3 ms·

"Self-made"? What a joke! No human can make a billion dollars by themselves. That is simply not possible. The one single and only way you can make a billion do

"Self-made"? What a joke! No human can make a billion dollars by themselves. That is simply not possible. The one single and only way you can make a billion dollar is by exploiting the labour of others. There is nothing "self-made" about billionaires.

simonh 5y ago
That's true, fair comment. All those workers could have gathered together independently and founded a company together. They could have pooled their savings, taken business loans as many business owners do and established a co-operative ownership structure. What is it that prevented them from doing so? Are there laws against it? The fact is they chose not to accept the risks of doing that, after all most new businesses fail. Instead they opted for a regular pay packet from an owner and investors who accepted all of that risk.
- pbak 5y ago
  Well, you were more than halfway to a Yugoslav-style worker-managed company in your first paragraph. They were all destroyed either because of the 90's wars, or by post-war liberal governments who forced dissolution. There aren't laws against it, but the trouble with such structures is they need stability, so they tend to grow way slower, with new members who go in and stay (50-70 years for the examples below). That's not conducive to a space "race" indeed. Alternatively they need some state protection until they are big and stable enough - and then you're living in full Marxist-cum-Bolchevik or Maoist territory. There still exit various such cooperatives in Spain and northern Italy with from 12 to 30'000 members (also including industry). A lot of large Chinese firms also have that form.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  What you are talking about is what millionaires do. Billionaires are a completely different type of thing. You do not become a billionaire by employing some people and taking on a bit of risk.
- smolder 5y ago
  They accepted that regular pay from an owner and investors who are risking money which is... mostly the fruit of earlier workers' labor, rather than a direct result of their own. There's always a degree of exploitation behind profit, and while profitability is improved through more synergistic organizations, it can also be improved by stifling competition, buying favorable policy from corrupt officials, etc. Our economic environment rewards malicious economic conquest just as much or more than the pursuit of efficient value creation. That it's so easy for concentrated capital to squeeze more capital from the masses is the key to crazy wealth inequality, not anyone's lack of industry or entrepreneurship.
  - simonh 5y ago
    And yet whenever alternate economic systems fail, and they have always failed, they turn to capitalist economics to bail them out. Capitalism has raised billions of people out of poverty. In China alone Capitalism has raised hundreds of millions of people from subsistence conditions into middle class lifestyle. Chinese factory worker wages rose on average by 64% between 2011 and 2017. That’s market forces in action. I’ve been going to China since 2001 and watched it happen with my own eyes.
    - smolder 5y ago
      I wasn't criticizing capitalism in relation to communism, and I didn't claim to prefer it. It's possible to regulate an economy to keep competition healthy and minimize the destructive aspects. I think the way our system gets better is through good-faith efforts of smart and ethical policy makers, curated and elected by an efficient democracy. There's plenty of work to be done to get closer to that ideal.
      - simonh 5y ago
        Sure, I agree with that completely. I’m no free market purist, more an old school liberal. I just don’t think most of the criticisms of capitalism are in any way specific to it. In fact non capitalist societies seem to suffer far more from these flaws than free market economies. Rent seeking, labour abuses, corruption. These are human flaws and therefore seen in any economic system and must be constantly rooted out.

simonh 5y ago

That's true, fair comment. All those workers could have gathered together independently and founded a company together. They could have pooled their savings, taken business loans as many business owners do and established a co-operative ownership structure. What is it that prevented them from doing so? Are there laws against it? The fact is they chose not to accept the risks of doing that, after all most new businesses fail. Instead they opted for a regular pay packet from an owner and investors who accepted all of that risk.

pbak 5y ago
Well, you were more than halfway to a Yugoslav-style worker-managed company in your first paragraph. They were all destroyed either because of the 90's wars, or by post-war liberal governments who forced dissolution. There aren't laws against it, but the trouble with such structures is they need stability, so they tend to grow way slower, with new members who go in and stay (50-70 years for the examples below). That's not conducive to a space "race" indeed. Alternatively they need some state protection until they are big and stable enough - and then you're living in full Marxist-cum-Bolchevik or Maoist territory. There still exit various such cooperatives in Spain and northern Italy with from 12 to 30'000 members (also including industry). A lot of large Chinese firms also have that form.
user-the-name 5y ago
What you are talking about is what millionaires do. Billionaires are a completely different type of thing. You do not become a billionaire by employing some people and taking on a bit of risk.
smolder 5y ago
They accepted that regular pay from an owner and investors who are risking money which is... mostly the fruit of earlier workers' labor, rather than a direct result of their own. There's always a degree of exploitation behind profit, and while profitability is improved through more synergistic organizations, it can also be improved by stifling competition, buying favorable policy from corrupt officials, etc. Our economic environment rewards malicious economic conquest just as much or more than the pursuit of efficient value creation. That it's so easy for concentrated capital to squeeze more capital from the masses is the key to crazy wealth inequality, not anyone's lack of industry or entrepreneurship.
- simonh 5y ago
  And yet whenever alternate economic systems fail, and they have always failed, they turn to capitalist economics to bail them out. Capitalism has raised billions of people out of poverty. In China alone Capitalism has raised hundreds of millions of people from subsistence conditions into middle class lifestyle. Chinese factory worker wages rose on average by 64% between 2011 and 2017. That’s market forces in action. I’ve been going to China since 2001 and watched it happen with my own eyes.
  - smolder 5y ago
    I wasn't criticizing capitalism in relation to communism, and I didn't claim to prefer it. It's possible to regulate an economy to keep competition healthy and minimize the destructive aspects. I think the way our system gets better is through good-faith efforts of smart and ethical policy makers, curated and elected by an efficient democracy. There's plenty of work to be done to get closer to that ideal.
    - simonh 5y ago
      Sure, I agree with that completely. I’m no free market purist, more an old school liberal. I just don’t think most of the criticisms of capitalism are in any way specific to it. In fact non capitalist societies seem to suffer far more from these flaws than free market economies. Rent seeking, labour abuses, corruption. These are human flaws and therefore seen in any economic system and must be constantly rooted out.