AOC believes a system that allows Billionaires to exist is immoral

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426345-ocasio-cortez-economic-system-that-allows-billionaires-is-immoral


She truly doesnt understand economics. Does she really think people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos , Elon Musk would have the motivation to grow their businesses if the government set an artificial cap of what their NET WORTH could be. So under her economic system, we wouldnt have had Microsoft or Amazon revolutionize tech as much as it did because the incentive to do so wouldnt be there and less people would have jobs as well.


This also shows she doesnt know what the difference between Cash and Net Worth is either .


 

[OSR stands with Israel]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

[Sir Mohamed]

I don't think being very wealthy itsself is immoral. If I own a company worth 10 billion, I'm also a billionaire, but I usually employ thousands of people. If someone makes billions on the backs of workers who get paid a disgusting loan, it is immoral. Just look at Walmart. But this can happen anywhere, small family owned businesses included.

The actual problem is that while we have a very wealthy elite, we have way too many poor people (for a couple of reasons). Working 40 hours a week and not getting enough pay to make ends meat is disgusting, while CEOs at the same time making millions of dollars. Of course, being a CEO is a tough job with a lot of responsibilities, but some of the salaries and bonuses being paid are abhorrant. Especially when these CEOs ruin a company or bank like in the 2008 crash (and even don't face criminal indictment).

Another problem are trusts and cartels. We have a bunch of companies that are much, much too powerful and have way too much influence over political decisions.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think being very wealthy itsself is immoral. If I own a company worth 10 billion, I'm also a billionaire, but I usually employ thousands of people. If someone makes billions on the backs of workers who get paid a disgusting loan, it is immoral. Just look at Walmart. But this can happen anywhere, small family owned businesses included.

The actual problem is that while we have a very wealthy elite, we have way too many poor people (for a couple of reasons). Working 40 hours a week and not getting enough pay to make ends meat is disgusting, while CEOs at the same making millions of dollars. Of course, being a CEO is a tough job with a lot of responsibilities, but some of the salaries and bonuses being paid are abhorrant. Especially when these CEOs ruin a company or bank like in the 2008 crash (and even don't face criminal indictment).

Another problem are trusts and cartels. We have a bunch of companies that are much, much too powerful and have way too influence over political decisions.

Oh I definitely agree with you there that the bonuses all the executives got after the 2008 wall street crash was abhorrent and instead many of them should have been jailed or at the very least fired in disgrace.

I also agree trusts are a big problem especially the ones that are too big to fail and they should be broken up.

[Big Abraham]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I agree with her.

[JGibson]

I agree with her.

Yep. AOC's spot-on.

[parochial boy]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Many would argue that companies the size of amazon or microsoft is a bad thing

This also shows she doesnt know what the difference between Cash and Net Worth is either .

Despite having had it explained to you numerous times, you appear not to understand why cash is a completely meaningless measure of wealth either

[RaphaelDLG]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426345-ocasio-cortez-economic-system-that-allows-billionaires-is-immoral


She truly doesnt understand economics. Does she really think people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos , Elon Musk would have the motivation to grow their businesses if the government set an artificial cap of what their NET WORTH could be. So under her economic system, we wouldnt have had Microsoft or Amazon revolutionize tech as much as it did because the incentive to do so wouldnt be there and less people would have jobs as well.


This also shows she doesnt know what the difference between Cash and Net Worth is either .


 

This is not a rhetorical question, but how many billionaires in 2019 USD were there in the 1950s?

[emailking]

She truly doesnt understand economics. Does she really think people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos , Elon Musk would have the motivation to grow their businesses if the government set an artificial cap of what their NET WORTH could be.

I don't know what she thinks, but I think they would. Many business people aren't in it for the money.

I think the solution though is very high tax rates for the super rich (to include sale of stock) with almost all loopholes closed (charitable deductions allowed), rather than an actual cap.

[History505]

I agree with her.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Many would argue that companies the size of amazon or microsoft is a bad thing

No sh**t.

[BlueSwan]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426345-ocasio-cortez-economic-system-that-allows-billionaires-is-immoral


She truly doesnt understand economics. Does she really think people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos , Elon Musk would have the motivation to grow their businesses if the government set an artificial cap of what their NET WORTH could be. So under her economic system, we wouldnt have had Microsoft or Amazon revolutionize tech as much as it did because the incentive to do so wouldnt be there and less people would have jobs as well.


This also shows she doesnt know what the difference between Cash and Net Worth is either .


 

If you think those people are driven primarily by the desire to be even more insanely rich than they already are, I think you are seriously mistaken.

[Badger]

I don't think being very wealthy itsself is immoral. If I own a company worth 10 billion, I'm also a billionaire, but I usually employ thousands of people. If someone makes billions on the backs of workers who get paid a disgusting loan, it is immoral. Just look at Walmart. But this can happen anywhere, small family owned businesses included.

The actual problem is that while we have a very wealthy elite, we have way too many poor people (for a couple of reasons). Working 40 hours a week and not getting enough pay to make ends meat is disgusting, while CEOs at the same making millions of dollars. Of course, being a CEO is a tough job with a lot of responsibilities, but some of the salaries and bonuses being paid are abhorrant. Especially when these CEOs ruin a company or bank like in the 2008 crash (and even don't face criminal indictment).

Another problem are trusts and cartels. We have a bunch of companies that are much, much too powerful and have way too influence over political decisions.

Oh I definitely agree with you there that the bonuses all the executives got after the 2008 wall street crash was abhorrent and instead many of them should have been jailed or at the very least fired in disgrace.

I also agree trusts are a big problem especially the ones that are too big to fail and they should be broken up.

This.

Regarding the original post, although osr tends to be one of the more honest blue avatars around here, I'm going to ask for a second opinion without reading the article myself because I'm stopped at a light, is this an accurate summary of what AOC said? As in she genuinely thinks allowing billionaires to exist his immoral in and of itself?

[JA]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

[Zaybay]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

Actually, you make a good point. We shouldnt grant them incentives to keep expanding their companies. They practically are already monopolies on their respective industries, why give them a reason to expand? It would be economically wiser to intact AOC's plan, as that would mean companies have no reason to expand beyond a certain point, allowing other businesses to crop up and take up shelf space, instead of Amazon just buying everything else in the sector and having complete control over a sector of the economy.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

Does your view of labor include marketers, administrators, accountants, and other support staff such as janitors and shipping? (In the latter case, the shipping may itself be a product purchased from elsewhere) Do all receive equal pieces of the pie? Do you believe the mandate to split profits equally with any additional staff would discourage certain entrepreneurial figures? How does intellectual property factor into this?

[JA]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

Does your view of labor include marketers, administrators, accountants, and other support staff such as janitors and shipping? (In the latter case, the shipping may itself be a productnpirvjsed from elsewhere) Do all receive equal pieces of the pie? Do you believe the mandate to split profits equally with any additional staff would discourage certain entrepreneurial figures? How does intellectual property factor into this?

Are they performing work without being an owner of the means of production? Is the monetary value they receive in exchange for a product or service, rather than something idle, such as collecting rents on owned property, deriving profits from surplus value from labor, speculation/investment, or interest charges? Then they’re a laborer; they’re a proletariat.

It’s not about receiving equal slices of anything, if you’re going by “what would occur in your socioeconomic system.” You’re still approaching it from a mindset confined to a capitalist mode of production. The question is: is their a social need for it? Do we need housing, food, transportation, janitorial services, accounting work, etc...? If the answer is yes, then those services are required and should be provided. If there is a need, then it should be met. And, whomever meets that need, should retain total control over their labor and the product thereof. If that need requires social labor (such as what can be produced more efficiently by 2+ persons), then the contracted parties should have equal say in their work. All decisions pertaining to labor, production, etc... should be democratically decided by those involved.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

A system that allows billionaires who doesn't pay their employees enough to get by without food stamps to exist is definitively immoral.

[JA]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

A system that allows billionaires who doesn't pay their employees enough to get by without food stamps to exist is definitively immoral.

It’s cute that OSR almost certainly believes he’s more likely to be rich like Bezos than living in his car, using food stamps, and slaving away full time for below a living wage.

[Lourdes]

I agree with her.

[YE]

I agree with her.

[Crumpets]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

I can't speak for Bezos, but I'm pretty confident Bill Gates wasn't thinking about his theoretical maximum net worth when he started Microsoft. He really is in it for the love of the game.

At the same time, if more billionaires spent their money like Bill Gates, they probably wouldn't get as much pushback from us pleebs.

[RINO Tom]

Oh no! She wants to put the top marginal rate back to where it was during the administration of that left-wing commie liberal, President Eisenhower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like she's on the right track.

I think you're well aware that the effective tax rate paid on money in the top bracket was nowhere near 70% and that Eisenhower would have never supported such a thing, either.