billionaires

[Someone here]

For me, the problem with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money. There will always be problems of exploitation, and the emergence of the ultra rich in the 21st century does not mean to me that more people are being exploited, just that globalism has opened up the route for this wealth.

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like. And this has been the issue with the ultra wealthy historically, the trust busters and so on back in American history, the issue arrises not out of a certain level of wealth, but the power that wealth creates.

So my main thrust against the argument that billionaires should not exist is that it is arbitrary to ascribe a level of wealth that should not be achievable, and this is just a slippery slope into state enforced equality of poverty. My counter is that something needs to be done to keep the powerful in check, as we use treaties to ensure peace between nations, the problem of billionaires is how to check their power.

My parameters for a solution are as follows:
Cannot be done by simply reducing their wealth
Cannot lead to "well if we take away billionaires, we shouldn't have millionaires either"
Cannot infringe on the personal right to the pursuit of happiness

Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

[Tim R]

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' Sounds lovely - but requires selflessness. 

The selflessness to give away your billions to society and the selflessness not to take more than you need when you are poor.

'He who does not work shall not eat.'

Otherwise, the system is set up for exploitation by the selfish. They take more than they need and give less than they have. 

[Yarco]

The only solution I can think of is basically taking anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws to the extreme.

You could artificially limit someone like Elon Musk once he hits a certain size. But then you completely disincentive people to keep making progress past a certain point. You can make the tax bracket or whatever other controls high enough that it just becomes illogical to keep working.

Basically you end up with 50 Elon Musks operating at a state/regional level instead of a national level, each earning 1/50th of the money.

But then you lose a ton of efficiency. Also may create more jobs though. And you're assuming there are 50+ people with the work ethic and vision of Elon Musk out there to take his place.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Yarco

[Zedman]

Slippery slope I see with this

Their wealth is illegal or unjust > you need official proof > you don't have it > you are a conspiracy theorist > you know how we treat your kind here

And if their wealth is just and legal how can you object?

[Zizzero]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

For me, the problem with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money. There will always be problems of exploitation, and the emergence of the ultra rich in the 21st century does not mean to me that more people are being exploited, just that globalism has opened up the route for this wealth.

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like. And this has been the issue with the ultra wealthy historically, the trust busters and so on back in American history, the issue arrises not out of a certain level of wealth, but the power that wealth creates.

So my main thrust against the argument that billionaires should not exist is that it is arbitrary to ascribe a level of wealth that should not be achievable, and this is just a slippery slope into state enforced equality of poverty. My counter is that something needs to be done to keep the powerful in check, as we use treaties to ensure peace between nations, the problem of billionaires is how to check their power.

My parameters for a solution are as follows:
Cannot be done by simply reducing their wealth
Cannot lead to "well if we take away billionaires, we shouldn't have millionaires either"
Cannot infringe on the personal right to the pursuit of happiness

Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

These are precisely the considerations that should occur within the realm of politics in a functioning society. See, the problem with, for example, socialism is not that it’s wrong per se. It is, like any other political ideology, a partial truth. The problem is when all you are is a socialist and you don’t see the necessity of balance. There is no correct solution to these problems; every policy comes at a cost and risk.

The left is conscious of the tendency of the powerful to exploit the weak and rig the system.
The right is conscious of the need to set the right incentives, allow people to pursue their purpose to the fullest and maximize the positive impact they can have on the world.

You are right that “abolishing billionaires” is a slippery slope. In fact, anyone who says things like “billionaires should not exist” or “eat the rich” should watch what he is saying and how dehumanizing these phrases are. The phrasing of one's ideas matters.

I think a good start would be if both sides could agree that they need the other to keep them in check. At least people on this forum who peg themselves to be integral thinkers should.

 

[Someone here]

Seems to me it's a systemic issue, in that a system which results so much inequality that it gives a minority of individuals disproportionate power to maintain that system, we have an inbuilt problem.

In democracies this means we have to be persuaded that this is is best system, via culture, media education etc. Not as some conspiracy, just an alignment of interests which dominate public discourse and become accepted norms.

So the challenge is how does a Sanders (or Corbyn in the UK) get elected, to go about making systemic change? I'd suggest that in those two cases it's the centrists and some parts of the Left which colluded with the powerful interests which their election would have challenged. Either by having accepted the norms we're fed, or being too timid about the chance of change.

The Right has shown that by being bold they can take power, and the Left as usual will be left to pick up the pieces from the wreckage, and try to re-establish a status quo which originally drove disaffected people to vote for change.

It's a mugs' game of damage limitation the Left has settled for. After the failure of Sanders in America and Corbyn in Europe, it will be a long time before we get another chance for anything better.

[IAmReallyImportant]

11 hours ago, Someone here said:

For me, the problem with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money. There will always be problems of exploitation, and the emergence of the ultra rich in the 21st century does not mean to me that more people are being exploited, just that globalism has opened up the route for this wealth.

Rather, I take issue with the fact that through capitalism, these people have become ultra wealthy to the point where they wield significant power, political, economic, social and all the like. And this has been the issue with the ultra wealthy historically, the trust busters and so on back in American history, the issue arrises not out of a certain level of wealth, but the power that wealth creates.

So my main thrust against the argument that billionaires should not exist is that it is arbitrary to ascribe a level of wealth that should not be achievable, and this is just a slippery slope into state enforced equality of poverty. My counter is that something needs to be done to keep the powerful in check, as we use treaties to ensure peace between nations, the problem of billionaires is how to check their power.

My parameters for a solution are as follows:
Cannot be done by simply reducing their wealth
Cannot lead to "well if we take away billionaires, we shouldn't have millionaires either"
Cannot infringe on the personal right to the pursuit of happiness

Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

I would question the power people give to wealth and and ask the US government first to pay back their trillions of US dollars in debt, which they have (mostly to China, which is even worse). And not to engage in scams like Ponzi schemes, before you blame people for the money they have earned themselves as a citizen - most of the time without scamming other people or even nations.

Most of the time people are just jealous and feel unworthy, that is why they blame billionaires. Billionaires often have a strong sense of self-esteem and are powerful creators, which triggers many people.

In the same way, one could criticize the power of political offices, which are exploited anyways. Monopolys do emerge naturally and cannot be avoided in reality. You can look up the consequences of Neo-Marxismus if you just take a look into your history books - if you have one

If you give too much power to politicians, the risk is that they are not competent enough to make correct decisions - which is often the case. And they can exploit their position for economic offices etc. - which often happens as well. Most of them never led a company and now they have to lead a whole nation.

If you give too much power to non-politicians, it can be exploited in the same way. But they often don't depend on so much external factors as politicians do and have a better operational ability. So the best thing currently to do is 60-70% plutocracy and 30-40% democracy. Or to integrate popular vote more and make it 40% plutocracy and 60% democracy or something like that. Since most people on average do not have a holistic understanding and in most cases are not competent enough to make important political or economic decisions.

The only permissible thing you can question is the power of banks. They have too much of it and this is dangerous.

Edited February 15, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[Someone here]

33 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

I would question the power people give to wealth and and ask the US government first to pay back their trillions of US dollars in debt, which they have (mostly to China, which is even worse). And not to engage in scams like Ponzi schemes, before you blame people for the money they have earned themselves as a citizen - most of the time without scamming other people or even nations.

Most of the time people are just jealous and feel unworthy, that is why they blame billionaires. Billionaires often have a strong sense of self-esteem and are powerful creators, which triggers many people.

In the same way, one could criticize the power of political offices, which are exploited anyways. Monopolys do emerge naturally and cannot be avoided in reality. You can look up the consequences of Neo-Marxismus if you just take a look into your history books - if you have one

If you give too much power to politicians, the risk is that they are not competent enough to make correct decisions - which is often the case. And they can exploit their position for economic offices etc. - which often happens as well. Most of them never led a company and now they have to lead a whole nation.

If you give too much power to non-politicians, it can be exploited in the same way. But they often don't depend on so much external factors as politicians do and have a better operational ability. So the best thing currently to do is 60-70% plutocracy and 30-40% democracy. Or to integrate popular vote more and make it 40% plutocracy and 60% democracy or something like that. Since most people on average do not have a holistic understanding and in most cases are not competent enough to make important political or economic decisions.

The only permissible thing you can question is the power of banks. They have too much of it and this is dangerous.

It is true, of course, that billionaires wield power. But it seems to me that we tend to exaggerate our own problems. Do the rich in the modern West wield more power today than they did in ancient Egypt, or Rome, or Medieval Europe, or Enlightenment Europe? I doubt it. The rise of democracy has limited their power -- although they still control things more than Joe Schmoe does.

In addition, we should recognize that huge strides forward in terms of human well being have arisen with the rise of Capitalism (i.e. in th last 200 years or so). Correlation is not causation, but there might be some connection between increases in average wealth, improved conditions even for the poor, and the leaps forward in infrastructure, health care, and general well-being that we have seen. Indeed, these improvements seem to have stagnated in countries that limited capitalist enterprise.

It may well be that the main reasons for improved living conditions are only tangential to capitalism: human longevity has doubled, but medical care, immunizations, samitation, more plentiful food, and safer water might have been introduced without capitalist vigor. Still, looking back on human history it seems strange to complain TOO much; when would any of us rather have lived?

Is all this prosperity sustainable? Who knows (least of all me). Can we tax billionaires more aggressively? Of course. Cn we regulate capitalist enterprises to protect the environment? I don't know if we can, but we should. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Maybe not.

[puporing]

I'm all for a universal basic income and public funded healthcare (among other things) before excesses of wealth land in the hands of few individuals. This hypothetically could accelerate the evolution of the collective consciousness.

[SeaMonster]

13 hours ago, Someone here said:

Interested to hear anyone's ideas, critiques on my ideas and the parameters set forth.

To me, the problem isn't so much the fiscal power of individual billionaires.  The problem is when billionaires collude to push an agenda that's very much against the will and interest of the people.  If they are pushing an agenda very much counter to the majority of the public.  If they are using "the poor" to attack the interests of the average/middle class.

If billionaires oppose each other, there's nothing wrong with that.  So the thing to do is to keep an eye on possible collusion/monopolies/trusts/cartels, whether economic, political or social.  Really, short of vigilance and an informed public, there's not much you can do that isn't heavy-handed and has serious costs of its own.  Like you said, the slippery slope is real in such cases.  

Quote

This hypothetically could accelerate the evolution of the collective consciousness.

I don't think so.  You don't evolve consciousness by making things EASIER.  Evolution is a response to struggle and obstacles/challenges in nature.  Making things easier just creates domesticated pets who are only responsive to their masters at snack time.

Edited February 15, 2022 by SeaMonster

[Someone here]

I agree that if extreme wealth is a problem then it is mainly a problem of the power that it confers, although I note Ecurb's point that their power is no greater, and probably less, than that of the leaders of the past. It seems to me that one of the most useful commodities that this wealth buys is better access to the machinery of the law. So how about this for a start: make private law firms illegal. Make hiring a lawyer to make one's case in court as strange seeming as buying off the judge and jury. Compel everybody, regardless of wealth, to use court appointed lawyers, and pay those lawyers from general taxation.

I'm just spit-balling here. Shoot me down in flames if it sounds mad.

[Preety_India]

One thing that you can do is to dissociate wealth from politics. Billionaires and corporations shouldn't be able to lobby important political decisions that are meant for the welfare of the general public. 

[PurpleTree]

if i had the power, i'd probably cap people from having over a billion before all people's fundamental needs are met.

wouldn't want to have billionaires if people are living on the street, in poverty, hunger, bad infrastructure, no health care etc.

it's fine you can still have 999 millions though, this is enough for many, many generations anyway

[IAmReallyImportant]

5 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

if i had the power, i'd probably cap people from having over a billion before all people's fundamental needs are met.

wouldn't want to have billionaires if people are living on the street, in poverty, hunger, bad infrastructure, no health care etc.

it's fine you can still have 999 millions though, this is enough for many, many generations anyway

Shortage thinking. You are basically promoting poverty. That’s why it exists. Billionaires do increase wealth in many Ways. 

[PurpleTree]

6 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Shortage thinking. You are basically promoting poverty. That’s why it exists. Billionaires do increase wealth in many Ways. 

sure buddy, i think it's pretty sick if people have a 100 billion while others are struggling so much, single mothers working two jobs etc. kids on the street becoming a criminal and the cycle continues. but maybe that's just me  

[IAmReallyImportant]

25 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

sure buddy, i think it's pretty sick if people have a 100 billion while others are struggling so much, single mothers working two jobs etc. kids on the street becoming a criminal and the cycle continues. but maybe that's just me  

Maybe it is the feeling of shortage and injustice or feeling hurt by others you have as well as limited Moral Images.

People who are poor creating their experience. Nobody else does influence it and you cannot blame others for your feelings. It is all projection. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[IAmReallyImportant]

Try to create your own life instead of trying to interfere in the process of someone else. I wish you the best, one day you will realize that. Everyone deserves what he has or wants, no matter what it is. 

[puporing]

5 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

I don't think so.  You don't evolve consciousness by making things EASIER.  Evolution is a response to struggle and obstacles/challenges in nature.  Making things easier just creates domesticated pets who are only responsive to their masters at snack time.

It's not so black and white like that. People who can't even get their basic needs met are not going to self actualize. Their struggle should lead to something meaningful instead of this hopeless hamster wheel. They'll just be stuck on the hamster wheel. Sure some do get desperate enough and do break out of it, but those are exceptions not the rule. And a UBI doesn't solve everything it's merely a poverty wage that guarantees some dignity. I am advocating for an environment in which most people can have the floor to self actualize should they choose to in their life time, rather than it being for a select few exceptions.

Edited February 15, 2022 by puporing

[snowyowl]

In the 20th century, one way for workers to hold onto their power without relying on central government was to club together in trade unions, which was imo successful, to some extent, in balancing the power relationships between the owners and producers of wealth. But from the 1980s, those same govts (which you're now looking to for help), basically hamstrung the unions after heavy lobbying by the captains of industry. 

The power grab away from unions means fewer people bother joining them now (how many millennials belong to unions?), and the way was open for the pyramid to return to its previous shape in history. How're you gonna negotiate with a billionaire boss for a decent salary if you're an ordinary employee by yourself, with no more leverage than to resign and work for someone else? 

I guess as long as we've got the employer/ employee model and egos!) there's going to be a power struggle. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by snowyowl

[PurpleTree]

31 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Try to create your own life instead of trying to interfere in the process of someone else. I wish you the best, one day you will realize that. Everyone deserves what he has or wants, no matter what it is. 

i don't try to interfere, i don't go on the street to protest billionaires or whatever. all i'm saying is if i had the power. also in a way it's hypocritical because i still use google sometimes( although try to move to brave), i have an iphone etc., sometimes order something from amazon(although only if i don't find it anywhere else)

but let's say if you saw a woman getting stoned to death for blasphemy or whatever and you walked by and had the power to stop it, would you not because "everybody deserves what he has"?

Edited February 15, 2022 by PurpleTree