3 ms·

Probably because people view billionaires as mustache-twirling villains and have absolutely no idea what they do with their time or money.

by vlunkr 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Rather we do have some idea what they do with their time and money: influence politics, lobby for regulatory capture, lobby against societally beneficial regulation, bust unions, rent-seek, astroturf, form monopolies and oligopolies, have outsized carbon footprints, avoid paying anything back to society, commit crimes and get away with them, etc. We see them as mustache-twirling villains because, well, they act like mustache-twirling villains.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  They also form dynasties of generations of extremely wealthy children, grand-children, and grand-grand-children, etc. It's arguable whether the people who originally accumulated all this wealth "earned" it (when many of them in large part merely took the wealth their employees made), but their descendants who just inherit their money certainly have in no way earned it. So should they get to keep it? For an insightful look in to the world of inherited wealth, see the documentary Born Rich[1], made by the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, where he interviews all his other friends, who, like him, were born in to enormously wealthy families. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sD3pG74Wv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sD3pG74Wv8
danaris 5y ago
Anyone who has amassed a fortune in the billions has necessarily done so through one of only two ways: exploiting the labour of very large numbers of poorly-paid people, or receiving it from those who have done so. Meanwhile, they have seen the plight of the billions of human beings who live in poverty and want, and chosen to use their vast resources almost purely to make more for themselves, rather than dedicate to alleviating such suffering even enough that their lifestyle is the slightest bit inconvenienced. The sanctity of "property ownership" is not so sacred a principle that it should take priority over wholly preventable widespread suffering and death. There is no moral argument that could possibly support this much of humanity's productive output being hoarded by so few, rather than going to improve the world in a myriad of ways.

Probably because people view billionaires as mustache-twirling villains and have absolutely no idea what they do with their time or money.

by vlunkr 5y ago

Probably because people view billionaires as mustache-twirling villains and have absolutely no idea what they do with their time or money.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Rather we do have some idea what they do with their time and money: influence politics, lobby for regulatory capture, lobby against societally beneficial regulation, bust unions, rent-seek, astroturf, form monopolies and oligopolies, have outsized carbon footprints, avoid paying anything back to society, commit crimes and get away with them, etc. We see them as mustache-twirling villains because, well, they act like mustache-twirling villains.

pmoriarty 5y ago
They also form dynasties of generations of extremely wealthy children, grand-children, and grand-grand-children, etc. It's arguable whether the people who originally accumulated all this wealth "earned" it (when many of them in large part merely took the wealth their employees made), but their descendants who just inherit their money certainly have in no way earned it. So should they get to keep it? For an insightful look in to the world of inherited wealth, see the documentary Born Rich[1], made by the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, where he interviews all his other friends, who, like him, were born in to enormously wealthy families. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sD3pG74Wv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sD3pG74Wv8

danaris 5y ago

Anyone who has amassed a fortune in the billions has necessarily done so through one of only two ways: exploiting the labour of very large numbers of poorly-paid people, or receiving it from those who have done so. Meanwhile, they have seen the plight of the billions of human beings who live in poverty and want, and chosen to use their vast resources almost purely to make more for themselves, rather than dedicate to alleviating such suffering even enough that their lifestyle is the slightest bit inconvenienced. The sanctity of "property ownership" is not so sacred a principle that it should take priority over wholly preventable widespread suffering and death. There is no moral argument that could possibly support this much of humanity's productive output being hoarded by so few, rather than going to improve the world in a myriad of ways.