4 ms·

He's losing 10s of billions, that seems like a very real way in which he's being held accountable.

by jstx1 4y ago

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
Once you're worth north of a few hundred million dollars, what practical, concrete, difference does a few billion added - or removed - from one's personal wealth make?
- avidphantasm 4y ago
  This is why being a billionaire should be functionally illegal. Tax away all of that wealth. It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth. Vast wealth should be under democratic control.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    Tax away… all the Meta stock? We’re talking about ownership of assets, not about income. What do we do when we take his stock - do we sell it back on the market crashing the price or do we establish government ownership of every large company? How did you come up with 1 billion as the appropriate number? Do we get to decide that part democratically?
    - avidphantasm 4y ago
      You are presupposing that Meta should be allowed to exist at its present scale and market share. I am not.
      - spiderice 4y ago
        Then what are you proposing? You didn't answer a single one of GPs questions about the details of what you're proposing. You're just throwing out vague one-liners and expecting everyone else to see how this plan of yours is supposed to work.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth In my mind, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Maybe you don't share this view, but quite a few people do.
    - lovich 4y ago
      Is being a billionaire necessary for any of those or even related? Possibly on the liberty angle but someone controlling that much wealth is decreasing the liberty of everyone else in the economy
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        It's the pursuit of happiness. Zuckerberg is pursuing his own happiness. You claim we, as a society, have to curtail that at a given level. I for one don't subscribe to that theory.
        apricot 4y ago
        Society often prevents people from pursuing their happiness, when such pursuit would be harmful to others. This doesn't mean the pursuit of happiness isn't important, only that it isn't an absolute.
        lovich 4y ago
        I’ll be very frank on the fact that if your pursuit of happiness requires millions to billions of others to suffer, I will ascribe zero importance to what makes you happy. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and all that. I’m also gonna quickly cut ahead on your libertarian style argument here and ask you how you think negative externalities generated by individuals should be handled. If your opinion is to ignore them because you should be allowed to do whatever you want, then I will treat you the same way you treat others and completely ignore your political opinions. I legitimately hope you surprise me
        credit_guy 4y ago
  - manofmanysmiles 4y ago
    So it’s somehow more moral to gang up and take someone else’s property by force? Can you explain your idea of morality?
    - piva00 4y ago
      Yup, it was done when abolishing slavery, you just need to think outside of the box on what "property" means to you :)
ironman1478 4y ago
And he'll still have billions. Real accountability would be being removed from his position (which I know isn't possible or at least extremely difficult). He doesn't care about the money, he cares about control.
davesque 4y ago
And his lifestyle would change...how exactly? And where do I sign up for that kind of accountability?
- jstx1 4y ago
  Equating accountability to his lifestyle changing makes no sense to me.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Sorta, but I have trouble taking a bad outcome that is "your great-grandchildren still won't have to work for a living, unless you choose to make them" as, like, real consequences. If someone who's already got $10m in the bank would happily trade their success for your "consequences", I dunno, just seems... fake. Like playing poker with quarters—sure you "care" but losing doesn't actually hurt in any meaningful way if your total stakes were $10 or whatever.
- jstx1 4y ago
  Yes, he’s a billionaire and he’ll be fine anyway. Does accountability mean something only if his life is ruined or he loses everything? I don’t get that line of thinking at all.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Not ruin but at least something more tangible to lose than just paying your way out of it. Like losing control of the business, decision making powers, could be anything else that he doesn't have vast resources to plug the hole immediately. Pure financial consequences are meaningless to the ultra-rich.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      This is a good call. Losing, or giving up, something that you can't trivially get back in short order purely by throwing money at it and telling a lackey to go fix it, is an actual consequence. Needing to add together slightly fewer poor countries' GDPs to equal his net worth is meaningless.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    I mean, if my waking up to find a flat tire on my car causes a lot more actual harm to my life than his "accountability", seems pretty weak and that's still leaves a lot of room short of "life ruined" or "loses everything". [EDIT] I'm not calling for him to be jailed or something, I'm pointing out that "accountability" that amounts to going from fabulously rich to... still fabulously rich, ain't shit. Hell, part of the motivation for getting rich is precisely that it insulates you from ever experiencing actual harm, so it's entirely expected that this would be the case.

He's losing 10s of billions, that seems like a very real way in which he's being held accountable.

by jstx1 4y ago

He's losing 10s of billions, that seems like a very real way in which he's being held accountable.

Once you're worth north of a few hundred million dollars, what practical, concrete, difference does a few billion added - or removed - from one's personal wealth make?

avidphantasm 4y ago
This is why being a billionaire should be functionally illegal. Tax away all of that wealth. It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth. Vast wealth should be under democratic control.
- jstx1 4y ago
  Tax away… all the Meta stock? We’re talking about ownership of assets, not about income. What do we do when we take his stock - do we sell it back on the market crashing the price or do we establish government ownership of every large company? How did you come up with 1 billion as the appropriate number? Do we get to decide that part democratically?
  - avidphantasm 4y ago
    You are presupposing that Meta should be allowed to exist at its present scale and market share. I am not.
    - spiderice 4y ago
      Then what are you proposing? You didn't answer a single one of GPs questions about the details of what you're proposing. You're just throwing out vague one-liners and expecting everyone else to see how this plan of yours is supposed to work.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > It is immoral that we allow people to control that much wealth In my mind, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Maybe you don't share this view, but quite a few people do.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Is being a billionaire necessary for any of those or even related? Possibly on the liberty angle but someone controlling that much wealth is decreasing the liberty of everyone else in the economy
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      It's the pursuit of happiness. Zuckerberg is pursuing his own happiness. You claim we, as a society, have to curtail that at a given level. I for one don't subscribe to that theory.
      - apricot 4y ago
        Society often prevents people from pursuing their happiness, when such pursuit would be harmful to others. This doesn't mean the pursuit of happiness isn't important, only that it isn't an absolute.
      - lovich 4y ago
        I’ll be very frank on the fact that if your pursuit of happiness requires millions to billions of others to suffer, I will ascribe zero importance to what makes you happy. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and all that. I’m also gonna quickly cut ahead on your libertarian style argument here and ask you how you think negative externalities generated by individuals should be handled. If your opinion is to ignore them because you should be allowed to do whatever you want, then I will treat you the same way you treat others and completely ignore your political opinions. I legitimately hope you surprise me
        credit_guy 4y ago
- manofmanysmiles 4y ago
  So it’s somehow more moral to gang up and take someone else’s property by force? Can you explain your idea of morality?
  - piva00 4y ago
    Yup, it was done when abolishing slavery, you just need to think outside of the box on what "property" means to you :)

ironman1478 4y ago

And he'll still have billions. Real accountability would be being removed from his position (which I know isn't possible or at least extremely difficult). He doesn't care about the money, he cares about control.

davesque 4y ago

And his lifestyle would change...how exactly? And where do I sign up for that kind of accountability?

jstx1 4y ago
Equating accountability to his lifestyle changing makes no sense to me.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Sorta, but I have trouble taking a bad outcome that is "your great-grandchildren still won't have to work for a living, unless you choose to make them" as, like, real consequences. If someone who's already got $10m in the bank would happily trade their success for your "consequences", I dunno, just seems... fake. Like playing poker with quarters—sure you "care" but losing doesn't actually hurt in any meaningful way if your total stakes were $10 or whatever.

jstx1 4y ago
Yes, he’s a billionaire and he’ll be fine anyway. Does accountability mean something only if his life is ruined or he loses everything? I don’t get that line of thinking at all.
- piva00 4y ago
  Not ruin but at least something more tangible to lose than just paying your way out of it. Like losing control of the business, decision making powers, could be anything else that he doesn't have vast resources to plug the hole immediately. Pure financial consequences are meaningless to the ultra-rich.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    This is a good call. Losing, or giving up, something that you can't trivially get back in short order purely by throwing money at it and telling a lackey to go fix it, is an actual consequence. Needing to add together slightly fewer poor countries' GDPs to equal his net worth is meaningless.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  I mean, if my waking up to find a flat tire on my car causes a lot more actual harm to my life than his "accountability", seems pretty weak and that's still leaves a lot of room short of "life ruined" or "loses everything". [EDIT] I'm not calling for him to be jailed or something, I'm pointing out that "accountability" that amounts to going from fabulously rich to... still fabulously rich, ain't shit. Hell, part of the motivation for getting rich is precisely that it insulates you from ever experiencing actual harm, so it's entirely expected that this would be the case.