Not only are the "donor classes" creating new problems through the unintended consequences of their philanthropy, but their very existence is problematic. No individual should have as much money...
Not only are the "donor classes" creating new problems through the unintended consequences of their philanthropy, but their very existence is problematic. No individual should have as much money or as much power as men like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, and Jeff Bezos possess. To be so rich is inherently isolating, and to be isolated by one's wealth is not only to live in the most pernicious "filter bubble" of all, but to have the means to impose one's will -- a will uninformed by unwelcome facts or reality as experienced by ordinary people -- upon the world.
Billionaires should not be permitted to exist. That their existence is not only tolerated but celebrated puts the lie to any pretense of the United States being either a democracy or a republic. An individual's vote means nothing when there are men capable of buying public officials outright. Free speech is imperiled when an individual can be SLAPPed. Freedom of the press is imperiled when a rich man can sue a publication into bankrupcy, or a rich man can buy a publication and shut it down because its reporters dared to unionize.
Yes, I'm sure that Oprah Winfrey's early history of poverty and abuse has zero influence on her worldview, and is completely disconnected from 'reality as experienced by ordinary people'. Are we...
To be so rich is inherently isolating, and to be isolated by one's wealth is not only to live in the most pernicious "filter bubble" of all, but to have the means to impose one's will -- a will uninformed by unwelcome facts or reality as experienced by ordinary people -- upon the world
Yes, I'm sure that Oprah Winfrey's early history of poverty and abuse has zero influence on her worldview, and is completely disconnected from 'reality as experienced by ordinary people'.
I don't care how horrible her childhood was. She's had fuck you money for decades. If you insist, but I'd be content to tax the shit out of the rich. I'll leave the implementation details to the...
I don't care how horrible her childhood was. She's had fuck you money for decades.
Are we back to the guillotines so soon?
If you insist, but I'd be content to tax the shit out of the rich. I'll leave the implementation details to the experts.
Oprah rising up out of poverty to extreme wealth is by far an outlier, not the norm. Statistically, it is very difficult to move higher in the wealth distribution, and it's only gotten harder over...
Oprah rising up out of poverty to extreme wealth is by far an outlier, not the norm.
Statistically, it is very difficult to move higher in the wealth distribution, and it's only gotten harder over time.
I feel like millionaires and billionaires are an inevitable end result of capitalism and, to a certain extent, human nature. Being rich is something most people aspire to be. Being able to live...
I feel like millionaires and billionaires are an inevitable end result of capitalism and, to a certain extent, human nature. Being rich is something most people aspire to be. Being able to live comfortably and safely is a dream for many people, and excess money is something few people will turn down. Being rich is a measure of success (for the most part), and it's a well deserved reward for some people. However, it often enables some really shitty people to do what they want because they're rich. If there's no promise of making it big, most people won't try. Of course, just like regular people, there are assholes and good people. I genuinely believe that there are good natured billionaires out there. To combat corrupt fat cats, you need to have just as much, if not more money than they do to make a difference. There are people capable of making a difference, but the nature of money leads to a lot of dangerous paths. It's a ridiculous concept but such an integral part of our economy that to vie for the removal of billionaires would mean an upheaval of the rules of our governing systems. And we never know whether a new system would be worse. This got a bit rambly but I think we just need the right people up top in order to keep peace
This is plausible, based on my reading of Piketty. Money exerts an almost gravitational pull, and it's easier to get money if you already have money. What is "human nature"? What does this phrase...
I feel like millionaires and billionaires are an inevitable end result of capitalism
This is plausible, based on my reading of Piketty. Money exerts an almost gravitational pull, and it's easier to get money if you already have money.
to a certain extent, human nature
What is "human nature"? What does this phrase even mean nowadays, if anything?
Being rich is something most people aspire to be.
Prove it.
Being able to live comfortably and safely is a dream for many people,
You don't need to be a billionaire for that. According to this study, once you make enough money per year that you no longer have to worry about money, making more money doesn't make you any happier.
and excess money is something few people will turn down.
Prove it.
Being rich is a measure of success (for the most part)
We need better metrics for success in life than the size of one's dragon hoard.
it's a well deserved reward for some people.
That's just your opinion. Furthermore, given recent discoveries concerning just how large a role luck actually plays, one could reasonably argue that nobody deserves to be rich.
However, it often enables some really shitty people to do what they want because they're rich.
You're making my argument now.
If there's no promise of making it big, most people won't try.
So what?
I genuinely believe that there are good natured billionaires out there.
That is not a compelling argument.
To combat corrupt fat cats, you need to have just as much, if not more money than they do to make a difference.
Really? I thought that all you needed as a rifle, good aim, a clear shot, and a willingness to commit murder.
There are people capable of making a difference, but the nature of money leads to a lot of dangerous paths.
That's because money is power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It's a ridiculous concept but such an integral part of our economy that to vie for the removal of billionaires would mean an upheaval of the rules of our governing systems.
Not necessarily. All we need are majorities in both houses and a President with enough backbone to impose meaningful tax reform and force the rich to start paying their fair share. The top marginal income tax rate in the US in the 1950s was over 90%, and this was under a Republican president. We did it once, and we can do it again.
And we never know whether a new system would be worse.
The devil you know is still a devil.
This got a bit rambly but I think we just need the right people up top in order to keep peace
You realize you're engaging in apologetics on behalf of a de facto aristocracy that would happily throw you under a bus if doing so would push the Dow Jones up another ten points, right?
I am by no means dismantling your narrative, friend, I'm just throwing my two cents in as a clueless 20 year old trying to make it. I'm not arguing as much as I am putting out a conjecture for and...
I am by no means dismantling your narrative, friend, I'm just throwing my two cents in as a clueless 20 year old trying to make it. I'm not arguing as much as I am putting out a conjecture for and against positions such as these.
Not only are the "donor classes" creating new problems through the unintended consequences of their philanthropy, but their very existence is problematic. No individual should have as much money or as much power as men like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, and Jeff Bezos possess. To be so rich is inherently isolating, and to be isolated by one's wealth is not only to live in the most pernicious "filter bubble" of all, but to have the means to impose one's will -- a will uninformed by unwelcome facts or reality as experienced by ordinary people -- upon the world.
Billionaires should not be permitted to exist. That their existence is not only tolerated but celebrated puts the lie to any pretense of the United States being either a democracy or a republic. An individual's vote means nothing when there are men capable of buying public officials outright. Free speech is imperiled when an individual can be SLAPPed. Freedom of the press is imperiled when a rich man can sue a publication into bankrupcy, or a rich man can buy a publication and shut it down because its reporters dared to unionize.
You can be too rich.
Yes, I'm sure that Oprah Winfrey's early history of poverty and abuse has zero influence on her worldview, and is completely disconnected from 'reality as experienced by ordinary people'.
Are we back to the guillotines so soon?
I don't care how horrible her childhood was. She's had fuck you money for decades.
If you insist, but I'd be content to tax the shit out of the rich. I'll leave the implementation details to the experts.
Oprah rising up out of poverty to extreme wealth is by far an outlier, not the norm.
Statistically, it is very difficult to move higher in the wealth distribution, and it's only gotten harder over time.
I feel like millionaires and billionaires are an inevitable end result of capitalism and, to a certain extent, human nature. Being rich is something most people aspire to be. Being able to live comfortably and safely is a dream for many people, and excess money is something few people will turn down. Being rich is a measure of success (for the most part), and it's a well deserved reward for some people. However, it often enables some really shitty people to do what they want because they're rich. If there's no promise of making it big, most people won't try. Of course, just like regular people, there are assholes and good people. I genuinely believe that there are good natured billionaires out there. To combat corrupt fat cats, you need to have just as much, if not more money than they do to make a difference. There are people capable of making a difference, but the nature of money leads to a lot of dangerous paths. It's a ridiculous concept but such an integral part of our economy that to vie for the removal of billionaires would mean an upheaval of the rules of our governing systems. And we never know whether a new system would be worse. This got a bit rambly but I think we just need the right people up top in order to keep peace
This is plausible, based on my reading of Piketty. Money exerts an almost gravitational pull, and it's easier to get money if you already have money.
What is "human nature"? What does this phrase even mean nowadays, if anything?
Prove it.
You don't need to be a billionaire for that. According to this study, once you make enough money per year that you no longer have to worry about money, making more money doesn't make you any happier.
This is in line with the concept of marginal utility.
Prove it.
We need better metrics for success in life than the size of one's dragon hoard.
That's just your opinion. Furthermore, given recent discoveries concerning just how large a role luck actually plays, one could reasonably argue that nobody deserves to be rich.
You're making my argument now.
So what?
That is not a compelling argument.
Really? I thought that all you needed as a rifle, good aim, a clear shot, and a willingness to commit murder.
That's because money is power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Not necessarily. All we need are majorities in both houses and a President with enough backbone to impose meaningful tax reform and force the rich to start paying their fair share. The top marginal income tax rate in the US in the 1950s was over 90%, and this was under a Republican president. We did it once, and we can do it again.
The devil you know is still a devil.
You realize you're engaging in apologetics on behalf of a de facto aristocracy that would happily throw you under a bus if doing so would push the Dow Jones up another ten points, right?
I am by no means dismantling your narrative, friend, I'm just throwing my two cents in as a clueless 20 year old trying to make it. I'm not arguing as much as I am putting out a conjecture for and against positions such as these.