Should Billionaires Exist?

[Eskilon]

24 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

You'll not solve hunger and housing problem by redistributing money, that's not how it works. Not gonna actually solve it

It definely ain't getting solved by billionaires existing though. Their money could be put to good use to solve those problems, like can you not see this? The redistributing has never been tried or considered so you cant claim about it. It's not just redistributing, it's redistributing with a vision to work on those problems.

Edited 6 hours ago by Eskilon

[Elliott]

22 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Nah.

🤣

[Eskilon]

12 minutes ago, enchanted said:

 

Actual wisdom lmao.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

Of course: I'd rather have small business, partnerships, partnership projects, co-ops, an integrated non-corporation network. In my opinion centralization such as global corporatization is dangerous, promotes corruption, and generally stupid; consider the results: shit products, shit service, concentrated wealth, concentrated power. Even just global 'equity', I believe would result in a more peaceful world, reducing defense and conflict cost, reducing crime, bringing more people into the fold to participate in innovation of all forms including economics and governance, spurring MORE and better technological and systems advancement than funneling everything to the Ketamine King.

All of that is BS. You have no evidence that snall businesses, partnerships, partnership projects and integrated non corporation networks lead to more innovation or high quality products/services. It is a false dichotomy anyway; we can and do have both small businesses and large corporations. Large corporations are the ones who excel in groundbreaking innovation as that often requires intensive and large capital investment over long periods of time; something cooperation of many small businesses could never afford to do. Now, these do have their role in the economy as well, but they'll not replace a role of global corporations

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

It's literally retarded, 'we want to concentrate wealth to help humanity, rather than helping humanity!', 'If we gave people a better start in life, they wouldn't do anything, so we should give the people that currently get the best start in life, we should give them the most money! Thats how we best help the people with the worst start in life!'. 'We need to concentrate the wealth so jobs are created for poors, "why not just take money from the rich?", if you make it easier for the poor they won't work as hard, its human nature. "But making it easier for the rich is good?" Yes!'

Another set of neadhertal thoughts steming from a false dichotomy of poor vs. rich. Wealth isn't a fixed pie chart, you can create unlimited amount of it. Forced redistribution is just a lazy socwokie cop-out solution

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

All of that is BS. You have no evidence that snall businesses, partnerships, partnership projects and integrated non corporation networks lead to more innovation or high quality products/services. It is a false dichotomy anyway; we can and do have both small businesses and large corporations. Large corporations are the ones who excel in groundbreaking innovation as that often requires intensive and large capital investment over long periods of time; something cooperation of many small businesses could never afford to do. Now, these do have their role in the economy as well, but they'll not replace a role of global corporations

Another set of neadhertal thoughts steming from a false dichotomy of poor vs. rich. Wealth isn't a fixed pie chart, you can create unlimited amount of it. Forced redistribution is just a lazy socwokie cop-out solution

I didnt say forced redistribution nor believe in it, youre making a false dichotomy. In the West, large corporations are given advantages over small business, think of the 2008 bailouts of banks and manufacturers, which this continually reoccurs. But also, look at the u.s. going to war currently for oil corporations, they went to war in Vietnam for rubber corporations, they're in a cold war in Taiwan for tech corps,..... the u.s. government personally insures every private bank in the u.s......

Most major innovation is from small business; Apple, Walmart, Amazon, Ford, Ebay, Microsoft, Facebook, Google... their innovation was when they were small businesses. They only start ruining shit when they get big.

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

I see no problem with billionaires per se (why shouldn't anyone on the planet be a billionaire that so wishes?), the issue is the system where people are not guaranteed their basic needs met: that I think should be covered so that taking a job is something you do because your heart desires it.
I’m not arguing for eliminating wealth accumulation or corporations. I’m questioning whether extreme wealth concentration is still a necessary feature if basic needs are structurally guaranteed. In that scenario, “billionaire or not” becomes less important than the underlying coordination system.

[Eskilon]

42 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

I see no problem with billionaires per se (why shouldn't anyone on the planet be a billionaire that so wishes?), the issue is the system where people are not guaranteed their basic needs met: that I think should be covered so that taking a job is something you do because your heart desires it.

But I think the system is the way it is because billionaires and wealth accumulation is so valued. 

If a person has his or her basic needs met, they wouldn't be forced to work for a billionaire -- which is the present condition for billions of people. If that changes, then billionaires will lose power and influence and their ego would probably feel hurt. If one truly had the power to decide if they want to work for somebody or not then it would screw billionaires. The current system runs on pressure and force -- people have to work for them pretty much. Billionaires thrive on people not having options and pressure.

Edited 3 hours ago by Eskilon

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

27 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

But I think the system is the way it is because billionaires and wealth accumulation is so valued. 

If a person has his or her basic needs met, they wouldn't be forced to work for a billionaire -- which is the present condition for billions of people. If that changes, then billionaires will lose power and influence and their ego would probably feel hurt. If one truly had the power to decide if they want to work for somebody or not then it would screw billionaires. The current system runs on pressure and force -- people have to work for them pretty much. Billionaires thrive on people not having options and pressure.

You are not wrong that people with power often resist changes that would reduce their leverage. My hesitation is that framing the issue primarily as billionaires vs everyone else can sometimes make the problem look more personal than structural.

The way I see it, many societies get stuck in stable but sub-optimal arrangements not because a particular group is evil, but because their feedback systems are weak. Problems accumulate, signals get filtered, institutions react late, and incentives end up reinforcing the status quo even when many people would prefer something better.

That's part of why I focus on the baseline conditions rather than billionaires themselves. If people's basic needs were guaranteed, the bargaining relationship between workers, employers, governments and investors would indeed look very different. The question then becomes less if billionaires should exist and more about how to build systems that can sense problems early, adapt, and distribute opportunities widely without getting locked into unhealthy dynamics.

[Ero]

Watch Labor Value Theory disintegrate in front your eyes.

[Elliott]

"Billionaires shouldn't exist" is obviously just arbitrary. When serious people say billionaires shouldn't exist they don't mean as a rule, they mean in our current day and dynamic, that answer is no, but it's just a rage bait type of question framing it that way. The statement without further explanation is divisive.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[caspex]

should trillionaires exist?

[Elliott]

Everyone should be homeless

~Greta Thunberg

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott