7 ms·

>things with large amounts of money aren't humans and don't have morals "Dehumanize when it's trendy." This is billionairephobia, friend.

taberiand 5y ago
That's ok, billionaires shouldn't exist (except that what would replace them would be worse).
- qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
  If I gave you a billion dollars, do you believe that you would suddenly transform into an amoral non-human monster?
  - cagenut 5y ago
    not suddenly, but within a decade, yep
    - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
      Why do you believe that? And if you believe that, how are you so sure that it hasn't already happened? If you're a software developer making $100K annually, you are already in the global 1%. Should people like you exist? Have you signed any sort of giving pledge, as many billionaires have? https://givingpledge.org/ https://givingpledge.org/
  - KozmoNau7 5y ago
    That's a trick question, because the only way[¤] to amass enough wealth to become a billionaire, is to be amoral and callous in the first place. [¤]Excepting the exceedingly rare few who win an exceedingly rare 1+ billion lottery prize.
    - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
      If what you say is true, billionaires who inherit their money should also be among the most ethical. Is that what you believe?
      - KozmoNau7 5y ago
        Everyone who inherited that sort of wealth was brought up and raised by billionaires, they were literally brought up in that worldview from the day they were born. There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire, that's the whole problem, that such wealth can only be amassed by unethical means.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        What did JK Rowling do that was unethical? How about Paul McCartney? Oprah?
        davidcbc 5y ago
        Kept more money than they could ever possibly need while others starve.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Then you agree that "such wealth can only be amassed by unethical means" is not correct.
        qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
        Is there such a thing as an ethical thousandaire? Millionaire? If you think there is, why can't there be ethical billionaires? An ethical billionaire is just an ethical millionaire who kept working to make the source of their income grow until it grew 1000x as large. Big businesses are generally more ethical than little ones -- subject to more customer and regulatory scrutiny. It's much easier for a small business to get away with flouting environmental regulations or treating its employees harshly. (When's the last time the manager at a tiny roadside restaurant got fired for sexually harassing his employees?) This increased level of scrutiny means it is easier to bring to mind examples of unethical behavior by large businesses even if the actual rate is about the same. The media is biased to cover misdeeds by billionaires due to billionairephobia, the same way it is biased to cover misdeeds by Black people due to racism.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - taberiand 5y ago
    You've put words in my mouth. I think billionaires shouldn't exist because that level of wealth concentration represents a failure of the fair distribution of wealth through society, regardless of the moral standing of the individual. Given the state of the system though, I think the only thing that could replace them would be something even less fair and more violent than what we have.
  - bigbillheck 5y ago
    Of course not. There'd be a short window in which I could give most of that money away without endangering my soul.
dan-robertson 5y ago
The commenter is talking in general terms about [big, faceless] companies, hence “things” not “people” or “humans”
- qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
  It looks like a billionairephobic dog whistle to me. Why is it necessary to emphasize that they aren't humans if what he means to refer to are corporations? But here are some interesting stats for you. raspyberr thinks that "things with large amounts of money aren't humans and don't have morals". So let's consider the thing with the largest amount of money of all: the US federal government. The federal government's annual budget is almost 6 trillion, approximately 30 times that of Google Inc. Google gets 100% of its energy from renewable sources. The corresponding figure for the federal government is 10%. Shall we tax Google more? I'm not sure. Seems like we'd just transfer assets from a moderately amoral entity to one which is even more amoral.
  - raspyberr 5y ago
    Well since this is spurring a conversation I should clarify my position. The person above was right. I was talking about corporations and companies. Billionaire humans are a seperate discussion but they aren't the marketing industry. With regards to your second point, I don't really think you've said anything noteworthy. Governments aren't humans and don't have morals. They're processes. When they do mass marketing we call it propoganda and that word seems to have pretty negative connotations with it.

taberiand 5y ago

That's ok, billionaires shouldn't exist (except that what would replace them would be worse).

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
If I gave you a billion dollars, do you believe that you would suddenly transform into an amoral non-human monster?
- cagenut 5y ago
  not suddenly, but within a decade, yep
  - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
    Why do you believe that? And if you believe that, how are you so sure that it hasn't already happened? If you're a software developer making $100K annually, you are already in the global 1%. Should people like you exist? Have you signed any sort of giving pledge, as many billionaires have? https://givingpledge.org/ https://givingpledge.org/
- KozmoNau7 5y ago
  That's a trick question, because the only way[¤] to amass enough wealth to become a billionaire, is to be amoral and callous in the first place. [¤]Excepting the exceedingly rare few who win an exceedingly rare 1+ billion lottery prize.
  - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
    If what you say is true, billionaires who inherit their money should also be among the most ethical. Is that what you believe?
    - KozmoNau7 5y ago
      Everyone who inherited that sort of wealth was brought up and raised by billionaires, they were literally brought up in that worldview from the day they were born. There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire, that's the whole problem, that such wealth can only be amassed by unethical means.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        What did JK Rowling do that was unethical? How about Paul McCartney? Oprah?
        davidcbc 5y ago
        Kept more money than they could ever possibly need while others starve.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Then you agree that "such wealth can only be amassed by unethical means" is not correct.
      - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
        Is there such a thing as an ethical thousandaire? Millionaire? If you think there is, why can't there be ethical billionaires? An ethical billionaire is just an ethical millionaire who kept working to make the source of their income grow until it grew 1000x as large. Big businesses are generally more ethical than little ones -- subject to more customer and regulatory scrutiny. It's much easier for a small business to get away with flouting environmental regulations or treating its employees harshly. (When's the last time the manager at a tiny roadside restaurant got fired for sexually harassing his employees?) This increased level of scrutiny means it is easier to bring to mind examples of unethical behavior by large businesses even if the actual rate is about the same. The media is biased to cover misdeeds by billionaires due to billionairephobia, the same way it is biased to cover misdeeds by Black people due to racism.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- taberiand 5y ago
  You've put words in my mouth. I think billionaires shouldn't exist because that level of wealth concentration represents a failure of the fair distribution of wealth through society, regardless of the moral standing of the individual. Given the state of the system though, I think the only thing that could replace them would be something even less fair and more violent than what we have.
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  Of course not. There'd be a short window in which I could give most of that money away without endangering my soul.

dan-robertson 5y ago

The commenter is talking in general terms about [big, faceless] companies, hence “things” not “people” or “humans”

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
It looks like a billionairephobic dog whistle to me. Why is it necessary to emphasize that they aren't humans if what he means to refer to are corporations? But here are some interesting stats for you. raspyberr thinks that "things with large amounts of money aren't humans and don't have morals". So let's consider the thing with the largest amount of money of all: the US federal government. The federal government's annual budget is almost 6 trillion, approximately 30 times that of Google Inc. Google gets 100% of its energy from renewable sources. The corresponding figure for the federal government is 10%. Shall we tax Google more? I'm not sure. Seems like we'd just transfer assets from a moderately amoral entity to one which is even more amoral.
- raspyberr 5y ago
  Well since this is spurring a conversation I should clarify my position. The person above was right. I was talking about corporations and companies. Billionaire humans are a seperate discussion but they aren't the marketing industry. With regards to your second point, I don't really think you've said anything noteworthy. Governments aren't humans and don't have morals. They're processes. When they do mass marketing we call it propoganda and that word seems to have pretty negative connotations with it.