8 ms·

Why there's no such thing as a good billionaire

28 points by dragonbonheur 4y ago

sn0w_crash 4y ago
Really? This is like saying “All poor people are criminals” This is the sort of thinking you need to leave behind in childhood. There is no way a reasonable grown adult can hold this opinion seriously.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > There is no way a reasonable grown adult can hold this opinion seriously. Sounds like you need to meet more adults unfortunately.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I’ve met a lot of adults. I find many of them struggle making the mental leap from “this is structurally uncommon” to “and yet it’s not impossible”.
  - yeasurebut 4y ago
    Their username is plagiarized from a kids fantasy story and they switch off at the sight of uncomfortable language. Not much there to take serious their claims of being more adult than others.
    - schwartzworld 4y ago
      When will the laws change to finally put a stop to vicious plagiarism of usernames?
- efficax 4y ago
  i’m a grown adult and i agree with the argument. i also think there’s no such thing as a good cop, or a good professional assassin.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101c 4y ago
  The problem is not the billionaire-as-an-individual, but the billionaire-as-a-signifier-of-concentration-of-wealth: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. * aninhumer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 Now, perfect equality is probably equality as bad, as there's no (extrinsic) incentive to make things better and be (externally) rewarded for it, but the US is back at the point of being back in the Gilded Age: * https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/forget-the-1 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/f... * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/wealth-becoming-more-concentrated-richest-families https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/weal... Billionaires are "bad" because they signify concentration of wealth/power that can skew the working of the democratic process where each citizen has an equal say in the direction a country should go.
  - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
    I think this take hits on a good point worth exploring. I've also noticed that people generally fall into these two groups and end up talking past each other when ever this topic comes up - myself included. I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. On the other side, I suspect there are those who are frustrated by the argument that "billionaires are not bad" because they observe the huge levels of inequality that currently exist and conclude that this can't possibly be an efficient use of resources. I think there is a middle ground. Clearly, some level of differential reward structure in society is necessary to maximise innovation and productivity. But perhaps the current levels of inequality are also sub-optimal. However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. Perhaps part of the solution might involve reducing barriers to entry so that more people can participate in the market. It's also worth highlighting that most wealth is created, not transferred. Most billionaires (in a free market) become so by creating valuable businesses and producing value. If Jeff Bezos never created Amazon and never became a billionaire, we'd all be poorer, not richer.
draw_down 4y ago
O__________O 4y ago
For HN, likely better to cite a text-based source or post a accurate/unbiased TLDR, since in my experience videos rarely get traction. Here’s related opinion piece that number of papers published and is cited in video: OPINION: Finally, a billionaire willing to smack back at capitalism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33223639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33223639 * Note: Above post was flagged after 50-mins. And the related prior HN thread on Patagonia founder giving away the company: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32842357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32842357
rutierut 4y ago
I used to love this guy's videos but he has really gone of the rails
bheadmaster 4y ago
The video raises some very good points, most important of those is that the only thing we can be sure about is that billionaires care about what other people think of them. Everything else has an extremely high probability of being PR bullshit. People are gullible as fuck. It seems like stupidity (defined as taking things at face value without questioning them) is a very desirable quality in the modern society, and apparently, even asking questions and raising points about underlying motives in considered unacceptable.
- jayski 4y ago
  he made some excellent points, but I also think he exaggerated others. Bill Gates' relationship with Epstein is very troubling, but if youve followed that story I don't think it's fair to call them "best buds"
fein 4y ago
dctoedt 4y ago
Am I the only one who initially thought the guy in the video* was Alton Brown (of Good Eats), somehow rejuvenated? * Adam Conover, with whom I wasn't previously familiar
- markoman 4y ago
  They do bear a resemblance, albeit with a 20-some year age difference. Adam has acknowledged the buzz about this: https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1545120103125372928 https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1545120103125372928
kthejoker2 4y ago
More like ... we have lots of evidence that handing a small handful of essentially random people a large and disproportionate concentration of humanity's entire wealth tends to make them: * act above the law * use their wealth to attack and generally bully others to get their way * exert disproportionate influence (relative to their actual insight or utility of their actions) on people's lives, government, and society as a whole * choose other winners and losers in the market (this is not inherently good or bad, but when bad it is disproportionately bad) * decide what things the rest of humanity should pay more or less attention to * consume exorbitantly in the face of still-existent human poverty, disease, security, environmental concerns, and so on and most directly * decide how and to whom that wealth will be distributed long after they've "earned" it, thus continuing a cycle of haves and have nots And so based on that evidence, all things being equal, having less concentration of wealth and more equity is better for society as a whole. (See: Friedman, Piketty, Smith, Keynes, George, et al) Whatever argument you may have about this billionaire or that billionaire, hopefully it's easy to understand why we as a society should be exceptionally wary of the negative impacts of encouraging overly concentrated wealth versus the positive benefits of encouraging risktaking and entrepreneurial reward.

28 points by dragonbonheur 4y ago

Really? This is like saying “All poor people are criminals” This is the sort of thinking you need to leave behind in childhood. There is no way a reasonable grown adult can hold this opinion seriously.

the_only_law 4y ago
> There is no way a reasonable grown adult can hold this opinion seriously. Sounds like you need to meet more adults unfortunately.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I’ve met a lot of adults. I find many of them struggle making the mental leap from “this is structurally uncommon” to “and yet it’s not impossible”.
- yeasurebut 4y ago
  Their username is plagiarized from a kids fantasy story and they switch off at the sight of uncomfortable language. Not much there to take serious their claims of being more adult than others.
  - schwartzworld 4y ago
    When will the laws change to finally put a stop to vicious plagiarism of usernames?
efficax 4y ago
i’m a grown adult and i agree with the argument. i also think there’s no such thing as a good cop, or a good professional assassin.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throw0101c 4y ago
The problem is not the billionaire-as-an-individual, but the billionaire-as-a-signifier-of-concentration-of-wealth: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. * aninhumer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 Now, perfect equality is probably equality as bad, as there's no (extrinsic) incentive to make things better and be (externally) rewarded for it, but the US is back at the point of being back in the Gilded Age: * https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/forget-the-1 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/f... * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/wealth-becoming-more-concentrated-richest-families https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/weal... Billionaires are "bad" because they signify concentration of wealth/power that can skew the working of the democratic process where each citizen has an equal say in the direction a country should go.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  I think this take hits on a good point worth exploring. I've also noticed that people generally fall into these two groups and end up talking past each other when ever this topic comes up - myself included. I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. On the other side, I suspect there are those who are frustrated by the argument that "billionaires are not bad" because they observe the huge levels of inequality that currently exist and conclude that this can't possibly be an efficient use of resources. I think there is a middle ground. Clearly, some level of differential reward structure in society is necessary to maximise innovation and productivity. But perhaps the current levels of inequality are also sub-optimal. However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. Perhaps part of the solution might involve reducing barriers to entry so that more people can participate in the market. It's also worth highlighting that most wealth is created, not transferred. Most billionaires (in a free market) become so by creating valuable businesses and producing value. If Jeff Bezos never created Amazon and never became a billionaire, we'd all be poorer, not richer.

draw_down 4y ago

O__________O 4y ago

For HN, likely better to cite a text-based source or post a accurate/unbiased TLDR, since in my experience videos rarely get traction. Here’s related opinion piece that number of papers published and is cited in video: OPINION: Finally, a billionaire willing to smack back at capitalism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33223639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33223639 * Note: Above post was flagged after 50-mins. And the related prior HN thread on Patagonia founder giving away the company: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32842357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32842357

rutierut 4y ago

I used to love this guy's videos but he has really gone of the rails

bheadmaster 4y ago

The video raises some very good points, most important of those is that the only thing we can be sure about is that billionaires care about what other people think of them. Everything else has an extremely high probability of being PR bullshit. People are gullible as fuck. It seems like stupidity (defined as taking things at face value without questioning them) is a very desirable quality in the modern society, and apparently, even asking questions and raising points about underlying motives in considered unacceptable.

jayski 4y ago
he made some excellent points, but I also think he exaggerated others. Bill Gates' relationship with Epstein is very troubling, but if youve followed that story I don't think it's fair to call them "best buds"

fein 4y ago

dctoedt 4y ago

Am I the only one who initially thought the guy in the video* was Alton Brown (of Good Eats), somehow rejuvenated? * Adam Conover, with whom I wasn't previously familiar

markoman 4y ago
They do bear a resemblance, albeit with a 20-some year age difference. Adam has acknowledged the buzz about this: https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1545120103125372928 https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1545120103125372928

kthejoker2 4y ago

More like ... we have lots of evidence that handing a small handful of essentially random people a large and disproportionate concentration of humanity's entire wealth tends to make them: * act above the law * use their wealth to attack and generally bully others to get their way * exert disproportionate influence (relative to their actual insight or utility of their actions) on people's lives, government, and society as a whole * choose other winners and losers in the market (this is not inherently good or bad, but when bad it is disproportionately bad) * decide what things the rest of humanity should pay more or less attention to * consume exorbitantly in the face of still-existent human poverty, disease, security, environmental concerns, and so on and most directly * decide how and to whom that wealth will be distributed long after they've "earned" it, thus continuing a cycle of haves and have nots And so based on that evidence, all things being equal, having less concentration of wealth and more equity is better for society as a whole. (See: Friedman, Piketty, Smith, Keynes, George, et al) Whatever argument you may have about this billionaire or that billionaire, hopefully it's easy to understand why we as a society should be exceptionally wary of the negative impacts of encouraging overly concentrated wealth versus the positive benefits of encouraging risktaking and entrepreneurial reward.