7 ms·

> If you think billionaires are harmful, why? Equality? Economics? They already answered that: > The existence of billionaires clearly undermines the core pri

> 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.
    - cultus 6y ago
      It was actually gifted to him by his parents, in the form of a $300,000 loan. How is it so difficult to accept that the vast majority of the wealthy were helped by having wealthy parents rather than pulling themselves up their bootstraps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Business_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Business_career
      - airstrike 6y ago
        How many people with $300k go on to build Amazon? Nobody is saying he didn't have any help, and that's frankly not the bar we want to measure people by.
  - zimmern 6y ago
    >>>without lifting a finger They lifted many fingers to become billionaires. You are denigrating them in order to cover for your own inadequacies of effort, skill, and competence.
- istjohn 6y ago
  AOC's power stems from democratic support. Jeff Bezos' power stems from monetary wealth. It's the difference between oligopoly and democracy. No, there will never be absolute equality of power. Certain people will always have a louder voice in the culture than others. But cultural power is fickle and comes and goes easily unlike wealth.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Jeff Bezos' monetary wealth stems from billions of Amazon customers voting with their collective wallets. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
    - istjohn 6y ago
      AOC's power will vanish the moment she breaks with the interests of her constituency. Bezos' wealth does not represent a continuing endorsement of his actions.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        > [Politician]'s power will vanish the moment s/he breaks with the interests of his/her/their constituency This is almost never the case. Power corrupts.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        How would AOC continue to have power if people were to stop voting for her or caring about what she has to say?
        darawk 6y ago
        How would Bezos continue to have power if people stopped using Amazon? Most of his wealth is in Amazon stock. Sure, he'd have a few billion left over, but his real political power comes from his companies, not his money.
- mountainboot 6y ago
  I believe Jeff Bezos has more power than AOC.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Bezos has vastly more power than AOC. His decisions affect the lives of 840,000 direct employees and at least as many again - I'm not sure the figures even exist - "freelance" content suppliers, small businesses, and casual workers. His tax avoidance policies have a significant impact on the budgets of the larger Western countries. AOC has a media profile, but - so far - almost no influence at all on US policy. That may change in the future, but given that the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist, it's possible she'll be sidelined into becoming her generation's powerless token left-leaning icon.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      AOC effectively prevented Amazon from establishing a second headquarters in NY. > the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist They invited her to speak at the Dem convention. That makes her mainstream.
  - amscanne 6y ago
    Certainly in some ways. But AOC (with others) arguably shifted an entire mainstream party's platform. I think that the "hard power" that Bezos has is larger, but the "soft power" wielded by political and cultural elites is massive and easy to underestimate.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Is AOC either politically or culturally elite?
  - maxharris 6y ago
    What kind of power, though? Political power and economic power are fundamentally different.
- foobiekr 6y ago
  Why do you think AOC has any actual power at all?
- zjaffee 6y ago
  AOC does not have more political power than Jeff Bezos and to suggest otherwise is tremendously foolish. Political power is far more than just the ability to change federal statutes, it includes things like being able to get faster approval for the zoning of your particular projects or getting your company tax breaks.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  I would like to introduce you to a family which is called the Murdochs. This family alone has probably yielded more political power than most elected officials in many western democracies combined. You don't even need to look at Fox news, but only look at Australien politics, where Rupert Murdoch (who isn't even an Australien citizen or taxpayer anymore) has had the most intimate access to politicians. I encourage you to look at the repeal of the NBN (which was very popular) and the role of Murdoch newspapers in getting the labor government voted out.
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.

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.
  - cultus 6y ago
    It was actually gifted to him by his parents, in the form of a $300,000 loan. How is it so difficult to accept that the vast majority of the wealthy were helped by having wealthy parents rather than pulling themselves up their bootstraps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Business_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Business_career
    - airstrike 6y ago
      How many people with $300k go on to build Amazon? Nobody is saying he didn't have any help, and that's frankly not the bar we want to measure people by.
- zimmern 6y ago
  >>>without lifting a finger They lifted many fingers to become billionaires. You are denigrating them in order to cover for your own inadequacies of effort, skill, and competence.
istjohn 6y ago
AOC's power stems from democratic support. Jeff Bezos' power stems from monetary wealth. It's the difference between oligopoly and democracy. No, there will never be absolute equality of power. Certain people will always have a louder voice in the culture than others. But cultural power is fickle and comes and goes easily unlike wealth.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Jeff Bezos' monetary wealth stems from billions of Amazon customers voting with their collective wallets. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
  - istjohn 6y ago
    AOC's power will vanish the moment she breaks with the interests of her constituency. Bezos' wealth does not represent a continuing endorsement of his actions.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      > [Politician]'s power will vanish the moment s/he breaks with the interests of his/her/their constituency This is almost never the case. Power corrupts.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        How would AOC continue to have power if people were to stop voting for her or caring about what she has to say?
        darawk 6y ago
        How would Bezos continue to have power if people stopped using Amazon? Most of his wealth is in Amazon stock. Sure, he'd have a few billion left over, but his real political power comes from his companies, not his money.
mountainboot 6y ago
I believe Jeff Bezos has more power than AOC.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Bezos has vastly more power than AOC. His decisions affect the lives of 840,000 direct employees and at least as many again - I'm not sure the figures even exist - "freelance" content suppliers, small businesses, and casual workers. His tax avoidance policies have a significant impact on the budgets of the larger Western countries. AOC has a media profile, but - so far - almost no influence at all on US policy. That may change in the future, but given that the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist, it's possible she'll be sidelined into becoming her generation's powerless token left-leaning icon.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    AOC effectively prevented Amazon from establishing a second headquarters in NY. > the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist They invited her to speak at the Dem convention. That makes her mainstream.
- amscanne 6y ago
  Certainly in some ways. But AOC (with others) arguably shifted an entire mainstream party's platform. I think that the "hard power" that Bezos has is larger, but the "soft power" wielded by political and cultural elites is massive and easy to underestimate.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Is AOC either politically or culturally elite?
- maxharris 6y ago
  What kind of power, though? Political power and economic power are fundamentally different.
foobiekr 6y ago
Why do you think AOC has any actual power at all?
zjaffee 6y ago
AOC does not have more political power than Jeff Bezos and to suggest otherwise is tremendously foolish. Political power is far more than just the ability to change federal statutes, it includes things like being able to get faster approval for the zoning of your particular projects or getting your company tax breaks.
cycomanic 6y ago
I would like to introduce you to a family which is called the Murdochs. This family alone has probably yielded more political power than most elected officials in many western democracies combined. You don't even need to look at Fox news, but only look at Australien politics, where Rupert Murdoch (who isn't even an Australien citizen or taxpayer anymore) has had the most intimate access to politicians. I encourage you to look at the repeal of the NBN (which was very popular) and the role of Murdoch newspapers in getting the labor government voted out.

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.