4 ms·

Billionaires at least introduce a diversity of perspectives & approaches. Such diversity is usually missing from the mandarin class of ivy-leaguers & federal-g

by gojomo 5y ago

Billionaires at least introduce a diversity of perspectives & approaches. Such diversity is usually missing from the mandarin class of ivy-leaguers & federal-government-lifers for which Vox's 'explanatory journalism' manufactures consent.

AlexandrB 5y ago
From where I'm standing I don't see any diversity of perspectives. I see a group of people who all generally believe that: * IP laws should me maximized to protect the "owners" * consumer protection laws should be minimized to remove corporate responsibility * taxes should be minimal * worker protections should be almost non-existent Basically libertarianism or "fuck you, got mine".
- imtringued 5y ago
  Also, many of them are trying to create land dynasties. Bill gates is buying farmland.
- pjscott 5y ago
  As an example of diversity of approaches, look at the Fast Grants program: https://future.a16z.com/what-we-learned-doing-fast-grants/ https://future.a16z.com/what-we-learned-doing-fast-grants/ It was created in 2020 to give grants for COVID-related research. Its big selling point was that it would give out money fast: very little paperwork to fill out, and yes/no decisions made within 48 hours. They were surprised to discover that even researchers at top universities were having a hard time getting funding out of the usual institutions like the NIH, which were adapting very slowly to the pandemic. They seem to have done very well in speeding up research, at least with the amount of money they had, just by giving out the funding in a way that few-to-none of the existing institutions would.
- gojomo 5y ago
  I dont see much of your bullet-item beliefs from billionaires like: * Winfrey * Dorsey * Soros * Steyer * Benioff * Bloomberg * Simons * Sussman * Pritzker * Buffett * Scott * Omidyar * Williams * Kardashian * Lucas A few of them support IP protections, at least at current levels supporting their sources-of-wealth, but not your other examples. (And whether they support IP any more than the average voter, or union-member, is unclear.) Maybe partisanship "from where [you're] standing" is blinding you to the social & political programs of many billionaires?
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Warren Buffett is clearly a pro-taxes billionaire, among many others. But Buffet is probably the most popular / richest one of them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule > The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.
mabub24 5y ago
If you interact with some top tier wealthy people, 0.9% wealthy to the 0.01%, you really quickly see that they have very little understanding of a number of issues that "middle-class" people face (let's ignore that "middle-class" is insanely broad, for the sake of the uber-wealthy, middle class is basically the 1% and poorer). They often have a hyper inflated sense of individual accomplishment; they're usually "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people (while unaware of the true meaning of that phrase) and they usually despise any attack on their sense of control, including the narrative that they are "self-made". They generally have a remarkably homogeneous set of values and promote the same sets of policies and programs on a national scale. They use their influence to tip the scales on a very select group of issues and "personal interest" problems, but they also espouse broadly libertarian approaches to their holdings and wealth, all while insisting they are remaining apolitical. What they do for PR stunts is usually belied by large scale tax evasion, extremely intensive lobbying, aggressive litigation, and monopolistic capture of whole markets if need be to protect their wealth. Many of which is of questionable legality, but perhaps of even more questionable morality and ethics.
- gojomo 5y ago
  >"they have very little understanding of a number of issues that 'middle-class' people face" I get the same impression reading private-school-educated Vox writers.
  - mabub24 5y ago
    Sure, but then we shouldn't rely on them to save us either. (I don't know who does, probably just them tbh.) Character assassination doesn't make the argument less compelling for either group. If you want to discuss the ideals of the professional media class, you would find an equal homogeneity of values and an equal vacuousness of public self-aggrandizing in many. "Relying on someone to save us" is really a perversion of democratic ideals. We are capable of deciding for ourselves the society that we want, in fair respect of the equal dignity of others, and a democratic society is the vehicle for that achievement.
    - 5y ago

by gojomo 5y ago

AlexandrB 5y ago

From where I'm standing I don't see any diversity of perspectives. I see a group of people who all generally believe that: * IP laws should me maximized to protect the "owners" * consumer protection laws should be minimized to remove corporate responsibility * taxes should be minimal * worker protections should be almost non-existent Basically libertarianism or "fuck you, got mine".

imtringued 5y ago
Also, many of them are trying to create land dynasties. Bill gates is buying farmland.
pjscott 5y ago
As an example of diversity of approaches, look at the Fast Grants program: https://future.a16z.com/what-we-learned-doing-fast-grants/ https://future.a16z.com/what-we-learned-doing-fast-grants/ It was created in 2020 to give grants for COVID-related research. Its big selling point was that it would give out money fast: very little paperwork to fill out, and yes/no decisions made within 48 hours. They were surprised to discover that even researchers at top universities were having a hard time getting funding out of the usual institutions like the NIH, which were adapting very slowly to the pandemic. They seem to have done very well in speeding up research, at least with the amount of money they had, just by giving out the funding in a way that few-to-none of the existing institutions would.
gojomo 5y ago
I dont see much of your bullet-item beliefs from billionaires like: * Winfrey * Dorsey * Soros * Steyer * Benioff * Bloomberg * Simons * Sussman * Pritzker * Buffett * Scott * Omidyar * Williams * Kardashian * Lucas A few of them support IP protections, at least at current levels supporting their sources-of-wealth, but not your other examples. (And whether they support IP any more than the average voter, or union-member, is unclear.) Maybe partisanship "from where [you're] standing" is blinding you to the social & political programs of many billionaires?
dragontamer 5y ago
Warren Buffett is clearly a pro-taxes billionaire, among many others. But Buffet is probably the most popular / richest one of them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule > The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.

mabub24 5y ago

If you interact with some top tier wealthy people, 0.9% wealthy to the 0.01%, you really quickly see that they have very little understanding of a number of issues that "middle-class" people face (let's ignore that "middle-class" is insanely broad, for the sake of the uber-wealthy, middle class is basically the 1% and poorer). They often have a hyper inflated sense of individual accomplishment; they're usually "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people (while unaware of the true meaning of that phrase) and they usually despise any attack on their sense of control, including the narrative that they are "self-made". They generally have a remarkably homogeneous set of values and promote the same sets of policies and programs on a national scale. They use their influence to tip the scales on a very select group of issues and "personal interest" problems, but they also espouse broadly libertarian approaches to their holdings and wealth, all while insisting they are remaining apolitical. What they do for PR stunts is usually belied by large scale tax evasion, extremely intensive lobbying, aggressive litigation, and monopolistic capture of whole markets if need be to protect their wealth. Many of which is of questionable legality, but perhaps of even more questionable morality and ethics.

gojomo 5y ago
>"they have very little understanding of a number of issues that 'middle-class' people face" I get the same impression reading private-school-educated Vox writers.
- mabub24 5y ago
  Sure, but then we shouldn't rely on them to save us either. (I don't know who does, probably just them tbh.) Character assassination doesn't make the argument less compelling for either group. If you want to discuss the ideals of the professional media class, you would find an equal homogeneity of values and an equal vacuousness of public self-aggrandizing in many. "Relying on someone to save us" is really a perversion of democratic ideals. We are capable of deciding for ourselves the society that we want, in fair respect of the equal dignity of others, and a democratic society is the vehicle for that achievement.
  - 5y ago