4 ms·

Can anyone recommend a convincing argument one what benefit there is to society of letting anyone accumulate/control a billion dollars? Is it kind of like the l

by xnx 2y ago

Can anyone recommend a convincing argument one what benefit there is to society of letting anyone accumulate/control a billion dollars? Is it kind of like the lottery where we need a few outrages winners to convince all the rubes to play?

jacobgorm 2y ago
The value that gets created might not have been created otherwise. The key is taxation, which is where the US and other countries have failed since the Reagan years.
nickthegreek 2y ago
It seems the only convincing argument anyone needs is that some day they will have a billion dollars and they would like to keep it.
kcplate 2y ago
My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we can’t set an upper limit.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  > My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? That's not an actual argument though. It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving. > If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    We simply increase the number until 95-99% of population agree with it.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      Population of where?
      - xracy 2y ago
        Is this a real question? You can't imagine any population that can make this determination for itself? If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".
        kcplate 2y ago
        It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve. In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.
        fsflover 2y ago
        At least the relocated ultra-wealthy will not be able to influence your politics directly.
        kcplate 2y ago
        “Directly”
        fsflover 2y ago
        Yes, this is far from perfect. At the same time, it's much better than doing nothing.
- xnx 2y ago
  Good questions. I wouldn't expect planetary agreement, but we've already self-organized into different groups for deciding these types of things. Even the US came close to this with a top marginal tax rate of 90% during WWII.
- ryandvm 2y ago
  That's kind of a lazy argument and it falls apart when you go the other way. Do you ever feel like we should intervene? What about if we have a trillionaire? A 10 trillionaire? A 100? Is there no conceivable amount of wealth hoarding that you would find excessive?
- pllbnk 2y ago
  It's a baseline which, given the current value of money in mind, in most people's heads defines someone as obscenely/aspirationally wealthy (or even having a multi-generation wealth), yet not someone who could just be endlessly spending this wealth on stupid stuff (having several megayachts, for example) without eventually running out. Hypothetically, if some government some day sets this amount, then it will pave the way for further adjustments.
josephcsible 2y ago
The slim chance of becoming a billionaire is the only reason we have entrepreneurs.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  the only reason we have entrepreneurs is that there are people who do not like the idea of working for someone else :) becoming a billionaire is like maybe 8765896th on entreprenuer’s mind
chrismcb 2y ago
A billion isn't really that much. Most billionaires are billionaires because they own a company that is with that much. Is the solution to take the company away from them? If so people will not try to grow billion dollar companies, and that isn't a good thing either.
- xnx 2y ago
  > If so people will not try to grow billion dollar companies, and that isn't a good thing either. I'm not sure of that. What some mega-corps like Google have been able to create is amazing for sure, but who's to say that a thousand smaller companies wouldn't be better. Or maybe being a billionaire should have a term limit? Make all the money you want, but it is socialized at death.
  - pllbnk 2y ago
    But is it really amazing or is it just a natural outcome of countless hours of intelligent humans working together motivated by high pay to further enrich the oligarchs? Would society be worse off without these technically impressive giants? Maybe more competition of lesser products would be better overall.

by xnx 2y ago

jacobgorm 2y ago

The value that gets created might not have been created otherwise. The key is taxation, which is where the US and other countries have failed since the Reagan years.

nickthegreek 2y ago

It seems the only convincing argument anyone needs is that some day they will have a billion dollars and they would like to keep it.

kcplate 2y ago

My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we can’t set an upper limit.

antisthenes 2y ago
> My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? That's not an actual argument though. It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving. > If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
- fsflover 2y ago
  We simply increase the number until 95-99% of population agree with it.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    Population of where?
    - xracy 2y ago
      Is this a real question? You can't imagine any population that can make this determination for itself? If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".
      - kcplate 2y ago
        It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve. In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.
        fsflover 2y ago
        At least the relocated ultra-wealthy will not be able to influence your politics directly.
        kcplate 2y ago
        “Directly”
        fsflover 2y ago
        Yes, this is far from perfect. At the same time, it's much better than doing nothing.
xnx 2y ago
Good questions. I wouldn't expect planetary agreement, but we've already self-organized into different groups for deciding these types of things. Even the US came close to this with a top marginal tax rate of 90% during WWII.
ryandvm 2y ago
That's kind of a lazy argument and it falls apart when you go the other way. Do you ever feel like we should intervene? What about if we have a trillionaire? A 10 trillionaire? A 100? Is there no conceivable amount of wealth hoarding that you would find excessive?
pllbnk 2y ago
It's a baseline which, given the current value of money in mind, in most people's heads defines someone as obscenely/aspirationally wealthy (or even having a multi-generation wealth), yet not someone who could just be endlessly spending this wealth on stupid stuff (having several megayachts, for example) without eventually running out. Hypothetically, if some government some day sets this amount, then it will pave the way for further adjustments.

josephcsible 2y ago

The slim chance of becoming a billionaire is the only reason we have entrepreneurs.

bdangubic 2y ago
the only reason we have entrepreneurs is that there are people who do not like the idea of working for someone else :) becoming a billionaire is like maybe 8765896th on entreprenuer’s mind

chrismcb 2y ago

A billion isn't really that much. Most billionaires are billionaires because they own a company that is with that much. Is the solution to take the company away from them? If so people will not try to grow billion dollar companies, and that isn't a good thing either.

xnx 2y ago
> If so people will not try to grow billion dollar companies, and that isn't a good thing either. I'm not sure of that. What some mega-corps like Google have been able to create is amazing for sure, but who's to say that a thousand smaller companies wouldn't be better. Or maybe being a billionaire should have a term limit? Make all the money you want, but it is socialized at death.
- pllbnk 2y ago
  But is it really amazing or is it just a natural outcome of countless hours of intelligent humans working together motivated by high pay to further enrich the oligarchs? Would society be worse off without these technically impressive giants? Maybe more competition of lesser products would be better overall.