Opinion of billionaires

[Intell]

Without Economic Freedom , people wont have political freedom.

Of course, the economic freedom, so one's is entitled fundamental rights of healthcare, shelter, a jobs, and to be free from discrimination and exploitation.

All billionares are HP's, as there is no reaosn, that one needs to have so much money, and no billionares (or most millionares) do not invest nor create jobs, a thriving economy, with high wages, and economic confidence, and a strong dollar, creates jobs.

One should give to charity, and if one remains a billionare, one does not give back enough money.

[Cassius]

I'm very glad I made this a thread.

Fwiw the weirdest moment was completely ignored:' Cassius saying his favourite billionaire is Carlos Slim, lol.

Tbf I didn't say 'favourite', I said that I had a 'moderately favourable' opinion of him. Different thing. My favourite billionaire (obvs Marcus Licinius Crassus) has been dead for over 2,000 years, so I considered it inappropriate to mention him.

[dead0man]

It's pretty clear that you start from a moral framework that leads you to this conclusion.

can't.....breath.....too........much...irony

[The_Doctor]

Hating people because they're rich is asinine. Hate them for their actions, not because they have more money than you.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I mean, after a certain point(about $100,000 IIRC), more money doesn't even make one more happy.

That's a very good argument in favor of my position, yes. Thanks.

No, it isn't. It means that after everyone reaches the point(which likely shifts depending on the strength of the welfare state), redistribution does nothing to help people and really only serves to tear people down for daring to be wealthier then average. Plus, strong reduction in wealth tends to make one less happy via not having many of the things one is used to even if one falls to above the point.

...so you're saying that the billionaire's second billion is more important to their happiness than an additional $50k would be to a middle-income earner? lol

...

No, the point is that losing enough money to force you to live without things that you're used to is bad for your happiness, Einstein. People do badly with less then they're used to in general.

What I said is the exact practical implication of what you just said. You're saying that taking away the billionaire's billions makes a greater difference in their happiness than redistributing that money to people who aren't billionaires (and who therefore start up with a lot less). I don't care what kind of pseudo-psychological bullsh*t you are using to back up this theory, it should be obviously disgusting to anyone with a basic sense of justice. I find it amazing that you even have the ability to feel sorry for those poor billionaires while being so dismissive about the struggles of people who aren't and who have to live in the real world where money actually matters.

You clearly aren't bothering to actually think about my arguments. The point which you refuse to see is that people get used to what they have. You need a decent amount of money to get past the point of routine money troubles, not having the right options, etc. Your happiness isn't boosted much by more money after that point. That alone would make further redistribution after everyone has enough pointless, thus, wasteful, and therefore not worth doing. However, losing a significant amount of your ability to access comfort, etc. does hurt you, because you lose things you're used to, things that you took for granted. That hurts anyone. People notice things they used to have but lost, options they don't have anymore.

You don't want this out of a sense of compassion. You don't want this because it'll help people. You want this because you resent the rich. You want this because you want to punish them. You want to hurt them. If you wanted to help people, you wouldn't advocate doing it when it no longer helps anyone. But you just hate people who have more money then average. Not even the concept on income inequality, but the people at the top themselves. Why, I don't know. Maybe its because their increased wealth is offensive to some perverted value of conformity. Maybe its because they aren't "your group. Maybe its something else. Maybe its all of the above. But regardless of the reason, you act like people are evil and deserve hatred and scorn, just for their wealth. You aren't fighting for the idea that rich people are no different then those with less, but for the idea that the rich are evil, inferior, even inhuman. Your indignant talk of "justice" betrays that. After all, Justice is nothing more than a righteous sounding word for revenge.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I really don't want to get too deeply into this asinine argument, but I'd like to point out that a few years ago my family came into quite a bit of inherited wealth (yes, yes, yes, I know, literal champagne socialist and massive HP), Antonio knows this about me, and Antonio doesn't hate me.

After all, Justice is nothing more than a righteous sounding word for revenge.

ayy lmao

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You know there are so few billionaires - literally upon this Earth just a few thousand - it isn't like you have to generalise! Look them up and then decide! You could probably even put it into percentages; e.g. 48%* are reprobates, etc. Of course in reality most of them are boring businessmen or the children of boring businessmen or both so the activity would soon cease to entertain.

_{*Entirely random figure.}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Cassius saying his favourite billionaire is Carlos Slim, lol.

That ALONE justifies the existence of the thread, whatever else might be said of it!

[Antonio the Sixth]

In the interest of full disclosure, my own family makes about 100k a year right now and has assets that I seem to remember come pretty close to a million (we have a mortgage, though, which I guess should be deducted from that, but I have no idea how much it's worth). I'm doing pretty well for myself and my family should obviously be among the net "givers" of redistribution, but there's an obvious difference between this and friggin' billionaires (which no, I don't "hate" either - this has never been about personal hatred and I'm amazed I actually have to spell it out).

Scarlet, are you at all familiar with John Rawls? Look up his Theory of Justice. It's probably the best way to rescue you from the depths of your cringeworthy amoral utilitarianism.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

For the record, I think billionaires as a group are HPs not because I hate them or am interested in "dehumanizing" them but because pretty much every class status has its own set of moral and spiritual pitfalls and billionaires' position in society gives them more ability to inflict those flaws on the rest of us.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You want this because you resent the rich. You want this because you want to punish them. You want to hurt them. If you wanted to help people, you wouldn't advocate doing it when it no longer helps anyone. But you just hate people who have more money then average.

I mean, Tony does hate himself but it has nothing to do with his financial status.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My favourite billionaire (obvs Marcus Licinius Crassus) has been dead for over 2,000 years, so I considered it inappropriate to mention him.

Oh come ON now you're just trying too hard. You probably wear a bow tie as well and pretend to enjoy dry sherry.

[RaphaelDLG]

For the record, I think billionaires as a group are HPs not because I hate them or am interested in "dehumanizing" them but because pretty much every class status has its own set of moral and spiritual pitfalls and billionaires' position in society gives them more ability to inflict those flaws on the rest of us.

I would have empty quoted this comment in approval until I realized that you were one of the mega rich; now I'm looking for my torch and pitchfork.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You want this because you resent the rich. You want this because you want to punish them. You want to hurt them. If you wanted to help people, you wouldn't advocate doing it when it no longer helps anyone. But you just hate people who have more money then average.

I mean, Tony does hate himself but it has nothing to do with his financial status.

Actually it does, a little bit. But yeah, it's not the main issue.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

For the record, I think billionaires as a group are HPs not because I hate them or am interested in "dehumanizing" them but because pretty much every class status has its own set of moral and spiritual pitfalls and billionaires' position in society gives them more ability to inflict those flaws on the rest of us.

I would have empty quoted this comment in approval until I realized that you were one of the mega rich; now I'm looking for my torch and pitchfork.

I'd say something about not being that rich but the money literally comes from Standard Oil so that pretty much cancels out any defense I could make.

[RaphaelDLG]

For the record, I think billionaires as a group are HPs not because I hate them or am interested in "dehumanizing" them but because pretty much every class status has its own set of moral and spiritual pitfalls and billionaires' position in society gives them more ability to inflict those flaws on the rest of us.

I would have empty quoted this comment in approval until I realized that you were one of the mega rich; now I'm looking for my torch and pitchfork.

I'd say something about not being that rich but the money literally comes from Standard Oil so that pretty much cancels out any defense I could make.

FYI that was sarcasm

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

For the record, I think billionaires as a group are HPs not because I hate them or am interested in "dehumanizing" them but because pretty much every class status has its own set of moral and spiritual pitfalls and billionaires' position in society gives them more ability to inflict those flaws on the rest of us.

I would have empty quoted this comment in approval until I realized that you were one of the mega rich; now I'm looking for my torch and pitchfork.

I'd say something about not being that rich but the money literally comes from Standard Oil so that pretty much cancels out any defense I could make.

FYI that was sarcasm

I know, don't worry.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't care why you have it but ffs Scarlet change your avatar to something more fitting to your disgusting plutocrat-shilling tendencies (yellow works very well).

Um, omega scarlet just seems to be reacting to extreme hyperbole here (comparing billionaires to serial killers).  Hardly seems like "plutocrat shilling" to me to simply point out the fact that such comparisons are hardly fair and there are indeed, genuine societal contributions that the rich make. 

I think you and others completely missed the point of that comparison. Saying that two things are bad =/= saying that they're equally bad. The point is that this silly idea that billionaire is a group that deserves to be respected as if it were a racial group or sexual orientation is grotesque, and that if you seriously want to apply to billionaires then why not apply it to serial killers too?

Also, for those of us who believe that no one has the right to earn that much money, then by definition billionaires don't "contribute" anything, since they take from society more than the are allowed to.

That doesn't follow. What would follow is that they are also contributing in ways and amounts that they aren't allowed to, and that they shouldn't have been investing their wealth in one or another enterprise. There isn't some giant pile of money that is held in static amount by society that people come in and grab. 

"Contributing" implies that the money belonged to them to begin with. It implies that they are the "rightful" owner of that money and therefore that their decision to invest it in socially useful ways is a "contribution". I disagree. I believe that people have no rightful claim to that money and that therefore whatever use they make of it is an abuse. You can't "contribute" if the money you use to "contribute" was never yours to begin with. Even if some of the scraps of their (self-interested) investment decisions end up benefiting society, they are still net "takers".

They are net takers?  So you do admit it is possible for them to contribute, but for some reason, no matter what good they do, if they use that money to cure diseases or lift people out of poverty, this will always be less important to you than the fact that they had more money than you feel comfortable with them having?
Whom are they taking from?   Does someone else own it?  At what point does money one earns cease to belong to oneself and start to belong to someone or something else?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You seem to have trouble grasping the basic premise on which my moral premise is based. And yet, it's a very simple one: the right to property is not absolute. I am among those who believe that some degree of private property is beneficial to society (which I think sets me apart from our actual socialist posters), but I also believe that society has the right to set limits, both in what kinds of things can be owned and in how much wealth can be owned. By definition, everything that does not belong to an individual or group of individuals must belong to society as a whole. When you understand this premises, the answers to your questions should be self-evident.

They are net takers?  So you do admit it is possible for them to contribute, but for some reason, no matter what good they do, if they use that money to cure diseases or lift people out of poverty, this will always be less important to you than the fact that they had more money than you feel comfortable with them having?

The only way they can contribute is by giving back all the excess money that they cannot legitimately own and something more. Any profit gained through the investment of money that is not legitimately theirs (and, by virtue of exceeding a certain amount, it isn't legitimately theirs) means that they are net takers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Society. See above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's, admittedly, a tougher question. I'm open to arguments as to what the appropriate limit is, as long as people recognize that such limit does exist. I'd say it's well below a billion, though.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

In the interest of full disclosure, my own family makes about 100k a year right now and has assets that I seem to remember come pretty close to a million (we have a mortgage, though, which I guess should be deducted from that, but I have no idea how much it's worth). I'm doing pretty well for myself and my family should obviously be among the net "givers" of redistribution, but there's an obvious difference between this and friggin' billionaires (which no, I don't "hate" either - this has never been about personal hatred and I'm amazed I actually have to spell it out).

You certainly sound like you have a personal hatred. I don't see why having a net worth over a billion is so much "worse" then having a net worth of around a million.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, and a read about it on wikipedia reveals that it really isn't anything special.

[All Along The Watchtower]

What exactly justifies someone earning a billion dollars, anyway? Unless you don't think economics has a moral component that isn't "I've got mine, now f-ck off." In which case, I really don't know what to say, other than some cliches about how the American Cult of Individualism that sanctifies private property rights as the highest moral good is utterly corrosive to society, makes Baby Jesus cry, etc.

[Cassius]

My favourite billionaire (obvs Marcus Licinius Crassus) has been dead for over 2,000 years, so I considered it inappropriate to mention him.

Oh come ON now you're just trying too hard. You probably wear a bow tie as well and pretend to enjoy dry sherry.

Nah, I'm more of a t-shirt and sh**tty beer kind of guy. On the other hand it is one of my aspirations in life to reach the stage where I can where trouser braces without getting shat upon by co-workers/boss. Unlikely, but not impossible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You certainly sound like you have a personal hatred.

No I don't. You just interpret any principled argument against the immoral behavior of the rich as if it was born out of personal hatred because you're incapable of comprehending the principles on which it's based.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...because you're depriving society of literally 1000 times the amount of money?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's a shame. If even Rawls can't help you, you're probably too far gone.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Are trouser braces really esoteric enough to provoke that reaction? As long as you're wearing a jacket they're not especially noticeable.

My experience would be no, though I'm informed that e.g. brown shoes are seen as Bad in finance - not a fact I'll ever have cause to worry about naturally - so Lord knows wrt some workplaces.

[dead0man]

What exactly justifies someone earning a billion dollars, anyway? Unless you don't think economics has a moral component that isn't "I've got mine, now f-ck off." In which case, I really don't know what to say, other than some cliches about how the American Cult of Individualism that sanctifies private property rights as the highest moral good is utterly corrosive to society, makes Baby Jesus cry, etc.

if there was only so much "wealth" in the world and it was impossible to make more you'd have an excellent point.