4 ms·

I'm not in the 1%. The reason I care is because the primary reason for still so many people living in poverty, is the people hoarding money and doing what they

I'm not in the 1%. The reason I care is because the primary reason for still so many people living in poverty, is the people hoarding money and doing what they can against anything that could change that.

IncRnd 8y ago
The people in the article aren't hoarding money. They are paying the salaries of many people with their gaming.
- cyborgx7 8y ago
  And afterwards they will still have thousands of times what regular people have.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    so what? Should we all have the same, or similar? I would've thought the focus would be on lifting up the poorest, not bringing down the richest. If you bankrupted every billionaire in the world you could give everyone on the planet about $1000, and that's presuming that a) net worth estimates are accurate and b) liquidating a billionaire's net worth would actually result in that amount of cash (it wouldn't). Ultra-rich individuals hoarding money aren't exactly emptying out the economy.
    - cyborgx7 8y ago
      I disagree with the premise that some unelected individuals should control such a disproportionate amount of ressources, and therefore power, yes.
      - beaconstudios 8y ago
        OK, but the primary reason billionaires are so rich is from running or founding companies that produce much more value than the billionaires extract. Take away the idea that a successful founder can keep maybe 1% (at most, probably a vast overestimate) of the value they generate, and you'll have vastly fewer founders unless you find another way to motivate them. In terms of power, ideally there would be a clean separation between money and political power. Some countries are better at this than others. Extremely wealthy people can wield a lot of power internationally, and that's bad. But them having more resources is not a bad thing in my mind unless they can use those resources to hurt people. As far as I'm aware, most don't.
        cyborgx7 8y ago
        > OK, but the primary reason billionaires are so rich is from running or founding companies that produce much more value than the billionaires extract. Take away the idea that a successful founder can keep maybe 1% (at most, probably a vast overestimate) of the value they generate, and you'll have vastly fewer founders unless you find another way to motivate them. You are contradicting yourself. The value is generated by the company, i.e. the workers. Not the founder. The founder just extracts this value and makes themselves more powerful. There can be no clean separation between money and political power. Politics is the struggle for the power to allocate ressources. Money is ressources.
        beaconstudios 8y ago
        > You are contradicting yourself. The value is generated by the company, i.e. the workers. Not the founder. The founder just extracts this value and makes themselves more powerful. This is just ideological rubbish. It's not either-or. Workers perform the manual labour and such, but management plans, organises and directs. Labour can't exist without management beyond a trivial level, and the founders (or more realistically, the executives) design and direct the whole company's strategy. If you look around you can see plenty of examples where incompetent direction can kill a company and strong direction can build an extremely valuable one. Founders also accept the risk of failure, and are expected (in any sane workplace) to make more sacrifices than the employees while the company is still small. In essence, the company is the vehicle for the founders' will. Labour is fairly interchangeable compared to that. > There can be no clean separation between money and political power. Politics is the struggle for the power to allocate ressources. Money is ressources. You know what I mean. Elections should be won on the strength of the platform, not the size of the budget won from super PACs or wealthy single donors. Of course politicians, when in power, shuffle money around.
        cyborgx7 8y ago
        > It's not either-or. Workers perform the manual labour and such, but management plans, organises and directs. Both of these things are work, yes. But one is not thousands of times more valuable than the other. The income of the owners is derived from their ownership of the company. Not from the work. >You know what I mean. Yes, I know what I mean. But what you mean doesn't actually make sense. Money in politics is a problem, because it gives some people more power over the politics, i.e. how ressources are allocated. Billionaires who control a similar amount of ressources as a government through ownership aren't any better though. They have just as much power, and they don't even have to go through the trouble of fixing an election for it.
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    The thousands of people employed, directly and indirectly, by those same casinos will have employment.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

IncRnd 8y ago

The people in the article aren't hoarding money. They are paying the salaries of many people with their gaming.

cyborgx7 8y ago
And afterwards they will still have thousands of times what regular people have.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  so what? Should we all have the same, or similar? I would've thought the focus would be on lifting up the poorest, not bringing down the richest. If you bankrupted every billionaire in the world you could give everyone on the planet about $1000, and that's presuming that a) net worth estimates are accurate and b) liquidating a billionaire's net worth would actually result in that amount of cash (it wouldn't). Ultra-rich individuals hoarding money aren't exactly emptying out the economy.
  - cyborgx7 8y ago
    I disagree with the premise that some unelected individuals should control such a disproportionate amount of ressources, and therefore power, yes.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      OK, but the primary reason billionaires are so rich is from running or founding companies that produce much more value than the billionaires extract. Take away the idea that a successful founder can keep maybe 1% (at most, probably a vast overestimate) of the value they generate, and you'll have vastly fewer founders unless you find another way to motivate them. In terms of power, ideally there would be a clean separation between money and political power. Some countries are better at this than others. Extremely wealthy people can wield a lot of power internationally, and that's bad. But them having more resources is not a bad thing in my mind unless they can use those resources to hurt people. As far as I'm aware, most don't.
      - cyborgx7 8y ago
        > OK, but the primary reason billionaires are so rich is from running or founding companies that produce much more value than the billionaires extract. Take away the idea that a successful founder can keep maybe 1% (at most, probably a vast overestimate) of the value they generate, and you'll have vastly fewer founders unless you find another way to motivate them. You are contradicting yourself. The value is generated by the company, i.e. the workers. Not the founder. The founder just extracts this value and makes themselves more powerful. There can be no clean separation between money and political power. Politics is the struggle for the power to allocate ressources. Money is ressources.
        beaconstudios 8y ago
        > You are contradicting yourself. The value is generated by the company, i.e. the workers. Not the founder. The founder just extracts this value and makes themselves more powerful. This is just ideological rubbish. It's not either-or. Workers perform the manual labour and such, but management plans, organises and directs. Labour can't exist without management beyond a trivial level, and the founders (or more realistically, the executives) design and direct the whole company's strategy. If you look around you can see plenty of examples where incompetent direction can kill a company and strong direction can build an extremely valuable one. Founders also accept the risk of failure, and are expected (in any sane workplace) to make more sacrifices than the employees while the company is still small. In essence, the company is the vehicle for the founders' will. Labour is fairly interchangeable compared to that. > There can be no clean separation between money and political power. Politics is the struggle for the power to allocate ressources. Money is ressources. You know what I mean. Elections should be won on the strength of the platform, not the size of the budget won from super PACs or wealthy single donors. Of course politicians, when in power, shuffle money around.
        cyborgx7 8y ago
        > It's not either-or. Workers perform the manual labour and such, but management plans, organises and directs. Both of these things are work, yes. But one is not thousands of times more valuable than the other. The income of the owners is derived from their ownership of the company. Not from the work. >You know what I mean. Yes, I know what I mean. But what you mean doesn't actually make sense. Money in politics is a problem, because it gives some people more power over the politics, i.e. how ressources are allocated. Billionaires who control a similar amount of ressources as a government through ownership aren't any better though. They have just as much power, and they don't even have to go through the trouble of fixing an election for it.
- IncRnd 8y ago
  The thousands of people employed, directly and indirectly, by those same casinos will have employment.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]