4 ms·

I don't follow this argument. The amount of money is fantastic and its effects enormous but I don't see why it should be out of the reach of any singular perso

I don't follow this argument. The amount of money is fantastic and its effects enormous but I don't see why it should be out of the reach of any singular person. The issue of effectiveness shouldn't come into play at all. In a society with any modicum of freedom, I should be able to decide what to do with my resources. Why should I (or anyone else) get to weigh in on whether she gives her money to this college or goes to Vegas for a (really amazing) party? As long as she pays her taxes, she should be free to use the rest for whatever she wants. If the issue is whether she pays her taxes, then by all means we can tighten whatever loopholes exist but after all is said and done, people should be able to do whatever they want with their wealth. Also, legislating billionaires out of existence is impracticable. People would simply put their resources into other vehicles that shield against the law. We would end up in a cat and mouse game that used up resources with dubious benefits.

btbuildem 3y ago
I follow it partially -- in that when several individuals hoard the majority of money, it leaves less for everyone else, which is profoundly undemocratic in a society that aspires to be market-driven. Money supply is a zero-sum game - yes, you can print more, but that devalues what exists in circulation, so the have-nots remain the have-nots, and the haves remain the haves. I think the existence of billionaires is absurd, and a giant red flag indicating that this in fact is a broken system. No single person should have command over such a disproportionate amount of resources, if only because not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources. Money is violence (in that it compels people to do what they otherwise wouldn't) and billionaires are grotesquely mega-violent individuals.
- Frogeman 3y ago
  Money supply is a zero sum game... If you only view the game instantaneously. Wealth grows, production increases the wealth of everyone around you. If a few people hoard all of the money, they're not putting that money to useful work and those that do do this will make all the returns (which is why people don't really horde money, it's all being used in the form of investments in businesses).
- takinola 3y ago
  > when several individuals hoard the majority of money, it leaves less for everyone else I don't agree with this. Wealth is created everyday. If I start a SaaS business and grow it to become a billionaire, there does not need to be an equivalent loss of wealth anywhere else in the society. > not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources What supports this assertion? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. My argument really is that how you spend your wealth is none of my business after you have satisfied your obligations to society (which we collect through taxes). > Money is violence Hard disagree. Violence is violence. There are lots of ways to compel people to act that are non-violent. Famously, Mark Anthony foiled a coup with a speech. The Pope has enormous influence without having any tanks, etc. I am really against the use of language to make unfounded logical leaps in argument. That said, this is he most compelling argument I can think of ie that billionaires have enormous influence over society. It undermines the concept of "one man, one vote". The counterargument is that this concept has never really been true (and cannot be true). All societies have people of influence and that influence is gained in many ways (religious standing, military prowess, good works, hereditary ties, oratory, notoriety, skullduggery, etc). These are intrinsic to human society and cannot be removed. Those people with influence will always have disproportionate impact on the direction of society. I guess it comes down to a value judgement of whether we want money to be one of those things that generate political advantage (for example, most western democracies have removed the ability to wield physical violence as one of those factors that provide a political advantage)

btbuildem 3y ago

I follow it partially -- in that when several individuals hoard the majority of money, it leaves less for everyone else, which is profoundly undemocratic in a society that aspires to be market-driven. Money supply is a zero-sum game - yes, you can print more, but that devalues what exists in circulation, so the have-nots remain the have-nots, and the haves remain the haves. I think the existence of billionaires is absurd, and a giant red flag indicating that this in fact is a broken system. No single person should have command over such a disproportionate amount of resources, if only because not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources. Money is violence (in that it compels people to do what they otherwise wouldn't) and billionaires are grotesquely mega-violent individuals.

Frogeman 3y ago
Money supply is a zero sum game... If you only view the game instantaneously. Wealth grows, production increases the wealth of everyone around you. If a few people hoard all of the money, they're not putting that money to useful work and those that do do this will make all the returns (which is why people don't really horde money, it's all being used in the form of investments in businesses).
takinola 3y ago
> when several individuals hoard the majority of money, it leaves less for everyone else I don't agree with this. Wealth is created everyday. If I start a SaaS business and grow it to become a billionaire, there does not need to be an equivalent loss of wealth anywhere else in the society. > not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources What supports this assertion? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. My argument really is that how you spend your wealth is none of my business after you have satisfied your obligations to society (which we collect through taxes). > Money is violence Hard disagree. Violence is violence. There are lots of ways to compel people to act that are non-violent. Famously, Mark Anthony foiled a coup with a speech. The Pope has enormous influence without having any tanks, etc. I am really against the use of language to make unfounded logical leaps in argument. That said, this is he most compelling argument I can think of ie that billionaires have enormous influence over society. It undermines the concept of "one man, one vote". The counterargument is that this concept has never really been true (and cannot be true). All societies have people of influence and that influence is gained in many ways (religious standing, military prowess, good works, hereditary ties, oratory, notoriety, skullduggery, etc). These are intrinsic to human society and cannot be removed. Those people with influence will always have disproportionate impact on the direction of society. I guess it comes down to a value judgement of whether we want money to be one of those things that generate political advantage (for example, most western democracies have removed the ability to wield physical violence as one of those factors that provide a political advantage)