4 ms·

There's absolutely no reason at all for anyone to be able to tell another person what property and how much he should be able to own.

__loam 3y ago
When that property is billions of dollars and they have so much of it that they start warping market economics and political organizations around them because of their own gravity, that becomes a public problem. If we want a functional democracy then we very much do need to think about the influence of billionaires. Accepting the notion that "it's just private property, who cares" is an ignorant view on the actual situation. For example, I was listening to a discussion on how Bill Gate's philanthropic organization causes many problems. They've basically taken over the field of malaria research by virtue of spending a ridiculous amount of money, and Gate's personal influence has limited the directions of that research. There are people in Africa that are trying to tell the Gates foundation to leave because their solutions are poorly suited to the on the ground situation, but the neo-colonial nature of this organization means you have many "smart" people in Washington and Geneva dictating how the global poor should run things. The influence of the organization has on public education apparently been disastrous, with the charity reorganizing public schools in ways that are unproven and harmful to students. The foundation is a revolving door for corporate actors like pharmaceutical employees, and they take and use public tax dollars in ways that are unaccountable to the public. All of this is because one man has more money than god. It's anti-democratic and ineffective.
- gottorf 3y ago
  The combined net worth of all billionaires in America come out to ~$4.5T. Even ignoring the fact that that number is fiction (because those assets cannot be converted to that amount of money in real life), it's not very much money in the grand scheme of things. It's not even one year of federal expenditure. It'll pay for maybe three years of Social Security. If Bill Gates wasn't allowed to have so much money, I assume the government would have taken it at truly confiscatory tax rates. Then you have the same problem of meddlesome "aid" to Africa, except that the entity writing the check would be the US government, not Bill Gates.
  - __loam 3y ago
    > Then you have the same problem of meddlesome "aid" to Africa, except that the entity writing the check would be the US government, not Bill Gates. A democratically accountable entity is very much preferable.

__loam 3y ago

When that property is billions of dollars and they have so much of it that they start warping market economics and political organizations around them because of their own gravity, that becomes a public problem. If we want a functional democracy then we very much do need to think about the influence of billionaires. Accepting the notion that "it's just private property, who cares" is an ignorant view on the actual situation. For example, I was listening to a discussion on how Bill Gate's philanthropic organization causes many problems. They've basically taken over the field of malaria research by virtue of spending a ridiculous amount of money, and Gate's personal influence has limited the directions of that research. There are people in Africa that are trying to tell the Gates foundation to leave because their solutions are poorly suited to the on the ground situation, but the neo-colonial nature of this organization means you have many "smart" people in Washington and Geneva dictating how the global poor should run things. The influence of the organization has on public education apparently been disastrous, with the charity reorganizing public schools in ways that are unproven and harmful to students. The foundation is a revolving door for corporate actors like pharmaceutical employees, and they take and use public tax dollars in ways that are unaccountable to the public. All of this is because one man has more money than god. It's anti-democratic and ineffective.

gottorf 3y ago
The combined net worth of all billionaires in America come out to ~$4.5T. Even ignoring the fact that that number is fiction (because those assets cannot be converted to that amount of money in real life), it's not very much money in the grand scheme of things. It's not even one year of federal expenditure. It'll pay for maybe three years of Social Security. If Bill Gates wasn't allowed to have so much money, I assume the government would have taken it at truly confiscatory tax rates. Then you have the same problem of meddlesome "aid" to Africa, except that the entity writing the check would be the US government, not Bill Gates.
- __loam 3y ago
  > Then you have the same problem of meddlesome "aid" to Africa, except that the entity writing the check would be the US government, not Bill Gates. A democratically accountable entity is very much preferable.