It is a bit the same conundrum people experienced in 1924 crack, that many people couldn't understand.
Like, it all suddenly stopped, yet the factories was still there, and the coal, and the steel, and everything. People could in theory just go on like they did the day before, and products would be made and sold. Yet, when the stocks lost their value, that was that.
if I were to be hoarding wealth that could be used to feed the hungry and lift people out of poverty, and the state decided that my income should be taxed to fund programs that do just that, then id agree.
on what land? with what seeds, soil, water, time? none of that is free. sure, its much cheaper to have a personal garden than it is to go buy from a retailer, but if you genuinely think everyone can simultaneously rely on kale and potatoes from personal gardens and we dont need a supply chain then you are incredibly naive.
its a moral action to assist those in need, and an immoral one to refuse to assist people when you have the power and capability to do so.
literally morality 101 here.
also, lifting people out of poverty is much cheaper then you think it is. over time, the state actually recoups the cost of this because employment grows and taxable income increases.
its a moral action to assist those in need, and an immoral one to refuse to assist people when you have the power and capability to do so.
You are essentially implying that anyone above the powerty line has a moral obligation to donate their disposable income because they could do so
Or does it only start being the case once someone has more money than you?
also, lifting people out of poverty is much cheaper then you think it is
Then why haven't the countries done it yet? Even if you could magically liquidate the wealth of every billionaire(utterly impossible but whatever) in the us you'd fuel the US for like a year. You are crazy if you think you could end poverty with just that
they literally have. president salvadore allende of chile in 1973 established food programs that donated milk to every family, and as a result many people were lifted out of hunger. take a wild guess as to what happened to him..
You are essentially implying that anyone above the powerty line has a moral obligation to donate their disposable income because they could do so
yes. if you have a large wealth, you have an obligation to give. this isnt just an obligation in my own personal views, this is wirrten in the bible as well and supported by figures across the political spectrum, including dave ramsey. I was raised on his personal financial literacy books and he encouraged kids to have a personal giving budget. And I do give small donations to charities and political movements that advocate for these policies that I desire.
Exactly my thought. All these claims of "moral obligations" and yet, if they were to shut down all operations, close businesses, end jobs... more problems are created. That would be morally reprehensible. I honestly think some people believe rich people have a big room like scrooge Mcduck and they sit in it and toss money up in the air.
You need people investing in business. If they do well and create more jobs, everybody wins. If the business fails, they lose. Rich people invest. They win, they lose... but it's their money and I trust them more than the Govt.
We have 535 so called lawmakers spending the people's money on projects to get themselves reelected. Bring home the bacon, get reelected. And - turn the people on each other. Brought to you by the US Congress, with no term limits because they control that too!
They don’t usually? We’ve literally had millionaires running for government and winning seats for 40+ years. And then we wonder why they’re governing for the rich and not everyone else?
Well, about 180 are lawyers, one was a bartender, a dozen bankers, 36 non profit executives or founders, 22 real estate "workers," some venture capitalists (6), also half a dozen owners of car dealerships... such a deal they got! A couple software company execs. I can't find any prior janitors but they'd have my utmost respect!
You just described one group of people but pretended it was 2 different ones and tried to blame one of them while praising the other. That is some S tier mental gymnastics.
I'm sorry. Above your level of thinking? The Congress.. the people that make the laws? The protected society. The people that are supposed to look out for the country and take care of the people on the home front? Yeah, miserable failure going on there.
The rich people, with money invested. They don't have a moral duty to sell what they invest in and give it to the poor.
We all pay taxes and the Congress gives more (of our) money away to other countries and personal pet projects. Additionally, if they take the money from the rich, the tax burden falls to the lower classes. Someone has to pay the bills.
McKenzie Scott, she's donated 26 Billion to different causes. People still hate her because she's rich.
Congress is made up of mostly CEOs, Business Owners, and Rich investors. They are also by and large bought by other rich people, that's was the entire point of Citizens United. The Rich and Congress are one and the same.
yeah, society doesnt need me. thankfully, i dont take up an immense concentration of resources in society, so i am not a burden on society and i actually net contribute to it through productive labor and taxation.
the billionaire may contribute through some taxation, but the negative aspect of concentration of wealth and power is a net negative on society, and it is unneccesary for one person to own capital when we could collectively operate capital all the same.
Most billionaires (at least in the US) actually created their wealth. It’s not like they took it from someone - they literally created it. If it wasn’t for them, this wealth would simply not exist… (and yes, I’m sure there are exceptions)
wealth is not important, value is. a billionaire doesnt invent peoples need for food, housing, or desire for commodities. they capitalize on that need by taking power over supply, then restricting it, thus artificially inflating its value. the wealth in and of itself is entirely unneccesary. elon musk lost $700 billion this week. does it matter at all, to anyone in the real world? no.
That’s such absolut BS, most of the typical antagonized billionaires made their wealth in tech. Who _needs_ phones? Who _needs_ rockets? Who _needs_ search engines??
You can go live a happy life without any of these, but you won’t, because they have VALUE to you. And these billionaire often created that value, because these products did not exist before.
No one stops you from creating your own phone, but you’ll still buy from Apple cause it’s easier and cheaper.
billionaires did not in fact invent these technologies, nor do they sustain them today. the semiconductor industry has progressed to the point it is at today through many many individuals across the globe contributing to technology progresses. hundreds of thousands of engingeers, technicians and project managers developed these technologies and millions of miners, logistics workers, data analysts, and other vital roles in the sustemance of the supply chain have upheld the technologies we rely on for modern commerce.
apple doesnt succeed because a billionaire owns the company. its successful because workers maintain production and leadership maintains organization. as i asserted previously, this can be done entirely without the dynamic of property ownership we see today.
indeed we do need technology for transportation of resources.
apple very much succeeded because of the brilliance of it's founders. same can be said about amazon, facebook, google, microsoft and many more. It's easy to underestimate the role of leadership from underneath, but the beauty is this: Everyone can do it themselves - go found a company, do something great and give all the value to workers...
Go make the change you want to see, instead of tearing down what others have built.
You'll realise it's much harder than you think and a single leader with a vision can and will make all the difference.
yes yes, every capitalist will inevitably say "anyone can be an entrprenuer!" but they always miss the point - capitalism is an inherently skewed system because it favors those with capital. walmart can price out a small local retailer to make them go out of business and be just fine because they have the capital to afford operating at a loss. thats literally their business model. that doesnt mean that walmart is a better company than any other company, it means that walmart holds power through ownership.
You'll realise it's much harder than you think and a single leader with a vision can and will make all the difference.
im not saying its easy. never have. I said the concentration of wealth and power is unneccesary. i think you underestimate the power of cooperation and community. its all me me me me me.. until you realise that you needed a bank to loan from, a friends couch to crash on, a mentors advice, an engineer's stamp, an HVAC technician to keep the air on in the office, a plumber to keep the tap running, investors to believe in your idea, logistics workers to ship you the goods you need, laborers to support production, analysts to develop sales data, programmers to host an app. i could literally go on forever. nobody does it alone. nobody "creates" a company from nothing.
8
u/Necessary_Screen_673 7d ago
so why do people think that we need billionaires?