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 19 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 19 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 16 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 15 hours ago by Elliott

[caspex]

should trillionaires exist?

[Elliott]

Everyone should be homeless

~Greta Thunberg

Edited 15 hours ago by Elliott

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Ero said:

Watch Labor Value Theory disintegrate in front your eyes.

Hash it out with Jack Angstreich. 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

14 hours ago, Elliott said:

I didnt say forced redistribution nor believe in it, youre making a false dichotomy.

You just claim whatever your gut feeling tells you, first you claimed you only support dissproportionate taxes on the wealthy and that some billionaires are fine (those who ideologically agree with you - even though you included Jeff Bezos into that category which makes little sense, since most socwokies definitely would not like him lol); then in the next post you claim big multinational companies should not exist - which entails billionaires should not exist, also what do you think taxes on unrealized gains, assest and income in general are if not forcefull redistribution of wealth, how else would you call it? LOL

14 hours ago, Elliott said:

In the West, large corporations are given advantages over small business, think of the 2008 bailouts of banks and manufacturers, which this continually reoccurs.

Percentage of big multinationals that got bailed out because of bankrupcy out of the total number of big billion dollar multinational companies that failed/filed for bankrupcy, is insignificant - and you could say most of it is the fault of the goverment and banks (although banks are also companies, but of special kind), maybe certain shadowy elites - whatever. But, there are some billion dollar companies filling for bankrupcy every single year in the US alone, granted in much, much lower quantities than the amount of small businesses filling for bankrupcy every year, but it happens. And none of them gets bailed out. Also, smaller businesses do get benefits from the goverment that huge companies do not get - and it's not true the other way around. And the bail outs do not really reocur, it's not a regular, normal thing at all. That's a big exaggeration

15 hours ago, Elliott said:

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......

That's a simplification and not really true for Vietnam and Taiwan; there are stronger forces at play here

15 hours ago, Elliott said:

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.

So by your logic, companies should never get big, despite groundbreaking innovations, they should just do them for free out of the goodness of their heart because otherwise they get big and evil - and they have to redistribute all the excess money into socwokie bank accounts lmao ok. I can see this working perfectly. Ignoring all incentives

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

You just claim whatever your gut feeling tells you, first you claimed you only support dissproportionate taxes on the wealthy and that some billionaires are fine (those who ideologically agree with you - even though you included Jeff Bezos into that category which makes little sense, since most socwokies definitely would not like him lol); then in the next post you claim big multinational companies should not exist - which entails billionaires should not exist, also what do you think taxes on unrealized gains, assest and income in general are if not forcefull redistribution of wealth, how else would you call it? LOL

Percentage of big multinationals that got bailed out because of bankrupcy out of the total number of big billion dollar multinational companies that failed/filed for bankrupcy, is insignificant - and you could say most of it is the fault of the goverment and banks (although banks are also companies, but of special kind), maybe certain shadowy elites - whatever. But, there are some billion dollar companies filling for bankrupcy every single year in the US alone, granted in much, much lower quantities than the amount of small businesses filling for bankrupcy every year, but it happens. And none of them gets bailed out. Also, smaller businesses do get benefits from the goverment that huge companies do not get - and it's not true the other way around. And the bail outs do not really reocur, it's not a regular, normal thing at all. That's a big exaggeration

That's a simplification and not really true for Vietnam and Taiwan; there are stronger forces at play here

So by your logic, companies should never get big, despite groundbreaking innovations, they should just do them for free out of the goodness of their heart because otherwise they get big and evil - and they have to redistribute all the excess money into socwokie bank accounts lmao ok. I can see this working perfectly. Ignoring all incentives

No

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

Everyone should be homeless

~Greta Thunberg

Truly the greatest thinker of our generation. Perhaps of all time

[Elliott]

"Jeff Bezos supports completely eliminating federal income taxes for the bottom half of U.S. earners (individuals earning up to roughly $53,000 to $75,000 annually). He argues this would provide immediate financial relief for working-class households struggling with rent and groceries. "

This is 100 to 150k for a couple. This would get the playing field closer for the small business versus corporation dynamic. 

I like, admire, and appreciate Bezos. I don't support Amazon though because it's a big corporation; I don't blame Bezos for this this is how the West is set up: for corporatization and centralization, purely through our tax structure and 'positive' government policies, not positive as in good but as in what the government DOES as in military campaigns and public infrastructure like highways, railways, ports, nasa, power generation, it's anti-small business, it's 'rigged' for centralization and corporatization. I want local economies, not global, this infrastructure is for centralization, taking tax money from workers to build infrastructure for corporatization. I want to redirect the money toward local needs.

I don't care about the efficiency of how cheap a BigMac can be or how fast AmazonPrime can deliver your dildo, I don't care how well FaceBook knows you to suggest a new sparkling water variety. I want people to not live in filth. It's literally stupid, shameful, idiotic, ignorant, vain, greedy, theft, harm, assault, violence. We spend tax dollars for high speed dildo delivery(highways, highways, highways!!, ports, bridges, naval patrol(Chinese dildos), rather than cleaning up abandoned factories or paying for more teachers, we pay farmers to strip the soil for grain farming to make fatasses their Whoppers it would take 1/16 the farmland and resources to grow vegetables rather than feed(grain), the government subsidizes this. I want small local farmers, not Cargill, Conagra, and Tyson, the government runs small farmers out of business with prioritizing highways, foreign trade(trump "we need more exporting soybeans to China!"), bank protections(corporations leverage debt beyond their means(2008 bailouts)), oil protections(transportation(corporations transport farther)),.....

Edited 8 minutes ago by Elliott

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

17 hours ago, Eskilon said:

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?

No, I do really not see this. Everyone should create their own wealth and abundance, if they are unable to or unwilling to do so, then they should live within their means and think strategically. Instead of begging daddy goverment to help them out

Edited 2 hours ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Eskilon]

13 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

No, I do really not see this.

Can't be helped then lmao. Get a pair of eyes.

[Ero]

@zurew Anything this guy has written up or explicitly references? I agree with his pushback against Destiny for talking out his ass about LTV with only superficial understanding, but his appeal to "scientific theories" without the references are a big red flag for me.

Economic debates should start with a bibliography list from both sides. "If you didn't do your homework, you don't get to talk in class."