4 ms·

Noone needs to be so rich they can casually biy whole governments. Rich enough to never work another day if they don't want to is plenty. Producing multibillion

Noone needs to be so rich they can casually biy whole governments. Rich enough to never work another day if they don't want to is plenty. Producing multibillionares is not a good thing

parineum 2y ago
Nobody needs a computer in their pocket either. > Rich enough to never work another day if they don't want to is plenty. I'm that rich. I'd have to move to an impoverished country but I could do it. > Producing multibillionares is not a good thing What about producing people who create products so loved that the people give them billions of dollars? The "nobody needs..." way of thinking is very Soviet.
- DanAtC 2y ago
  > What about producing people who create products so loved that the people give them billions of dollars? Billionaires don't create shit.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Au contraire, one thing that we can be absolutely certain about is that billionaires, being human, create shit. Creating value, now, that's a whole different story...
  - parineum 2y ago
    This is easy enough to refute since it only requires one example. Bill Gates created Microsoft Windows.
    - pixelbro 2y ago
      Well, he sure wasn't a billionaire when he did it.
    - sundaeofshock 2y ago
      No he didn’t. Bill Gates was the CEO of the company that employed the people who did the actual work of creating Microsoft Windows.
- tzs 2y ago
  Here's the difference between computers in pockets and billionaires. If we made a rule that prohibited computers in pockets (I assume smartphones count as computers in pockets) it would have a noticeable affect on peoples lives. Those devices do a lot of very useful things, and greatly reduced the amount of stuff we have to carry around. (Although they do have a downside, such as people getting addicted to social media or exploitive games). If we made a rule that made it harder and harder to accumulate money the more you have over maybe 10 billion it would not have much of an affect. The people who create products that can make billions of dollars are almost always driven by creative urges, not urges to add another $10 billion to the $100 billion or whatever that they already have.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  > What about producing people who create products so loved that the people give them billions of dollars? I think we're in full agreement here. Profit from sales should be distributed to the workers who created the products, who can in turn support businesses that are useful to them, who can in turn support business that are useful to them, and so on. It's the basis of a functioning market economy. What breaks the system is allowing a tiny group of people to hoard majority of the "wealth" (which is just a social construct and requires cooperation from a willing society, or as it is today, cooperation from a propagandized, overworked, and exhausted society). This gives them unchecked power to dictate what the rest of society does in terms of labour, research, politics, etc. > The "nobody needs..." way of thinking is very Soviet. Did you mean "egalitarian"?

Noone needs to be so rich they can casually biy whole governments. Rich enough to never work another day if they don't want to is plenty. Producing multibillionares is not a good thing

parineum 2y ago

Nobody needs a computer in their pocket either. > Rich enough to never work another day if they don't want to is plenty. I'm that rich. I'd have to move to an impoverished country but I could do it. > Producing multibillionares is not a good thing What about producing people who create products so loved that the people give them billions of dollars? The "nobody needs..." way of thinking is very Soviet.

DanAtC 2y ago
> What about producing people who create products so loved that the people give them billions of dollars? Billionaires don't create shit.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Au contraire, one thing that we can be absolutely certain about is that billionaires, being human, create shit. Creating value, now, that's a whole different story...
- parineum 2y ago
  This is easy enough to refute since it only requires one example. Bill Gates created Microsoft Windows.
  - pixelbro 2y ago
    Well, he sure wasn't a billionaire when he did it.
  - sundaeofshock 2y ago
    No he didn’t. Bill Gates was the CEO of the company that employed the people who did the actual work of creating Microsoft Windows.
tzs 2y ago
Here's the difference between computers in pockets and billionaires. If we made a rule that prohibited computers in pockets (I assume smartphones count as computers in pockets) it would have a noticeable affect on peoples lives. Those devices do a lot of very useful things, and greatly reduced the amount of stuff we have to carry around. (Although they do have a downside, such as people getting addicted to social media or exploitive games). If we made a rule that made it harder and harder to accumulate money the more you have over maybe 10 billion it would not have much of an affect. The people who create products that can make billions of dollars are almost always driven by creative urges, not urges to add another $10 billion to the $100 billion or whatever that they already have.
dns_snek 2y ago
> What about producing people who create products so loved that the people give them billions of dollars? I think we're in full agreement here. Profit from sales should be distributed to the workers who created the products, who can in turn support businesses that are useful to them, who can in turn support business that are useful to them, and so on. It's the basis of a functioning market economy. What breaks the system is allowing a tiny group of people to hoard majority of the "wealth" (which is just a social construct and requires cooperation from a willing society, or as it is today, cooperation from a propagandized, overworked, and exhausted society). This gives them unchecked power to dictate what the rest of society does in terms of labour, research, politics, etc. > The "nobody needs..." way of thinking is very Soviet. Did you mean "egalitarian"?