7 ms·

This is one of the shitty things about capitalism. Super rich people. They are free riders who get so unrealistically rich that they no longer need to contribut

This is one of the shitty things about capitalism. Super rich people. They are free riders who get so unrealistically rich that they no longer need to contribute anything to the economy. They just sit on their asses, "grow" their wealth and develop perverted philosophies on life. No single man on earth has the strength or intelligence to create an economic contribution that justifies this sort of wealth. The super rich achieve their wealth off the backs others.

crdb 11y ago
It depends on the location. Here's a different point of view: Carlos Slim has so far been relatively unable to compete in the US. Some people argue that he does well in countries like Mexico because in those places, he can run a monopoly (like his telecom company) or oligopoly with price fixing power, generating large margin at the expense of his customers (who don't have much of a choice in the matter). Thus, his business has plenty of reserves for things like 3 day workweeks - at the expense of the population, in exactly the zero sum game you describe. But when you look at modern American billionaires like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, they made their fortune by working intensely hard and smart in very competitive markets, and inventing or making available to the mass-market products that created billions of dollars in value. It can definitely be argued that a single individual can create billions of dollars of new wealth, and not on the "back" of others - there's a lot of very wealthy early Microsoft and Apple employees out there, and billions of dollars of value created for its customers over the last couple decades.
- witten 11y ago
  Not disputing the hard work, but at key points in Microsoft's history, they've held and exercised tremendous monopoly power, generating large margin at the expense of their customers.. Just like Slim's companies in some respects.
  - crdb 11y ago
    Right, but the difference is that their monopoly was in a created market, vs Slim's which is the definition of a bad monopoly (sole supplier of a utility). Their margin was the reward for the creation of something new, not taking a cut on a natural resource. But I agree that it's not black and white - companies lie all over the spectrum (you could argue that Slim is getting paid for the effort of putting out a telecom network in Mexico). A clearer example is Google: it has an effective monopoly on search, but it's not because it has lobbied Washington to stop people from using other search results, it's because it was the best search engine, spread like wildfire, and kept the market ever since. People use Google not because there's no other (legal) search provider available, but because it's still the best way to find things on the internet. Because of this instinctive understanding of the value created, it's much rarer to see Brin and Page criticized for their wealth.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  I'm going to start off by saying that my initial comment on rich people not doing anything and being freeriders was mainly an angry comment directed at people like the author of this article. My mistake for not making that clear. There are certainly many rich people who work hard. Despite that, this does not mean that hard working rich people deserve their wealth... Onward: >But when you look at modern American billionaires like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, they made their fortune by working intensely hard and smart in very competitive markets, and inventing or making available to the mass-market products that created billions of dollars in value. It can definitely be argued that a single individual can create billions of dollars of new wealth, and not on the "back" of others - there's a lot of very wealthy early Microsoft and Apple employees out there, and billions of dollars of value created for its customers over the last couple decades. I disagree. Those innovative mass market products may be created under the leadership of one hard working man, but it is fundamentally impossible for a complex product like the iphone to be entirely the work of one man. The iphone, the boeing 747, and many other complex projects can only be built with the expertise and labor of multitudes of people. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates cannot build such wealth without exploiting the labor of their corporate empires.
devonkim 11y ago
Capitalism didn't do so much on its own to create the conditions for the ultra wealthy - it's globalization that permits capital to expand and grow like cancers would metastasize. Great in theory, but there's some consequences like anything.
zo1 11y ago
You could argue that they don't contribute anything personally (though I disagree, but let's go with your assumption). But you can't deny that their capital doesn't. Rich people don't just hoard their money in huge vaults for swimming in. That money gets lent out, donated, spent, etc. It is constantly churning in the economic landscape, going in endless loops, while essentially staying "unused" by the actual owner.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Why should simply having money be rewarded more than actually doing the work?
  - zo1 11y ago
    He did do the work, that's why he got so much money. Sure, you could argue that he did some less than stellar, perhaps unethical/illegal things. But for the most part, he did the work to gain that money. (Let's assume he stayed within the legal framework here. Because a lot of these discussions "claim" illegality, yet have no concrete example) I am rewarded (as you put it) for having say $100,000 in my bank. I saved it, maybe did some projects, etc. That money is mine, are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me? Sure, it's only $5000/year in interest, but the argument doesn't break down if the amount has more zeroes in it. Edit: Not only does a lot of the discussion revolving around rich people claim illegality, it is implicitly assumed. Tried and convicted in public opinion simply by virtue of having a lot of money.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      "He did do the work" Did he? Or did he simply "lead" the people who did the actual work? "are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me" Are you honestly going to say that you deserve the benefits you get for simply having that money more than someone who's actually doing work?
      - zo1 11y ago
Bostonian 11y ago
No, capitalists are not "free riders". A big reason the average wage is much higher in the U.S. than in say India is that the amount of capital per worker is higher, making U.S. workers more productive. There is no capital without capitalists.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Then why have wages for US workers stagnated while wages for the ludicrously wealthy have skyrocketed, even though productivity per worker is far higher? Face it, they're freeloading at this point.
  - Bostonian 11y ago
    Part of the reason is that the value of non-case compensation such as health care benefits has increased.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  I never said capitalists, we're all capitalists. What I meant was excessively rich people can't just achieve wealth off of their own work alone. It is physically impossible for any individual to have the physical or mental power to generate that capital out of thin air. People must aggregate their labor in order to produce complex products like the iphone, the airbus or the great wall of china. Thus for rich people to be as rich as they are must have exploited or "free rided" from the labor of others.
vijayr 11y ago
But WE created this system, and most people seem to be quite happy with it. The system is so one sided, it is not even funny. And even within the system, not all top achievers is equal - the world's best surgeon is probably making a fraction of what the world's best boxer or movie star is making.
prostoalex 11y ago
What would be the government+capital structure immune from producing a class of freeloaders? Societies closer to communism tend to generate a large amount of kafkaesque government workers, whose goal is to complicate any process they control in order to ensure maximum benefits at minimal contribution to society. Societies closer to socialism with healthy social nets and welfare systems tend to attract a large influx of constituents, whose plan is to game the system for maximum payout from the government, and countries with liberal immigration policies like Germany or France already have massive public issues with it to the point of political pendulum swinging to ultra-right parties. It seems like any society has to make a rational choice about which freeloaders it's okay with, and at least try to align the incentives right. In the US we're okay with rich not working, but we gouge them via property tax, sales tax, taxes on investment income and estate taxes. It's not like having Paris Hilton working a full-time job would energize the US economy.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >It seems like any society has to make a rational choice about which freeloaders it's okay with, and at least try to align the incentives right. In the US we're okay with rich not working, but we gouge them via property tax, sales tax, taxes on investment income and estate taxes. It's not like having Paris Hilton working a full-time job would energize the US economy. Doesn't matter how much a rich person works. Their "work" is in no way equivalent in value to their extravagant wealth. That being said, I see no better alternative to capitalism. Wealth inequality is an unfortunate side effect that is just a fact of life: it's unfair. What I don't like is when people try to justify their wealth as if they deserved it.

crdb 11y ago

It depends on the location. Here's a different point of view: Carlos Slim has so far been relatively unable to compete in the US. Some people argue that he does well in countries like Mexico because in those places, he can run a monopoly (like his telecom company) or oligopoly with price fixing power, generating large margin at the expense of his customers (who don't have much of a choice in the matter). Thus, his business has plenty of reserves for things like 3 day workweeks - at the expense of the population, in exactly the zero sum game you describe. But when you look at modern American billionaires like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, they made their fortune by working intensely hard and smart in very competitive markets, and inventing or making available to the mass-market products that created billions of dollars in value. It can definitely be argued that a single individual can create billions of dollars of new wealth, and not on the "back" of others - there's a lot of very wealthy early Microsoft and Apple employees out there, and billions of dollars of value created for its customers over the last couple decades.

witten 11y ago
Not disputing the hard work, but at key points in Microsoft's history, they've held and exercised tremendous monopoly power, generating large margin at the expense of their customers.. Just like Slim's companies in some respects.
- crdb 11y ago
  Right, but the difference is that their monopoly was in a created market, vs Slim's which is the definition of a bad monopoly (sole supplier of a utility). Their margin was the reward for the creation of something new, not taking a cut on a natural resource. But I agree that it's not black and white - companies lie all over the spectrum (you could argue that Slim is getting paid for the effort of putting out a telecom network in Mexico). A clearer example is Google: it has an effective monopoly on search, but it's not because it has lobbied Washington to stop people from using other search results, it's because it was the best search engine, spread like wildfire, and kept the market ever since. People use Google not because there's no other (legal) search provider available, but because it's still the best way to find things on the internet. Because of this instinctive understanding of the value created, it's much rarer to see Brin and Page criticized for their wealth.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
I'm going to start off by saying that my initial comment on rich people not doing anything and being freeriders was mainly an angry comment directed at people like the author of this article. My mistake for not making that clear. There are certainly many rich people who work hard. Despite that, this does not mean that hard working rich people deserve their wealth... Onward: >But when you look at modern American billionaires like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, they made their fortune by working intensely hard and smart in very competitive markets, and inventing or making available to the mass-market products that created billions of dollars in value. It can definitely be argued that a single individual can create billions of dollars of new wealth, and not on the "back" of others - there's a lot of very wealthy early Microsoft and Apple employees out there, and billions of dollars of value created for its customers over the last couple decades. I disagree. Those innovative mass market products may be created under the leadership of one hard working man, but it is fundamentally impossible for a complex product like the iphone to be entirely the work of one man. The iphone, the boeing 747, and many other complex projects can only be built with the expertise and labor of multitudes of people. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates cannot build such wealth without exploiting the labor of their corporate empires.

devonkim 11y ago

Capitalism didn't do so much on its own to create the conditions for the ultra wealthy - it's globalization that permits capital to expand and grow like cancers would metastasize. Great in theory, but there's some consequences like anything.

zo1 11y ago

You could argue that they don't contribute anything personally (though I disagree, but let's go with your assumption). But you can't deny that their capital doesn't. Rich people don't just hoard their money in huge vaults for swimming in. That money gets lent out, donated, spent, etc. It is constantly churning in the economic landscape, going in endless loops, while essentially staying "unused" by the actual owner.

s73v3r 11y ago
Why should simply having money be rewarded more than actually doing the work?
- zo1 11y ago
  He did do the work, that's why he got so much money. Sure, you could argue that he did some less than stellar, perhaps unethical/illegal things. But for the most part, he did the work to gain that money. (Let's assume he stayed within the legal framework here. Because a lot of these discussions "claim" illegality, yet have no concrete example) I am rewarded (as you put it) for having say $100,000 in my bank. I saved it, maybe did some projects, etc. That money is mine, are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me? Sure, it's only $5000/year in interest, but the argument doesn't break down if the amount has more zeroes in it. Edit: Not only does a lot of the discussion revolving around rich people claim illegality, it is implicitly assumed. Tried and convicted in public opinion simply by virtue of having a lot of money.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "He did do the work" Did he? Or did he simply "lead" the people who did the actual work? "are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me" Are you honestly going to say that you deserve the benefits you get for simply having that money more than someone who's actually doing work?
    - zo1 11y ago

Bostonian 11y ago

No, capitalists are not "free riders". A big reason the average wage is much higher in the U.S. than in say India is that the amount of capital per worker is higher, making U.S. workers more productive. There is no capital without capitalists.

s73v3r 11y ago
Then why have wages for US workers stagnated while wages for the ludicrously wealthy have skyrocketed, even though productivity per worker is far higher? Face it, they're freeloading at this point.
- Bostonian 11y ago
  Part of the reason is that the value of non-case compensation such as health care benefits has increased.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
I never said capitalists, we're all capitalists. What I meant was excessively rich people can't just achieve wealth off of their own work alone. It is physically impossible for any individual to have the physical or mental power to generate that capital out of thin air. People must aggregate their labor in order to produce complex products like the iphone, the airbus or the great wall of china. Thus for rich people to be as rich as they are must have exploited or "free rided" from the labor of others.

vijayr 11y ago

But WE created this system, and most people seem to be quite happy with it. The system is so one sided, it is not even funny. And even within the system, not all top achievers is equal - the world's best surgeon is probably making a fraction of what the world's best boxer or movie star is making.

prostoalex 11y ago

What would be the government+capital structure immune from producing a class of freeloaders? Societies closer to communism tend to generate a large amount of kafkaesque government workers, whose goal is to complicate any process they control in order to ensure maximum benefits at minimal contribution to society. Societies closer to socialism with healthy social nets and welfare systems tend to attract a large influx of constituents, whose plan is to game the system for maximum payout from the government, and countries with liberal immigration policies like Germany or France already have massive public issues with it to the point of political pendulum swinging to ultra-right parties. It seems like any society has to make a rational choice about which freeloaders it's okay with, and at least try to align the incentives right. In the US we're okay with rich not working, but we gouge them via property tax, sales tax, taxes on investment income and estate taxes. It's not like having Paris Hilton working a full-time job would energize the US economy.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
>It seems like any society has to make a rational choice about which freeloaders it's okay with, and at least try to align the incentives right. In the US we're okay with rich not working, but we gouge them via property tax, sales tax, taxes on investment income and estate taxes. It's not like having Paris Hilton working a full-time job would energize the US economy. Doesn't matter how much a rich person works. Their "work" is in no way equivalent in value to their extravagant wealth. That being said, I see no better alternative to capitalism. Wealth inequality is an unfortunate side effect that is just a fact of life: it's unfair. What I don't like is when people try to justify their wealth as if they deserved it.