4 ms·
No person is actually owning billions in the way a normal person is owning 100$. There is just no way to spend a billion dollars by consuming. There is no diner
by Isinlor 7y ago
No person is actually owning billions in the way a normal person is owning 100$. There is just no way to spend a billion dollars by consuming. There is no diner that you can eat that will cost a million dollars.
So, what does it mean for a person to be a billionaire?
It means that they control resources. Organizations, human resources, intellectual property, land, minerals.
Controlling resources is freaking hard. A random, average person who wins in lotto will most likely lose their wealth as soon as they start trying to do anything ambitious with it because controlling big amounts of money is very difficult.
Self-made billionaires are proven to be very, very good or even extremely good at controlling resources. They managed to change 100 000 dollars, into 100 million dollars, into 1 billion dollars. That means that other people decided to give them control over these resources (or may be willing to) in exchange for something that they considered equal value. They made and control something of value and are proven to be good at doing that.
So assuming that market value is well aligned with more general societal wealth, I'm happy that billionaires do control resources. Not because it's fair or not fair, but because they are good at that. They are better than officials that we can elect or choose based on some other bureaucratic processes. Are they perfect? Certainly not. Is the market aligned with the interests of society? Generally yes, with big exceptions.
There are some other conclusions, for example, children of billionaires are not proven to be extremely good at doing anything by being their children. Therefore, we may have some better ways of controlling billions that their parents controlled.
- locopati 7y agoAre you saying that because they're really good a controlling resources, even if they do unethical or horrible things with those resources, that's okay, because they're really good at it? I'd question whether "Is the market aligned with the interests of society?" is really true given, for example, unaccounted for externalities like global warming.
- viklove 7y ago> Is the market aligned with the interests of society? Generally yes, with big exceptions. I think recent history has shown us that the answer is "Generally, no."
- Isinlor 7y agoWhat recent history are you referring to? I'm thinking for example about China. China raised almost a billion people out of extreme poverty in the last 30-40 years mainly due to switch to the market economy. This is arguably the biggest miracle in the whole human history. I'm myself from Poland and our switch from communism to capitalism has been good for almost everyone. There are however externalities to the rise in human living conditions. Pollution, global warming, super bacteria etc. Still, my perception is "yes, with big exceptions".