Techbro billionaires have inclusive workplaces. There's beanbags and swings and slides in the office. They're friends with Bono. However, cleptocracy and human rights abuses in the supply chain are the common denominators for billionaires. Thieving natural resources from their source countries. Families who own all the industry in a country and decide everything. Most of this can be traced back to colonialism and the structures put in place then. If fairytale textbook ideas of a free market and competition actually existed, then you couldn't get that rich. Billionaires are a sign of a lack of competition.

So don't expect the billionaires to allow new technologies that we can all expand our economies with. They will own the infrastructure. They are not going to allow competing tech on their platforms. They'll keep everything tied to their income streams and collect rent. Was true when the railroads where built in the US and was true when Microsoft got busted. But that required legislators that opened for competition. Anti-trust laws. But the capitalism of today is global and unregulated. This is be harder to pull in.

It is Kleptocracy btw. Sorry for being a grammar Nazi but I felt you need to listen to something, you are certainly craving reaction.

I find your ideologies and perceptions of the modern world strikingly naive. Borderline clueless in fact. Contrasting the wealth generated by mid west pioneers in the 19th century with modern capitalist practices is really pointless. You are over - reaching now.

How many Tumble dryers do you expect to be sold in domesticated India in the next 10 years?

ush

ush wrote: »

No, its not inevitable. Welfare states are being dismantled by economic interests. Namely the interests of unregulated global capitalism.

The effect that welfare states have on the population with certain groups becoming completely dependent on benefits provides it's own inequalities to the mix.

I get it. You're disillusioned. But humanity isn't like that. Its become like that because of the pressures the economy exerts on our true nature. But we're far more communal and generous than capitalism allows us to be.

Don't extend from what I said. I said I was disillusioned with democracy. Not with humanity, or what we've developed. I don't see much change from what we were before. Plenty of posturing and PR to present the views that we have, but little in tangible change.

We're far more communal and generous than the society we have created allows us to be. It's not simply capitalism. It's the focus that society has deemed to be important. You can see the same in almost every nation that has moved from poverty to prosperity... the decline of communal supports.

ush wrote: »

Thats interesting. China lifted the most out of poverty. And that wasn't done with the western version of capitalism. Western capitalism has otherwise kind of failed on this front. Sure you now live on 5 dollars a day; but you've moved to the city, the rent is a lot more, you miss your kid and you work in a dark satanic mill. But at least you're not poor. Praise Bezos.

China lifted squat out of poverty. They simply changed the way of evaluating them. Those people are still incredibly poor, and uneducated. Economic mobility is not a reality. They were born into poor families, and they stay extremely poor. In many cases, they're poorer now, than they were before... because of the changes to the local cultures/society, and the focus on city living which draws away the youth.

ush

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It is Kleptocracy btw. Sorry for being a grammar Nazi but I felt you need to listen to something, you are certainly craving reaction.

I find your ideologies and perceptions of the modern world strikingly naive. Borderline clueless in fact. Contrasting the wealth generated by mid west pioneers in the 19th century with modern capitalist practices is really pointless. You are over - reaching now.

How many Tumble dryers do you expect to be sold in domesticated India in the next 10 years?

Modern capitalist practices ©

First as tragedy, then as farce.

ush

I read something by a liberal think tank a while back. They were were proposing these kind of trading points in developing nations, where a western legal framework would exist. The thinking being that laws would develop trade. Thats how colonialism started. Western powers didn't take over whole countries at first, they just had these trading stations. Its like they'd gone full circle without realising it.

IAMAMORON

ush wrote: »

Modern capitalist practices ©

First as tragedy, then as farce.

Thanks.

Now I have a complete understanding of where you are really coming from. See ya.

ush

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Thanks.

Now I have a complete understanding of where you are really coming from. See ya.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"

completedit

It seems to be popular to be cynical of Elon Musk. I think it's more of an opposition to the fandom surrounding him and the rise of the celebrity CEO than the man himself.

An Ri rua

I knew a Zimbabwean billionaire once and he had a pain in his back from all the money under his mattress and his nose pressed against the ceiling. A Georgian ceiling.

It's not all fun and games being a billionaire. And I tell ya, ya wanna try it sometime!

IAMAMORON

ush wrote: »

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"

" birds of a feather eh......flock together" maybe?

Spell Gubbermint.

ush

IAMAMORON wrote: »

" birds of a feather eh......flock together" maybe?

Spell Gubbermint.

Thought you were finished with me. See ya.

Feisar

Not to go all Bull McCabe on ye but wealth comes from the land. Bezos's wealth is sort of notional in that share prices could tumult. It's not like he's running around buying up the world's resources and hoarding them while others starve. There will always be outliers and taking his wealth and sprinkling it around on the needy won't chance much. It's a bit like when yer Mum says "eat up, there are starving kids in Africa". It's not transferable, we aren't going to post my bacon and cabbage to The Congo.

ush

Physiocracy

Yellow_Fern

If you create very high wealth taxes these billionaires would have to sell a lot of their stock of the companies they created to pay for it. At some point it would mean they could lose majority ownership. it seems unfair to do that especially if they are not consuming the wealth that have they have created.

kowloon

Ultimately capitalism without something to rebalance things is a runaway reaction that eventually creates conflict with the dispossessed. Without redistribution the only thing that stands between the wealthy and being dragged out into the streets and being beaten to death is a functioning society where people respect law and order, and once the people in the middle holding society together realise they're also getting fcuked over by the guys at the top it all falls apart.
The only solution is trying to build a society where there's still incentive but it doesn't get out of hand and everyone has a fair shot at being successful. That or a repressive police force of Amazon AI controlled terminators.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If you create very high wealth taxes these billionaires would have to sell a lot of their stock of the companies they created to pay for it. At some point it would mean they could lose majority ownership. it seems unfair to do that especially if they are not consuming the wealth that have they have created.

Maybe the solution is not to sell stock but to pay yourself well from your own company.
When people are buying and selling stock so much it seems like decisions get made based on short term gains in the stock price and not the long term health of the business. They're not always the same.

Yellow_Fern

kowloon wrote: »

Ultimately capitalism without something to rebalance things is a runaway reaction that eventually creates conflict with the dispossessed. Without redistribution the only thing that stands between the wealthy and being dragged out into the streets and being beaten to death is a functioning society where people respect law and order, and once the people in the middle holding society together realise they're also getting fcuked over by the guys at the top it all falls apart.
The only solution is trying to build a society where there's still incentive but it doesn't get out of hand and everyone has a fair shot at being successful. That or a repressive police force of Amazon AI controlled terminators.

The 99% have an extremely high quality of life though. Even in the US, being poor is a more luxury rich quality of life than most people globally. The US is far from a truly capitalist society but I mention it as a reference point.

kowloon wrote: »

Maybe the solution is not to sell stock but to pay yourself well from your own company.
When people are buying and selling stock so much it seems like decisions get made based on short term gains in the stock price and not the long term health of the business. They're not always the same.

Owners taking out hundreds or millions as salary would not be looked upon favourable by investors.

Wanderer78

completedit wrote:

It seems to be popular to be cynical of Elon Musk. I think it's more of an opposition to the fandom surrounding him and the rise of the celebrity CEO than the man himself.

We need people like musk, but we also need to make sure we include certain conditions during their activities

An Ri rua wrote:

I knew a Zimbabwean billionaire once and he had a pain in his back from all the money under his mattress and his nose pressed against the ceiling. A Georgian ceiling.

Apparently, Zimbabwes situation was from a number of economic situations occuring at the same time, not just from excessive money creation, but mainly including supply side issues

Feisar wrote:

Not to go all Bull McCabe on ye but wealth comes from the land. Bezos's wealth is sort of notional in that share prices could tumult. It's not like he's running around buying up the world's resources and hoarding them while others starve. There will always be outliers and taking his wealth and sprinkling it around on the needy won't chance much. It's a bit like when yer Mum says "eat up, there are starving kids in Africa". It's not transferable, we aren't going to post my bacon and cabbage to The Congo.

.....land value tax! Again de-personalisation of the argument is important, this is far more complex than just wealthy individuals, but how we have created deeply flawed economic systems for redistributing wealth, they're sh1t at doing it! But I think a redistribution of asset ownership would begin to help, before we re back to war!

Yellow_Fern wrote:

If you create very high wealth taxes these billionaires would have to sell a lot of their stock of the companies they created to pay for it. At some point it would mean they could lose majority ownership. it seems unfair to do that especially if they are not consuming the wealth that have they have created.

So accumulating this wealth in the form of electrons, is good by....

kowloon wrote:

Ultimately capitalism without something to rebalance things is a runaway reaction that eventually creates conflict with the dispossessed. Without redistribution the only thing that stands between the wealthy and being dragged out into the streets and being beaten to death is a functioning society where people respect law and order, and once the people in the middle holding society together realise they're also getting fcuked over by the guys at the top it all falls apart. The only solution is trying to build a society where there's still incentive but it doesn't get out of hand and everyone has a fair shot at being successful. That or a repressive police force of Amazon AI controlled terminators.

Apparently smiths idea of the free market wasn't actually what we have now, he meant a market free from rent, the opposite of what we currently have!

Wanderer78

Yellow_Fern wrote:

The 99% have an extremely high quality of life though. Even in the US, being poor is a more luxury rich quality of life than most people globally. The US is far from a truly capitalist society but I mention it as a reference point.

Its one of the finest examples of a free market capatalist country though, and how fcuked up this version of capitalism can be, especially when you push it to the extreme, we re on a similar path ourselves, only we largely haven't accepted it yet, it ll be interesting to see what happen, when the penny finally drops!

4068ac1elhodqr

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We need people like musk, but we also need to make sure we include certain conditions during their activities

He certainly appears to be one of the better ones, just on engineering innovation and tangabile productive assets alone.

However he is an enigma.
He warned greatly about the dangers of AI, then plugs bots into into neural networks all while building the all-seeing Skynet.


Of course the solution of wealth distribution would be a form of UBI.

This UBI would then establish pre-conditions on such free (digital only) monies. E.g. You would not be allowed to buy any fags, nor a six-pack of Fosters, and only be allowed perhaps 5% max for entertainment purposes.