12 ms·

> is pretty much the same question as asking if the aristocracy was bad for previous societies. Well... that's stacking the deck somewhat. We were talking abou

> is pretty much the same question as asking if the aristocracy was bad for previous societies. Well... that's stacking the deck somewhat. We were talking about how to add nuance. Nuance would be "what do we expect the economic result to be" or "this is a matter of right and wrong, not money." >I find it ironic that the US which was largely founded by people who left their home because of entrenched economics This gets abstract, but... The individuals most influential in the Revolution itself were mostly high ranking colonial officials from British nouveau aristocracy families of the empire. Granting voting rights only to property owners was the default position. "Universal" suffrage limited to european males was the radical position. Not a criticism of them. Just... we can't solve these things with history. If you think billionaires are harmful, why? Equality? Economics?

istjohn 6y ago
> If you think billionaires are harmful, why? Equality? Economics? They already answered that: > The existence of billionaires clearly undermines the core principles of democracy which is that all people have essentially the same political power. The existence of many laws which clearly aim to benefit billionaires only is enough evidence that this power balance does not exist when there are billionaires.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  OK, fair enough.
- amscanne 6y ago
  I don't understand this. Clearly not all people have the same political power, regardless of the existence of billionaires. AOC, as a party firebrand, has more political power than Jeff Bezos, although it manifests differently. You can argue that the power was "earned" (in the sense that AOC won a primary), but how is the power that Bezos has any less earned? The same argument applies not just to politicians, but literally any influential public figure (artists, authors, journalists, actors, etc.).
  - oblio 6y ago
    AOC has to actually work for her political power. Billionaires can sic 1000 lawyers and lobbyists at whatever initiative they want, without lifting a finger. And that's just an example :-) Activists do it as their day job, for billionaires it's just one of the many side effects of their wealth.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      > AOC has to actually work for her political power. Meanwhile, Amazon was gifted to Bezos by God himself at the age of 15.
      - oblio 6y ago
        Ummm... are you misreading my comment? Bezos had to work to found a successful business. Which came with a ton of benefits. Political power is a (un?)intended side effect of owning that successful business. That side effect is the problem.
        cultus 6y ago
        I'm not sure how this is apparently a controversial point. There's vast and obvious evidence that this is the case. More Dunning-Krugerism from the tech industry.
        JackFr 6y ago
        Good thing you're immune.
        airstrike 6y ago
        "Political power" is an unavoidable side effect of having power, simply – this almost reads like a tautology, but it's worth keeping in mind that the former is effectively an extension of the latter. I argue money is power in a free market society. I'm not sure there is a way to fix the first part of that sentence without completely modifying the latter.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  Every person has the same political power, though. One vote is one vote, one voice is one voice. Why do politicians pander to the wealthy and influential? Well, precisely because they are influential and connected to many of the people in society.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    You contradict yourself. You literally just said that everyone has equal political power, but rich people have more political power. Rich people aren't influential because they have a lot of friends. Rich people are influential because they have a lot of money.
  - vinay_ys 6y ago
    Isn't it because the wealthy and influential can donate/raise huge sums of money for politician's superpac and help them win elections term after term and stay in power for decades?
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      To get rid of that incentive you need to advocate for separating government from economy, in the same manner and for the same reason why state is supposed to be separated from church in a modern secular society. No lobbying from economic players and no government intervention into economics.
      - vinay_ys 6y ago
        If government is responsible for running common infrastructure, just by their choice of which infra to grow or let decay, they are affecting economy. If government is responsible for social welfare (for the poor), they are affecting economy. If government is collecting taxes, by their choice of what to tax how much etc, they are affecting economy. If you take economic affections away from the government, what remains with the government?
        ghostwriter 6y ago
- atlgator 6y ago
  You say clearly, but it isn't clear. I would argue the existence of billionaires is a symptom and not the root of the problem. This country was founded with all people created equal under the law, but the system of kickbacks and corruption allows the wealthy to commit all manner of civil, financial, antitrust, and even criminal acts without any repercussions. How many people were charged in the financial crisis that wiped out half the wealth of Main St? 1 person? Google is larger than all of it's search competitors combined and yet Congress rolls over when Pichai says it isn't not a monopoly? Give me a break. It will only get worse, whether UBI and Universal Healthcare are implemented or not. There's a reason Big Tech CEOs are all card carrying Democrats. Modern Communism won't see the seizure of the means of production by the State. Instead it will consolidate the working class under a smaller and smaller group of larger and larger corporations that work in concert with politicians. Progressive regulation and taxation schemes support this. We even have on-campus housing for employees now so you can dedicate your whole life to a company. All that's missing is childhood education and you can be birthed into Amazon employment, get educated and trained, and live your life inside the bubble. Anyway, I hope I'm wrong.
DylanDmitri 6y ago
Contrast between a growing/innovative/free society and a stagnant/authoritarian one. Key difference is meritocracy -- can competent newcomers displace incumbents? This is mirrored at smaller scales -- good leaders of healthy teams want newcomers to grow and learn and surpass them. Bad leaders are afraid of failure and don't want their people to fundamentally grow and change. Likewise good parents want their children to surpass them; bad parents harass and belittle and shame. When Apple makes it painful to build sizable businesses on their platform, this is intentional stagnation to maximize profit. When billionaires run think tanks, fund political campaigns, and rig laws to increase their power at the expense of the common good, this is intentional stagnation to maximize profit.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  When you look at the data, most millionaires and billionaires don’t come from family wealth. Don’t misunderstand, I’m sure they’ve had “leg-ups” like going to private school, or having an SAT tutor, or having a professor at a top20 school as a family friend. So, we don’t really have stagnation of wealth.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    I'd be interested in seeing this data. Do you have a source? IIRC, this common refrain is based on a study that required wealthy participants to self-report whether they made their money or inherited it. Every "millionaire" seems to think they're self made, after all.
    - logicprog 6y ago
      The percent of totally self-made rich seems to be around 56%, and partially self-made is at around 30%. Note also that the proportion of self-made rich people is actually growing, even as the amount of wealth the rich has has decreased a bit[1] (methodology of the quoted study[2]). Also take a look at this intergenerational income mobility chart in figure 3 of a Pew study[3]; it says that people are "likely" to stay poor, but that's actually less than half, so I would say it's more like "unlikely." [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-majority-of-worlds-billionaires-self-made.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-m... [2]: https://www.wealthx.com/approach/methodology/ https://www.wealthx.com/approach/methodology/ [3]: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

istjohn 6y ago

> If you think billionaires are harmful, why? Equality? Economics? They already answered that: > The existence of billionaires clearly undermines the core principles of democracy which is that all people have essentially the same political power. The existence of many laws which clearly aim to benefit billionaires only is enough evidence that this power balance does not exist when there are billionaires.

dalbasal 6y ago
OK, fair enough.
amscanne 6y ago
I don't understand this. Clearly not all people have the same political power, regardless of the existence of billionaires. AOC, as a party firebrand, has more political power than Jeff Bezos, although it manifests differently. You can argue that the power was "earned" (in the sense that AOC won a primary), but how is the power that Bezos has any less earned? The same argument applies not just to politicians, but literally any influential public figure (artists, authors, journalists, actors, etc.).
- oblio 6y ago
  AOC has to actually work for her political power. Billionaires can sic 1000 lawyers and lobbyists at whatever initiative they want, without lifting a finger. And that's just an example :-) Activists do it as their day job, for billionaires it's just one of the many side effects of their wealth.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    > AOC has to actually work for her political power. Meanwhile, Amazon was gifted to Bezos by God himself at the age of 15.
    - oblio 6y ago
      Ummm... are you misreading my comment? Bezos had to work to found a successful business. Which came with a ton of benefits. Political power is a (un?)intended side effect of owning that successful business. That side effect is the problem.
      - cultus 6y ago
        I'm not sure how this is apparently a controversial point. There's vast and obvious evidence that this is the case. More Dunning-Krugerism from the tech industry.
        JackFr 6y ago
        Good thing you're immune.
      - airstrike 6y ago
        "Political power" is an unavoidable side effect of having power, simply – this almost reads like a tautology, but it's worth keeping in mind that the former is effectively an extension of the latter. I argue money is power in a free market society. I'm not sure there is a way to fix the first part of that sentence without completely modifying the latter.
eanzenberg 6y ago
Every person has the same political power, though. One vote is one vote, one voice is one voice. Why do politicians pander to the wealthy and influential? Well, precisely because they are influential and connected to many of the people in society.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  You contradict yourself. You literally just said that everyone has equal political power, but rich people have more political power. Rich people aren't influential because they have a lot of friends. Rich people are influential because they have a lot of money.
- vinay_ys 6y ago
  Isn't it because the wealthy and influential can donate/raise huge sums of money for politician's superpac and help them win elections term after term and stay in power for decades?
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    To get rid of that incentive you need to advocate for separating government from economy, in the same manner and for the same reason why state is supposed to be separated from church in a modern secular society. No lobbying from economic players and no government intervention into economics.
    - vinay_ys 6y ago
      If government is responsible for running common infrastructure, just by their choice of which infra to grow or let decay, they are affecting economy. If government is responsible for social welfare (for the poor), they are affecting economy. If government is collecting taxes, by their choice of what to tax how much etc, they are affecting economy. If you take economic affections away from the government, what remains with the government?
      - ghostwriter 6y ago
atlgator 6y ago
You say clearly, but it isn't clear. I would argue the existence of billionaires is a symptom and not the root of the problem. This country was founded with all people created equal under the law, but the system of kickbacks and corruption allows the wealthy to commit all manner of civil, financial, antitrust, and even criminal acts without any repercussions. How many people were charged in the financial crisis that wiped out half the wealth of Main St? 1 person? Google is larger than all of it's search competitors combined and yet Congress rolls over when Pichai says it isn't not a monopoly? Give me a break. It will only get worse, whether UBI and Universal Healthcare are implemented or not. There's a reason Big Tech CEOs are all card carrying Democrats. Modern Communism won't see the seizure of the means of production by the State. Instead it will consolidate the working class under a smaller and smaller group of larger and larger corporations that work in concert with politicians. Progressive regulation and taxation schemes support this. We even have on-campus housing for employees now so you can dedicate your whole life to a company. All that's missing is childhood education and you can be birthed into Amazon employment, get educated and trained, and live your life inside the bubble. Anyway, I hope I'm wrong.

DylanDmitri 6y ago

Contrast between a growing/innovative/free society and a stagnant/authoritarian one. Key difference is meritocracy -- can competent newcomers displace incumbents? This is mirrored at smaller scales -- good leaders of healthy teams want newcomers to grow and learn and surpass them. Bad leaders are afraid of failure and don't want their people to fundamentally grow and change. Likewise good parents want their children to surpass them; bad parents harass and belittle and shame. When Apple makes it painful to build sizable businesses on their platform, this is intentional stagnation to maximize profit. When billionaires run think tanks, fund political campaigns, and rig laws to increase their power at the expense of the common good, this is intentional stagnation to maximize profit.

eanzenberg 6y ago
When you look at the data, most millionaires and billionaires don’t come from family wealth. Don’t misunderstand, I’m sure they’ve had “leg-ups” like going to private school, or having an SAT tutor, or having a professor at a top20 school as a family friend. So, we don’t really have stagnation of wealth.
- mthoms 6y ago
  I'd be interested in seeing this data. Do you have a source? IIRC, this common refrain is based on a study that required wealthy participants to self-report whether they made their money or inherited it. Every "millionaire" seems to think they're self made, after all.
  - logicprog 6y ago
    The percent of totally self-made rich seems to be around 56%, and partially self-made is at around 30%. Note also that the proportion of self-made rich people is actually growing, even as the amount of wealth the rich has has decreased a bit[1] (methodology of the quoted study[2]). Also take a look at this intergenerational income mobility chart in figure 3 of a Pew study[3]; it says that people are "likely" to stay poor, but that's actually less than half, so I would say it's more like "unlikely." [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-majority-of-worlds-billionaires-self-made.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-m... [2]: https://www.wealthx.com/approach/methodology/ https://www.wealthx.com/approach/methodology/ [3]: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]