3 ms·

> There should be no billionaires. These moral judgements aren't great ways to make economic decisions. A billionaire can just be someone who owns a lot of sha

> There should be no billionaires. These moral judgements aren't great ways to make economic decisions. A billionaire can just be someone who owns a lot of shares in a company that's currently valuable. A company's value (in this sense) is just the total number of shares multiplied by the last share sale price. It doesn't mean they have a billion dollars in cash. The billions don't even exist. They're just a value based on the last transaction value of the company's share dealing.

soperj 2y ago
That they can borrow money from the banks as if they do exist says you're wrong.
- pqtyw 2y ago
  Well yes, companies do exist. How would you handle that? Nationalize all large businesses? That... rarely worked out historically.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    That is what this is all driving at, yes.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > That they can borrow money from the banks as if they do exist says you're wrong. I can borrow money for a house even though I don't have money to buy a house.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yazantapuz 2y ago
> These moral judgements aren't great ways to make economic decisions. In my experience, a lot of people who make these kinds of extreme claims (no billionaires, no inheritance, etc.) do not seek plausible economic solutions, they only want the moral high ground.
- Draiken 2y ago
  In my experience, people that simply attack other people instead of contributing to the discussion are the ones that want the "moral high ground". That statement is in no way moral. Not sure why GP assumes that. It's simply not beneficial to society for small groups to accumulate disproportionate amounts of power. But as always, we have some "future billionaires" rushing to defend them.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > It's simply not beneficial to society for small groups to accumulate disproportionate amounts of power. Power and money aren't the same thing. Someone who can throw you in jail or stop you getting on a flight can be on a very low wage indeed. > But as always, we have some "future billionaires" rushing to defend them. This would be considered one of those attacks you just mentioned.
    - Draiken 2y ago
      > Power and money aren't the same thing. Kind of are in a capitalist society. Sure you need extra steps but it's still power. No need to go far... Elon is living proof of that. Other billionaires do the same but they don't need all the attention. You're arguing you don't necessarily need money to have power but if you have money you absolutely do have power, which is my point. > This would be considered one of those attacks you just mentioned. I know... I couldn't help myself to hit back at a useless comment.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        A capitalist democratic society is about the only type I know of that tries to separate money and power. Normally the monarch or the Socialist dictator or the lord of the land controls the money and the power.
        Draiken 2y ago
        IDK if I agree with you, since in theory modern socialism tries to spread power, although it never quite worked like that in history. Maybe that's an utopia. > A capitalist democratic society is about the only type I know of that tries to separate money and power. But when I read this I can't help but think the same utopia is under capitalism. In theory there's a separation. In reality billionaires can purchase politicians, media, etc. and get power through those means. I have never seen an example of this not happening. If there were any effective ways of stopping money from meddling with power I'd agree with you but reality always smacks theories in the face. You say it tries to separate them but then you have lobbying (or the non-legal version of it) in every government as an example. It's an utopia just the same.
Draiken 2y ago
It's not a moral judgement. Morals have nothing to do with how power works. Society does not benefit from small groups owning enormous amounts of power. Whether they're kings from "divine right", corrupt nepo babies or even legitimate geniuses. Nobody should have that much power.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  There's a big difference between money and power, though. A TSA agent can affect your life in a big way without the use of any money. That's power[0]. There's a big difference between money: voluntarily trading value for services and goods, some of which might negatively affect you, and power: trading nothing for direct control of aspects of your life. [0] Not inappropriate power, or not in theory

soperj 2y ago

That they can borrow money from the banks as if they do exist says you're wrong.

pqtyw 2y ago
Well yes, companies do exist. How would you handle that? Nationalize all large businesses? That... rarely worked out historically.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  That is what this is all driving at, yes.
robertlagrant 2y ago
> That they can borrow money from the banks as if they do exist says you're wrong. I can borrow money for a house even though I don't have money to buy a house.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

yazantapuz 2y ago

> These moral judgements aren't great ways to make economic decisions. In my experience, a lot of people who make these kinds of extreme claims (no billionaires, no inheritance, etc.) do not seek plausible economic solutions, they only want the moral high ground.

Draiken 2y ago
In my experience, people that simply attack other people instead of contributing to the discussion are the ones that want the "moral high ground". That statement is in no way moral. Not sure why GP assumes that. It's simply not beneficial to society for small groups to accumulate disproportionate amounts of power. But as always, we have some "future billionaires" rushing to defend them.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > It's simply not beneficial to society for small groups to accumulate disproportionate amounts of power. Power and money aren't the same thing. Someone who can throw you in jail or stop you getting on a flight can be on a very low wage indeed. > But as always, we have some "future billionaires" rushing to defend them. This would be considered one of those attacks you just mentioned.
  - Draiken 2y ago
    > Power and money aren't the same thing. Kind of are in a capitalist society. Sure you need extra steps but it's still power. No need to go far... Elon is living proof of that. Other billionaires do the same but they don't need all the attention. You're arguing you don't necessarily need money to have power but if you have money you absolutely do have power, which is my point. > This would be considered one of those attacks you just mentioned. I know... I couldn't help myself to hit back at a useless comment.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      A capitalist democratic society is about the only type I know of that tries to separate money and power. Normally the monarch or the Socialist dictator or the lord of the land controls the money and the power.
      - Draiken 2y ago
        IDK if I agree with you, since in theory modern socialism tries to spread power, although it never quite worked like that in history. Maybe that's an utopia. > A capitalist democratic society is about the only type I know of that tries to separate money and power. But when I read this I can't help but think the same utopia is under capitalism. In theory there's a separation. In reality billionaires can purchase politicians, media, etc. and get power through those means. I have never seen an example of this not happening. If there were any effective ways of stopping money from meddling with power I'd agree with you but reality always smacks theories in the face. You say it tries to separate them but then you have lobbying (or the non-legal version of it) in every government as an example. It's an utopia just the same.

Draiken 2y ago

It's not a moral judgement. Morals have nothing to do with how power works. Society does not benefit from small groups owning enormous amounts of power. Whether they're kings from "divine right", corrupt nepo babies or even legitimate geniuses. Nobody should have that much power.

robertlagrant 2y ago
There's a big difference between money and power, though. A TSA agent can affect your life in a big way without the use of any money. That's power[0]. There's a big difference between money: voluntarily trading value for services and goods, some of which might negatively affect you, and power: trading nothing for direct control of aspects of your life. [0] Not inappropriate power, or not in theory