3 ms·

"Excuse me, but did you just compare the number 1 to the number 1000 by pointing out that they are both positive integers?" The point I am making is simple. T

"Excuse me, but did you just compare the number 1 to the number 1000 by pointing out that they are both positive integers?" The point I am making is simple. There are approaching 3,000 billionaires worldwide. Suppose 90% are upstanding and 10% are unethical. That's 300 unethical billionaires. Suppose each unethical billionaire does just 1-2 unethical things per year, that is plenty of "unethical billionaire" stories for journalists to write about an unethical billionaire every day if they want. You write: "The only way to amass that sort of wealth is to exploit the labor of others." Then you cite a few examples of billionaires behaving, in your view, unethically. That's very nice, but to prove your claim, you need to show that every billionaire has done this. You mentioned 3 billionaires. With about 3,000 worldwide, you are about 0.1% of the way there. But the examples you've provided so far don't even pass the sniff test. Example: "ABC News[47] and The Economist[48] both conducted comparisons, and found that although the number of workplace suicides at Foxconn was large in absolute terms, the suicide rate was actually lower than the overall suicide rate of China[49] or the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides#Analysis >Simply the fact that some people are amassing such wealth, while millions of people in the world starve and cannot access even basic education or healthcare. That alone makes being a billionaire unethical, by default. This argument only applies to billionaires who haven't signed the giving pledge. Those I will agree with you on. However, it would be highly unethical to tax away the wealth of those who have signed the Giving Pledge, in order to provide even more goodies for Americans who are already quite wealthy by global standards.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KozmoNau7 5y ago
The giving pledge is blatant fraud, pure and simple. 0% of billionaires are upstanding, they are all exploiters and vultures. The signees haven't even made any moves towards actually giving away a significant fraction of their wealth, their collective wealth has more than doubled over 10 years. Add to this that the majority of donations have been given to private foundations[¤], and that donations to charity are tax-deductible, means it really is no more than a giant tax scheme, under a thin veil of "charity". [¤] Often family foundations, which pay salaries to family members of the donors and don't disclose where the donations actually go. Once again, it is impossible to amass such wealth (a significant fraction of any country's GDP) and keep it, without extracting an extreme excess of value from the labor of others. You cannot become this rich by simply "working hard", you cannot amass such wealth through any kind of individual labor. It can only come from the mass exploitation of the labor of others, from not paying people the fair value of their labor. Pretending to give away a tiny portion of that to charity, after the fact, is like putting a Hello Kitty band aid on a massive gaping chest wound. Ineffective at best, and in reality an abject insult. The fact that we know that we could make the world better, by taxing corporations, capital gains and inheritances much higher, yet refuse to do so, is a scathing condemnation of the callous and inhumane nature of capitalism.
- qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
  The strength of your claims is vastly out of proportion to the strength of your evidence. Remember all the furor over the Gates divorce because people were worried that it would impact their global health work and so on? I guess that was all bogus concern because the Gates Foundation is actually a giant tax scheme?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

KozmoNau7 5y ago

The giving pledge is blatant fraud, pure and simple. 0% of billionaires are upstanding, they are all exploiters and vultures. The signees haven't even made any moves towards actually giving away a significant fraction of their wealth, their collective wealth has more than doubled over 10 years. Add to this that the majority of donations have been given to private foundations[¤], and that donations to charity are tax-deductible, means it really is no more than a giant tax scheme, under a thin veil of "charity". [¤] Often family foundations, which pay salaries to family members of the donors and don't disclose where the donations actually go. Once again, it is impossible to amass such wealth (a significant fraction of any country's GDP) and keep it, without extracting an extreme excess of value from the labor of others. You cannot become this rich by simply "working hard", you cannot amass such wealth through any kind of individual labor. It can only come from the mass exploitation of the labor of others, from not paying people the fair value of their labor. Pretending to give away a tiny portion of that to charity, after the fact, is like putting a Hello Kitty band aid on a massive gaping chest wound. Ineffective at best, and in reality an abject insult. The fact that we know that we could make the world better, by taxing corporations, capital gains and inheritances much higher, yet refuse to do so, is a scathing condemnation of the callous and inhumane nature of capitalism.

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
The strength of your claims is vastly out of proportion to the strength of your evidence. Remember all the furor over the Gates divorce because people were worried that it would impact their global health work and so on? I guess that was all bogus concern because the Gates Foundation is actually a giant tax scheme?