5 ms·

He can go to Mars and stay. I don’t understand why so many people just accept the rhetoric of Musk and Gates, so-called “liberal capitalists” (liberal in the m

He can go to Mars and stay. I don’t understand why so many people just accept the rhetoric of Musk and Gates, so-called “liberal capitalists” (liberal in the modern meaning, not classical liberal). They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. They then go on to donate a vanishingly small amount relatively to recognisable, bleeding-heart-liberal causes and everything they did to get here is forgotten and forgiven.

wilg 7y ago
> They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people. > They then go on to donate a vanishingly small amount Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Plus you could argue the companies themselves (where at least Musk's wealth is mostly locked up) are helpful. At least Tesla.
- stuaxo 7y ago
  By taking a bigger % of the work put in than the person doing the work == exploiting.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    So any management position is exploitation? Being the boss of any manufacturing business is exploitation? Hint: Even if you take only 1% of the work but employ 1000 people you are going to get rich. Your benchmark for what is exploiting seems to not work particularly well in practice.
    - samcday 7y ago
      > So any management position is exploitation? Being the boss of any manufacturing business is exploitation? In many peoples opinion (including mine), yes. This can all be considered wage slavery. Of course the magnitude and severity varies. A worker in the Gigafactory (probably) has a higher standard of living than the one in the Foxconn factory, who in turn probably has a better standard of living than the worker in the Nike sweatshop. But it’s all the same thing.
      - virgilp 7y ago
        > wage slavery Also called a "job". You're telling me I'm a wage slave? (in the last 10 years nobody reported to me, I was never self-employed). Through this sort of wage slavery in the last 10years, I have achieved an incredibly high standard of living, compared to the regular citizens of any age in human history. I think this narrative is just devaluing the meaning of words and the suffering of those who really are exploited.
        nicoburns 7y ago
        A lot of people (even in first-world countries) have zero chance of becoming a multi-millionaire, and even struggle to make ends meet, pay their rent, etc. That is the problem, not highly compensated workers. And it is an economic system which awards a vastly disproportionate share of resources to people like Musk and Gates that deprives others of those same resources.
        virgilp 7y ago
        Yes, that is true (though at the same time things have been massively improving in average). What I find amazing is that we live in a time where a person living in a (relatively) poor country, working a non-management job, paying all taxes, _can_ actually get fairly rich. Employment really isn't "slavery". Would it be great if more people could achieve prosperity - ideally, _all_ people? Yes it would. However, just "take the money of the rich" is not a solution for this (we can argue about details of taxation, and I don't think in particular USA has a good system, but that's more of "fine-grain detail" in the end) > it is an economic system which awards a vastly disproportionate share of resources to people like Musk and Gates that deprives others of those same resources. I've lived in communism. It really is equal sharing of misery, _not_ equal sharing of reward. The reality is that Musk really puts in way more effort & takes a lot more risk than your average factory worker. But at the end of the day - not even that is what matters. What matters is that by attempting this "equal sharing of resources", each and every time it was tried, it resulted in a horrible dystopia. Not sure what it would take to convince people it's an inherently bad idea - but I feel that at least by now the burden of proof should be on the shoulder of those who advocate it.
  - collyw 7y ago
    Some work is more valuable than other work.
    - newsgremlin 7y ago
      But by margins of billions? Figures like this are thrown around a lot but it's hard to grasp how much just one billion, even 1/1000 of that can make an individuals life unrecognizable before having that wealth.
- econcon 7y ago
  >Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people There would be no excess for the founder if you distribute all the money that a company operation makes evenly to all employees and owners. That's what they mean when they summon the world "exploit". Roman slaves weren't exploited in the ways some layman might imagine.
  - vzcx 7y ago
    Founders are typically the first and primary owners, at least initially... Is the objection that founders and investors get a larger slice? People have a strange reaction to the word 'exploit.' It smells bad, and it gives the sense that those using the term want something to smell bad. 'Exploit' just means 'to make productive use of' to me. Musk 'exploited' his workers? Good. Theyre making cool stuff. That's what he should be doing. A company 'exploited' a uranium deposit? Good. We need those hot rocks for fuel rods.
    - econcon 7y ago
      I also own a company but many times who work for us often have similar ideas like "owners are taking too much, they are stealing from us".
- modo_mario 7y ago
  >Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Didn't gates massively increase his wealth in the period in which he said he'd give away half of it? >Plus you could argue the companies themselves (where at least Musk's wealth is mostly locked up) are helpful. At least Tesla. But would they exist without him? He's certainly been good at marketing himself and by extension his companies. On the other hand he also just bought the rights to the title founder at tesla so the actual original founders can't call themselves that which many people don't seem to realize. Meanwhile they kept hostage battery tech advantage via Panasonic. And then there's spacex and Solar city which happily survived on tax payer funds whilst the later maybe didn't help green energy adoption as much as a competitor might have in it's stead as they basically did Chinese solar panel resale which were going at dumping prices and the EU was blocking for that rezason....And i think they also had/have some fun gov bribery accusations against em which reflects badly on the billions in taxpayer subsidies they managed to waste. Meanwhile whilst an increase in NASA's budget wasn't politically feasible it's been a notoriously monetarily efficient institution.
101404 7y ago
They made their money by providing tools that saved others a lot of money. It's not 1850 anymore.
de_watcher 7y ago
Don't lump Musk and Gates together.
- 101404 7y ago
  Very true. Gates made his money using very shady tactics at the cost of the consumer. Now he uses that money to buy himself a favorable place in the history books by doing things that don't help but look good.
  - lawlessone 7y ago
    > Now he uses that money to buy himself a favorable place in the history I agree >doing things that don't help but look good I disagree, they seem to do a lot for vaccinations
    - 101404 7y ago
      Yes, it looks good. They spend a lot of money. But, if you look at all the countries that have successfully won the fight against malaria (many Latin American countries, southern US, southern EU, etc): it wasn't because of vaccines but because of good public administration. Anyway, sure it's good that money goes to vaccines research. But so far it only looks good. They also spend money on other areas.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > Gates made his money using very shady tactics at the cost of the consumer. In part, but the other part of that is making software that vastly increased human productivity with a computer at an incredibly competitive price point.
    - 101404 7y ago
      And destroying other software that increased productivity using pretty shady methods. But it's interesting to see that his "old image" already almost vanished. His strategy to "do things that look good" seems to work. Humans have very short memories after all.
roenxi 7y ago
> They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. What alternative do you want to see? Perhaps a world where everyone is using linux and everyone compiles their own software? It isn't a laughable idea, but the idea that if the labour hadn't been exploited we'd be better off is not a good one. If labour isn't exploited it is wasted; it isn't like programmers or mechanics are a special breed of person who appeared in the modern era. These people are the same people we've always had and the evidence is we get much better results when working within a corporate structure. There wasn't and isn't a law saying that Musk and Gates had to own the the corporations. If workers want co-ops I'm sure they'd manage.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  Nobody wants the labour not to occur. But some of us want the fruits of that labour to be more evenly distributed. That could be as simple as keeping a corporate structure, but taxing it more aggressively and/or raising minimum wages.

wilg 7y ago

> They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people. > They then go on to donate a vanishingly small amount Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Plus you could argue the companies themselves (where at least Musk's wealth is mostly locked up) are helpful. At least Tesla.

stuaxo 7y ago
By taking a bigger % of the work put in than the person doing the work == exploiting.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  So any management position is exploitation? Being the boss of any manufacturing business is exploitation? Hint: Even if you take only 1% of the work but employ 1000 people you are going to get rich. Your benchmark for what is exploiting seems to not work particularly well in practice.
  - samcday 7y ago
    > So any management position is exploitation? Being the boss of any manufacturing business is exploitation? In many peoples opinion (including mine), yes. This can all be considered wage slavery. Of course the magnitude and severity varies. A worker in the Gigafactory (probably) has a higher standard of living than the one in the Foxconn factory, who in turn probably has a better standard of living than the worker in the Nike sweatshop. But it’s all the same thing.
    - virgilp 7y ago
      > wage slavery Also called a "job". You're telling me I'm a wage slave? (in the last 10 years nobody reported to me, I was never self-employed). Through this sort of wage slavery in the last 10years, I have achieved an incredibly high standard of living, compared to the regular citizens of any age in human history. I think this narrative is just devaluing the meaning of words and the suffering of those who really are exploited.
      - nicoburns 7y ago
        A lot of people (even in first-world countries) have zero chance of becoming a multi-millionaire, and even struggle to make ends meet, pay their rent, etc. That is the problem, not highly compensated workers. And it is an economic system which awards a vastly disproportionate share of resources to people like Musk and Gates that deprives others of those same resources.
        virgilp 7y ago
        Yes, that is true (though at the same time things have been massively improving in average). What I find amazing is that we live in a time where a person living in a (relatively) poor country, working a non-management job, paying all taxes, _can_ actually get fairly rich. Employment really isn't "slavery". Would it be great if more people could achieve prosperity - ideally, _all_ people? Yes it would. However, just "take the money of the rich" is not a solution for this (we can argue about details of taxation, and I don't think in particular USA has a good system, but that's more of "fine-grain detail" in the end) > it is an economic system which awards a vastly disproportionate share of resources to people like Musk and Gates that deprives others of those same resources. I've lived in communism. It really is equal sharing of misery, _not_ equal sharing of reward. The reality is that Musk really puts in way more effort & takes a lot more risk than your average factory worker. But at the end of the day - not even that is what matters. What matters is that by attempting this "equal sharing of resources", each and every time it was tried, it resulted in a horrible dystopia. Not sure what it would take to convince people it's an inherently bad idea - but I feel that at least by now the burden of proof should be on the shoulder of those who advocate it.
- collyw 7y ago
  Some work is more valuable than other work.
  - newsgremlin 7y ago
    But by margins of billions? Figures like this are thrown around a lot but it's hard to grasp how much just one billion, even 1/1000 of that can make an individuals life unrecognizable before having that wealth.
econcon 7y ago
>Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people There would be no excess for the founder if you distribute all the money that a company operation makes evenly to all employees and owners. That's what they mean when they summon the world "exploit". Roman slaves weren't exploited in the ways some layman might imagine.
- vzcx 7y ago
  Founders are typically the first and primary owners, at least initially... Is the objection that founders and investors get a larger slice? People have a strange reaction to the word 'exploit.' It smells bad, and it gives the sense that those using the term want something to smell bad. 'Exploit' just means 'to make productive use of' to me. Musk 'exploited' his workers? Good. Theyre making cool stuff. That's what he should be doing. A company 'exploited' a uranium deposit? Good. We need those hot rocks for fuel rods.
  - econcon 7y ago
    I also own a company but many times who work for us often have similar ideas like "owners are taking too much, they are stealing from us".
modo_mario 7y ago
>Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Didn't gates massively increase his wealth in the period in which he said he'd give away half of it? >Plus you could argue the companies themselves (where at least Musk's wealth is mostly locked up) are helpful. At least Tesla. But would they exist without him? He's certainly been good at marketing himself and by extension his companies. On the other hand he also just bought the rights to the title founder at tesla so the actual original founders can't call themselves that which many people don't seem to realize. Meanwhile they kept hostage battery tech advantage via Panasonic. And then there's spacex and Solar city which happily survived on tax payer funds whilst the later maybe didn't help green energy adoption as much as a competitor might have in it's stead as they basically did Chinese solar panel resale which were going at dumping prices and the EU was blocking for that rezason....And i think they also had/have some fun gov bribery accusations against em which reflects badly on the billions in taxpayer subsidies they managed to waste. Meanwhile whilst an increase in NASA's budget wasn't politically feasible it's been a notoriously monetarily efficient institution.

101404 7y ago

They made their money by providing tools that saved others a lot of money. It's not 1850 anymore.

de_watcher 7y ago

Don't lump Musk and Gates together.

101404 7y ago
Very true. Gates made his money using very shady tactics at the cost of the consumer. Now he uses that money to buy himself a favorable place in the history books by doing things that don't help but look good.
- lawlessone 7y ago
  > Now he uses that money to buy himself a favorable place in the history I agree >doing things that don't help but look good I disagree, they seem to do a lot for vaccinations
  - 101404 7y ago
    Yes, it looks good. They spend a lot of money. But, if you look at all the countries that have successfully won the fight against malaria (many Latin American countries, southern US, southern EU, etc): it wasn't because of vaccines but because of good public administration. Anyway, sure it's good that money goes to vaccines research. But so far it only looks good. They also spend money on other areas.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > Gates made his money using very shady tactics at the cost of the consumer. In part, but the other part of that is making software that vastly increased human productivity with a computer at an incredibly competitive price point.
  - 101404 7y ago
    And destroying other software that increased productivity using pretty shady methods. But it's interesting to see that his "old image" already almost vanished. His strategy to "do things that look good" seems to work. Humans have very short memories after all.

roenxi 7y ago

> They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. What alternative do you want to see? Perhaps a world where everyone is using linux and everyone compiles their own software? It isn't a laughable idea, but the idea that if the labour hadn't been exploited we'd be better off is not a good one. If labour isn't exploited it is wasted; it isn't like programmers or mechanics are a special breed of person who appeared in the modern era. These people are the same people we've always had and the evidence is we get much better results when working within a corporate structure. There wasn't and isn't a law saying that Musk and Gates had to own the the corporations. If workers want co-ops I'm sure they'd manage.

nicoburns 7y ago
Nobody wants the labour not to occur. But some of us want the fruits of that labour to be more evenly distributed. That could be as simple as keeping a corporate structure, but taxing it more aggressively and/or raising minimum wages.