Should Billionaires Exist?

[zurew]

11 hours ago, Ero said:

As I said above, I treat LTV as any other explanatory framework or theory, I never said there isn't value in it. If you choose to LTV/Marxism as your "end stage", that's a perfectly fine choice to make, but we are no longer talking about a 'general theory', rather a 'social metaphysics' which is a different discussion entirely that I am not at all interested in.

Just to clarify  -  this was the debate proposition in that cluster fuck Destiny debate:

"Subjectivist/marginalist value theory can explain everything that the LVT can explain and more"

Jack argued that the LVT generates 11 distinct predictions (and this is supposed to be in the previously linked doc). He challenged Destiny to produce a single subjectivist or marginalist framework that can account for all 11 of those predictions. ( Jack qualified that various subjectivist models may be able to explain some of the predictions individually, but maintained that no single subjectivist model can successfully explain the entire set at once).

So basically the claim isn't just an ideological preference based claim (Jack tried to laser focus only on what is derivable from LVT and tried to distance himself away from other Marxist claims). 

It supposed to be an inference to the best explanation move, where you try to show using various theoretical virtues (like explanatory power, parsimony,unity etc) why hypothesis/framework 1 wins over hypothesis/framework 2.

Now to clarify again: im not in the position to evaluate whether Jack's claim is accurate . Im just giving this clarification so that you can make your own assessment targeting his main claim   (if you think such an analysis would be worthwhile)

Its perfectly fine if you dont care about addressing this specific claim and or if you give more weight to other theoretical virtues and norms.

Edited yesterday at 08:34 AM by zurew

[Elliott]

The naivety of conservatives, "billionaire investment means more American jobs! Give billionaires more money!!!"

"Marxists are ideological", but conservatives aren't?

Jun 23, 2026, 03:08 IST

"General Motors (GM) has deployed 50 collaborative robots at its Factory Zero assembly plant in Michigan. The company has reportedly eliminated more than 1,000 jobs at the facility for the same reason. The move comes after the automaker laid off more than 600 engineers from its IT division in May, which was more than 10% of the department. The automaker is looking for ways to cut costs and increase manufacturing efficiency, and the move to replace human workers with robots"

 

 

Marx's take on labor theory of value is of common sense

Edited yesterday at 03:06 PM by Elliott

[Ero]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Just to clarify  -  this was the debate proposition in that cluster fuck Destiny debate:

"Subjectivist/marginalist value theory can explain everything that the LVT can explain and more"

I agree with Jack's critique on this statement, it is epistemically disingenuous to claim marginal value theory has greater "expressivity" than LTV. That just isn't true. There are indeed rigorous predictions you can make with the latter but not the former, as both the document you linked and (Ref 1) in my previous response show. I was trying to add nuance on top of that to why LTV is not my sole explanatory framework. 

7 hours ago, zurew said:

It supposed to be an inference to the best explanation move, where you try to show using various theoretical virtues (like explanatory power, parsimony,unity etc) why hypothesis/framework 1 wins over hypothesis/framework 2.

Absolutely. My "social metaphysics" point was aimed at Elliot and the "that's not what he meant" move by Richard Wolff in the YouTube Video, which makes Marxism into a philosophy and not a falsifiable theory, at which point I tune out lol. 

Edited yesterday at 03:41 PM by Ero

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Ero said:

I 

Absolutely. Unless they do the "that's not what he meant" move as Richard Wolff, which makes it into a philosophy and not a falsifiable theory, at which point I tune out lol. 

It's falsifiable by showing 'capitalism'(profit) doesn't aim toward concentration of wealth, giving any rational alternative.

Edited yesterday at 03:33 PM by Elliott

[Ero]

6 minutes ago, Elliott said:

It's falsifiable by showing 'capitalism'(profit) doesn't aim toward concentration of wealth.

A nuanced modern take on this topic is Thomas Piketty's Capital, I recommend it. 

His argument is that concentration of wealth follows when the return on capital exceeds the growth rate of the economy. 

He acknowledges it as politically consequential without defaulting to a Marxian "collapse ".

Edited yesterday at 03:36 PM by Ero

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Ero said:

A nuanced modern take on this topic is Thomas Piketty's Capital, I recommend it. 

Thanks

[Elliott]

@Ero that's my view, lol

"Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty is a landmark book that analyzes historical data on wealth and income inequality, arguing that capitalism inherently generates inequality when the rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the rate of economic growth (g). This "r > g" dynamic leads to wealth concentration, making inherited wealth more significant and undermining meritocracy, a trend exacerbated by events like the World Wars and the Great Depression. Piketty uses extensive historical data to show how this process creates a society where the rich get richer, and proposes progressive wealth taxes as a solution. "

I don't support the government taking over businesses.

Edited yesterday at 03:39 PM by Elliott

[Ero]

@Elliott Then you are much closer to where I stand.

The "bringing a marxist YouTube video to a school project on economic theory" was giving me flashbacks lol. 

[Elliott]

10 minutes ago, Ero said:

 

He acknowledges it as politically consequential without defaulting to a Marxian "collapse ".

Okay. I see this as inevitably leading to socialism, not the modern meaning of "socialism" though, but 'pre-marxist/leninist' meaning of socialism, not government ran business, more like utopian anarchy/liberalism.

Edited yesterday at 03:44 PM by Elliott

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Ero said:

@Elliott Then you are much closer to where I stand.

The "bringing a marxist YouTube video to a school project on economic theory" was giving me flashbacks lol. 

Do you know Marx didn't mean "monetary value" when he says "value"?

[Ero]

Just now, Elliott said:

Okay. I see this as inevitably leading to socialism, not modern the meaning of "socialism" though, but 'pre-marxist/leninist' meaning of socialism, not government ran business, more like utopian anarchy/liberalism.

I don't think you are wrong here, I would rather reframe it as needing to "graduate" to a post-Marxist socialism rather than pre-marxist. 

[Ero]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

Do you know Marx didn't mean "monetary value" when he says "value"?

I think I made that clear. 

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Ero said:

I don't think you are wrong here, I would rather reframe it as needing to "graduate" to a post-Marxist socialism rather than pre-marxist. 

I mean "socialism" was not coined by Marx or Marxists, it had a meaning in intellectual circles before Marx that had nothing to do with government ownership.

[Elliott]

Corporate 'socialism'

 

"Trump administration to loan $17 billion to speed deployment of 10 big nuclear reactors in U.S.

Published Tue, Jun 23 202610:00 

The Trump administration anticipates that the big tech companies will sign long-term power purchase agreements with the projects to support the construction of the reactors, Beard said.

The tech sector has played an instrumental role in stimulating renewed demand for nuclear power, as they"

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/23/trump-administration-to-loan-17-billion-to-build-10-nuclear-reactors.html

Edited 5 hours ago by Elliott

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

Corporate 'socialism'

 

"Trump administration to loan $17 billion to speed deployment of 10 big nuclear reactors in U.S.

Published Tue, Jun 23 202610:00 

The Trump administration anticipates that the big tech companies will sign long-term power purchase agreements with the projects to support the construction of the reactors, Beard said.

The tech sector has played an instrumental role in stimulating renewed demand for nuclear power, as they"

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/23/trump-administration-to-loan-17-billion-to-build-10-nuclear-reactors.html

You think small companies don't have a demand, or do not get a support from the goverment? What's your point here? Yes, big tech companies need energy. So what?

Edited 3 hours ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Elliott]

52 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

You think small companies don't have a demand, or do not get a support from the goverment? What's your point here? Yes, big tech companies need energy. So what?

Without government investments like this billionaires wouldn't exist, the local Amish farmer trailering his produce to the farmers market by horse does not need nor benefit from this, the local carpenter does not need nor will see any positive from this, the local mechanic, the baker, all the while they're paying for this. This advantages big corporations against small business and individual workers, because of automation. Why do we not repair our cars instead of replacing them, because Ford has an unfair advantage given to them over mechanics, why is agriculture ruled by 3 corporations, why is fast food not local, why are 70% of homes in the u.s. built by 4 corporations, its because of things like this, highway systems, ports, overseas shipping protections, bank protections, market protections like oil market, government subsidies and market negotiations to grow grain to sell to China,.....

"The "Big Four": Cargill, along with Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, and Louis Dreyfus, controls an estimated 70% to 90% of the global grain trade."

How is this possible without our navies? Why should the local farmers market farmer pay for that? Why would we want this when you factor in the drawbacks after efficiency(lower prices).

Would these corporations be in business without the bank and manufacturer bailouts? Because the local farmer still would, arguably there'd be more local mechanics and carpenters too, because we'd fix more old cars and houses rather than buy new, rather than corporate consolidation.

Corporatization absolutely reduces costs and prices, but at the cost and price of concentrating power. I'd rather pay 'more' and the world be less ruled, but even still the quality and service of everything suffers from monopoly. Corporatization has led to a garbage world, cheap though!!!

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

31 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Without government investments like this billionaires wouldn't exist, the local Amish farmer trailering his produce to the farmers market does not need nor benefit from this, the local carpenter does not need nor will see any positive from this, the local mechanic, the baker, all the while they're paying for this.

First of all, you don't KNOW if they won't ever see any benefits from this. You just assume that because of your socwokie bias. It is a long term, strategically crucial investment on a national level with an outcome that is not certain - but taking risks never produces certain outcomes, and yet it is absolutely neccessery for progress of any kind, so of course it is important to invest into it. You think surplus of energy additional nuclear reactors would provide is a bad thing? That is objectively a good thing, it'd only be bad if safety precautions were neglected, but nuclear power is one of them most regulated and secure energy there is - it has to be.

And why are you bringing up the lowest common denominators of the work force, romanticizing them as if they are the end-all-be-all of what yall should aspire to as a nation? Sure, they are providing their own value in a relatively small ways, but what are they doing to advance anything?

31 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Why do we not repair our cars instead of replacing them, because Ford has an unfair advantage given to them over mechanics, why is agriculture ruled by 3 corporations, why is fast food not local, why are 70% of homes in the u.s. built by 4 corporations, its because of things like this, highway systems, ports, overseas shipping protections, bank protections. 

Sounds like BS, homes aren't 70% built by four companies, that's fake, top builders do under half of new ones. Agriculture, fast food, and cars consolidate from scale, tech, and you buying the cheap option every time, not some road conspiracy

Edited 3 hours ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Elliott]

How Vanderbilt and Carnegie got rich - government railroad subsidies

How Rockefeller, Ford, and Firestone got rich- highways and oil and rubber wars

How Zuck, Musk, and Bezos got rich- billions spent on the internet and infrastructure

 

Now, the plebians benefited from this too, but disproportionately, and it continues to get more and more disproportionate which affects the power dynamic, control over society, Musk buying Twitter for example, but also our 'hostage situation' to oil and big tech, big ag, big manufacturing.

 

This is the definition of monopoly^

 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

 

 

Private corporation Cargill accounts for 25% of all United States grain exports and supplies approximately 22% of the U.S. domestic meat

 

 

The U.S. military budget for Fiscal Year 2025 enacted approximately $833 billion

U.S. federal public infrastructure construction spending is expected to reach $479 billion

2025, the U.S. government distributed an estimated $181 billion in federal subsidies to businesses, 

U.S. federal corporate income tax revenues reached $452.1 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2025, 

fiscal year 2025, the federal government's net interest payments on the national debt totaled $970 billion. 

fiscal year 2025, the federal government spent a total of $147.9 billion across all 16 domestic food and nutrition assistance

Taxpayers making under $150,000 contribute approximately $665 billion annually in federal individual income taxes.

Edited just now by Elliott

[Elliott]

2 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

 

And why are you bringing up the lowest common denominators of the work force, romanticizing them as if they are the end-all-be-all of what yall should aspire to as a nation? Sure, they are providing their own value in a relatively small ways, but what are they doing to advance anything?

Because most people arent ceos..... and they provide what people want. Most advancements are from those, Ford was small with his innovation, Bezos, Musk, Zuck, Jobs, Gates, the guys that started Google, walmart,... they were small fish when they came up with their innovations. Corporatization of tech has arguably slowed innovation, it's a lopsided playing field now, will the government invade Burmha for me to acquire benziate to make my semi-conductor, will they build a highway to St.George Utah for me to mine and ship benziate, will they send the navy to protect my factory i want to build in the ghetto, will they negotiate with china so they buy my semi-conductor, will they insure my business for customers(they do for banks)?

Quote

Sounds like BS, homes aren't 70% built by four companies, that's fake, top builders do under half of new ones. Agriculture, fast food, and cars consolidate from scale, tech, and you buying the cheap option every time, not some road conspiracy

I didn't say conspiracy, I said infrastructure, it's out in the open plain as day, they do it for lower prices.

1.)Do corporations benefit more from highways than family vacationers? (Would these corporations exist without highways?)

2.)When people say things used to be cheaper, do you disagree with them?(relative to wages).

3.) Do people these days have more or less 'market autonomy' buying things? When you go to all your different local stores, how many brands of carrots are there? I bike, will the federal government build a bicycle highway for cyclists?(I should have a car?) You're British right, have you been to the u.s. to notice the difference in public transportation?

 

"In the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, the top 10 national builders control an average of 79% of the housing supply"

Edited 39 minutes ago by Elliott