3 ms·
I don't think it's that simple. Sure, money in a billionaire's possession probably isn't going to be used for consumption, but it's not like that money is chill
by Thriptic 7y ago
I don't think it's that simple. Sure, money in a billionaire's possession probably isn't going to be used for consumption, but it's not like that money is chilling in a matress somewhere; it is invested. Those funds are a source of capital for public companies, seed funding for small businesses, VC investments for growing companies, charitable contributions potentially, even funds for countries through bonds etc. I'm going to stay away from making pronouncements on how this money ought to be used; I'm merely pointing out that the situation is more nuanced than how you have framed it.
- dls2016 7y agoSure... but there are two simple facts: a) billionaires are unelected and b) they dictate the usage of vast quantities of resources. Personally, I believe this is immoral.
- ksdale 7y agoI think you made great points in your comment above, but I would point out that the thought experiment indicates that the resources they control are actually not that vast, compared to the wealth that would actually be required to raise everyone in the world to, say, the current average American standard of living more than temporarily. It may be moral to take that money and put it to better use, but it would run out a lot faster than most people think.
- dls2016 7y agoPerhaps, but I believe this leads into the issue of the waste inherent in the current American standard of living. The waste (big house, meat every day, giant cars, plastic everywhere, etc.) is, as you know, due to the low cost of extracting fossil fuels. I am optimistic that a lot of this waste can be eliminated without changing our quality of life significantly. The structure of our lives may change, but that's the exact thing I'm arguing for, anyway. Bring on the fully automated luxury communism!