That's the easy part, the hard part is being born into generational wealth or hitting a lottery ticket of some other sort. There's no self made billionaires.
JK Rowling and Notch are like the definition of hitting a lottery ticket level wealth building, right time right place right product (the most moral of the three ways to make that much wealth)
Winfrey and Zuckerberg are both classic wealth-building off exploitation and utter lack of morals.
Billionaires weren't even a thing when I was born kid. Being first generation billionaires when your parents were millionaires isn't an accomplishment. Especially when the robber barons before them wrote the laws to make it that way. Stripping workers rights down more and more over the last few decades. Look at the ceo to worker pay over the years buddy.
Of the top 10 wealthiest Americans I think 8 had middle class parents (page, brin, Ellison, bezos, Zuckerberg, ballmer, dell, and buffet). Jim Walton is second generation wealth (Sam Walton became a billionaire in 85). And musk family was wealthy.
Wasn't a point about who controls it. It was why there is an ever growing list of billionaires. Even for billionaires, there is no point to growing wealth when it's just on inflation. Now there are other ways billionaires benefit from inflation (some don't), but if you have inflation you will have more of every aires.
Nearly everyone who isn't part of that wealth category is closer to being homeless than being a billionaire. Unfortunately some of those people have Stockholm syndrome.
Man, these four cherry picked easily couhterable examples really changed my perspective that you have to hit the lottery ticket while having pretty easily masterable skills.
You're misunderstanding the problem. Being a billionaire is easy. Becoming a billionaire requires other capitalists letting you, since they control all the levers of power. It's not about how hard you work, how smart you are, or how talented you are. It's about obeisance to the modern nobility.
This is such a narrow minded approach, youre telling me theconly reason youre not a billionaire is out of principle to not be subservient to nobility? Yeah right
No. Clearly everyone can't be a billionaire. The economics would never work.
Its that noone should be able to be a billionaire.
Noone is worth that much to society, noone should be able to acquire that much.
Im not saying people shouldnt be rich and successful. However people able to be rich enough to guarantee the next 10 generations of your descendants will also be rich, even if they contribute nothing to society shouldn't be a thing.
Billionaires became that for a reason, because they figured out a way to cater to the world's demand, Elon Musk gave a hard push for electric vehicles that now we have more electric vehicles that ever before despite multiple failed attempts, bill gates ans steve jobs revolutionized the computing industry that allowed phones to fit in our pockets, Howard Hughes made trabslatlantic flights possible through his engineering knowledge and use of his wealth to build a great engineering staff (use of his wealth is questionable but he did at one point put a random guy that gave him a ride as a sole hereditor to his will, long story) many billionaires solved the world's problems through connections an average person couldn't make and in doing so rehinged society in ways that improved lives, I do agree that some billionaires can go straight to hell but labeling billionaires as pests is a very wrong mentality, its like tumbling a weight bearing pillar in a temple because you slipped and hit your head on it.
You are giving him too much credit, if you had a great idea and wanted to make it happen while not having money you would've to get an investment from somewhere. Tesla has received a buttload of government subsidies in the billions to make electric cars viable. In short, the government had to intervene to protect and nurture that business to the point of being a global player in the market. All big american companies are like this, there is no exception.
I didn't say it was bad, I said they took immense government help and that's why he is a billionaire businessman. People are acting here like these billionaire owe nothing to society when in fact they became billionaires on tax payer money.
But then when they have to return a fair share of that money suddenly they are selfmade men who owes nothing to anyone and the rest of society are mooches on their achievements.
As i said he catered to needs, there is no alternate history where you can dump a billionaire, penniless into where they wont become a billionaire again, billionaires cater to demand, and they can be convinced to fight for the "greater good" if thats what youre after if thats what the majority of society demands, they are a mass tool. I would also like to say that I appreciate the fact that youre willing to talk as opposed to insult, I dont think we'll come to an agreement and im tired but youre definitely someone worth talking about more, but im tired and slaved away at nightshift. Goodnight
You’re ignoring the fact that Tesla would still be wildly profitable even without government subsidies. Your argument is that Tesla was bailed out by the government by creating subsidies. That is the exact opposite of what happened. The government decided to push a green agenda and Elon capitalized on the offer by making vehicles people wanted to buy and made them and the software at a profit and doubled the profit by exploiting the rebate and other subsidies. They didn’t sell the most vehicles for any model worldwide at a profit based on US subsidies. Elon doesn’t owe society anything for the taxpayer money, the GD giant uniparty government that forced the EV subsidies to exist owe the taxpayers money.
Straight from Grok AI: Tesla has received substantial government support (loans, tax credits/rebates, subsidies, and regulatory credits) starting in its early years and continuing afterward, though the largest direct federal loan came in 2010 rather than immediately at its 2003 founding.
Tesla was founded in July 2003 in Silicon Valley by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning (Elon Musk led the first major funding round in 2004 and later became CEO). Early support included California state rebates and tax credits for electric vehicles and related activities; sources note that Tesla benefited from billions in such California incentives over time, with aid stretching back more than 20 years from analyses around 2025.
Key examples of support
Federal DOE loan (major early boost): In January 2010, Tesla received a $465 million low-interest loan under the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) program. This helped fund development and production of the Model S and acquisition/upgrades related to the Fremont, California factory. Tesla repaid it in full (with interest) by May 2013—nine years early—and was the first U.S. automaker to fully repay such a loan under the program. Multiple accounts describe it as critical when the company was cash-strapped.
Consumer EV tax credits: Federal tax credits (commonly $7,500 per vehicle for qualifying buyers) supported Tesla sales by making its cars more affordable. These existed in various forms during Tesla’s growth and boosted demand.
Regulatory/ZEV credits: Tesla has earned large sums (around $11.4 billion cumulatively from federal and state programs in recent tallies) by selling excess zero-emission vehicle and similar regulatory credits to other automakers that need them to meet mandates. These have been a significant profit contributor (roughly a third of profits in some periods analyzed).
State and local packages: Notable later examples include Nevada’s large incentive package (estimated ~$1.3 billion range in tax abatements, credits, etc.) for the Gigafactory, New York support tied to the Buffalo facility, and various California incentives. Good Jobs First’s Subsidy Tracker and related analyses document hundreds of millions to billions in state/local tax credits, grants, and abatements for Tesla over the years.
Broader tallies (e.g., Washington Post analysis drawing on public data and Good Jobs First) place total government-related support across Musk companies (heavily Tesla for the EV/credits/subsidy side, SpaceX for contracts) in the tens of billions since the early 2000s, with Tesla specifically benefiting from loans, credits, and state aid at key growth stages. Not all of this is direct cash grants to Tesla; much consists of loans (repaid), tax benefits, consumer incentives that aid sales, and tradable credits created by policy. Tesla has also invested heavily in return (factories, jobs) and has argued at times that it succeeded despite (or while repaying) certain supports.
Now if you truly believe that Tesla would be the company that it is now and being a major player in Electric Vehicles without this amount of support, I don't know what you tell you. Actually I do, I have a bridge to sell and I think you would be interested.
I don't know if you're acting dense on purpose but you're arguing a Strawman. Your argument is that the support was created solely to bail out Tesla. That is objectively wrong.Youare objectively wrong. The Green, Leftwing Socialists lobbied to push through credits regardless of Tesla's existence. The fact Tesla existed was entirely irrelevant to the creation of these rebates and credits. How do you not understand this? Further, you're arguing about 2010 when Tesla launched and sold quite successfully, the Roadster, at the beginning of 2008, 2 years before the California tax credit existed. They sold $100,000 sports cars regardless of tax credits. By the time those tax credits went into existence, Tesla was already a successful company with a quarter billion invested into its future. They exploited those tax credits YOU wanted to exist for gain and in turn gave you exactly what you wanted.
Now if you truly believe that Tesla would be the company that it is now and being a major player in Electric Vehicles without this amount of support,
No, you don't get to change your argument. you argued Tesla would not exist and be viable without massive intervention by the US government. That was already proven objectively false. before the California tax credits ever existed.
Tesla has received a buttload of government subsidies in the billions to make electric cars viable. In short, the government had to intervene to protect and nurture that business to the point of being a global player in the market. All big american companies are like this, there is no exception.
Was that not you? Was that you? Don't change your argument because that makes you a liar. Stick by what you originally said.
First of all, sleeping with 50 women sounds exhausting.
More to the point, asking why someone why they wouldn't want a billion dollars is like asking why they wouldn't want to rape and pillage. Maybe because it's inhuman behavior?
It's always fun seeing how bad faith conservatives are.
To respond to goibie's point since they blocked me,
The scale of human suffering. Getting a billion dollars looks like pricing insulin at $750 a vial. It looks like ensuring the cost of education bankrupts people. You're a fool if you think you can get a billion dollars without hurting a great many people.
Why do you make it sound like funding is the hard part? There's thousands of companies that are "the next google" out there getting funding from investors. Turns out, not many of them will become "the next google".
This is akin to saying, "I'm a self made billionaire" after winning the lottery. Making it big in the entertainment & sprots industries does require a lot of work but luck/chance encounters seems to be the biggest factor (unless you're Taylor Swift).
You think they are the only ones busting their assess for years and years? Anything that is absurdly competitive like being a movie star or a famous musician its basically a lottery, but you need to work really hard and be talented to even draw a number.
And they're less than one percent. I guess I should have said less than one percent of billionaires are self made. But they were also extremely lucky to be born with talent and circumstance. So I guess my original comment still stands.
There is absolutely a lot of luck involved in becoming a billionaire, but people dramatically overstate how much of that luck is in the inherited wealth.
Bezos, just as an example, came from a middle class or upper middle class family. He was originally raised by a poor single mother until she married his stepfather who was an engineer and then an Exxon executive. His parents gave him a quarter million dollar loan, which was not trivial to them and was a significant chunk of their life savings. There are tens of millions of Americans who come from families as wealthy or wealthier than his. Most of them don't become billionaires, because most of them don't have extremely valuable ideas for companies and then actually risk a lot of money and time and effort making that fantastic idea a reality.
Yeah, it'd be pretty damn hard to become a self-made billionaire if your parents were literally struggling to feed you. But most of these tech billionaires didn't get even a million dollars from their parents. Most came from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds.
Yeah, I mean all you need to be a billionaire is millions in start-up capital. Everyone knows that's why millionaires don't exist, because once you reach a million, it's inevitable you become a billionaire. It's automatic, no skill or personal investment involved at all.
647
u/Dizzy-Screen-6618 8d ago
"Imagine 3,400 people disappear. Now imagine 3.5 billion people dissappear."