this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
549 points (93.2% liked)
Political Memes
5054 readers
1813 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No ethical billionaires. Nobody comes by that much money honestly.
While I don't think it's true, I could accept the idea that it were possible to make that much money ethically. However, having that much and not doing good with it? To me that's the bigger evil. Billionaires should be extincting themselves.
Entertainers could be an exception to the evil billionaire rule, but even Swift was doing things like renting out her jet, and her shows have a huge carbon footprint as well.
If she were paying for the pollution, the profit margins wouldn’t be so high.
Also we just need to tax most of the income over $1 million a year. Like we did before the 80s greed is good bullshit started.
Like this, it should just be harder by the mechanics of the game to just keep amassing dollars. Sure, you can have massively successful concerts and live an amazing life. Just pay for them in what it actually costs to society.
Here's a quick and simple example of how much $1 million ($1,000,000,000,) is compared to $1 billion ($1,000,000,000,000.)
1 million seconds equals 11.57 days. 1 billion seconds equals 31.71 years. Days v.s. YEARS!
The different between one million and one billion is about a billion
Nobody earns a billion dollars. Imagine it's October 12, 1492. One of your ancestors is so excited about Columbus landing in America, that he starts putting aside the equivalent of 5000 dollars every single day. And through good fortune, every heir continues to do the same. 5000 dollars added to a pile every single day for over 530 years. 5000 dollars is more than most people make in a month and it accrues every. single. day. There is no interest on the money, but at the same time there are no taxes and nobody spends it on frivolous stuff like food or shelter or education or healthcare. And now, after more than 531 years you inherit it all and realize you're not a billionaire. I know it's an unrealistic thought experiment, but to me it shows that no billionaire ever earned their money.
You’re really close to $1B. I’m not actually sure what is thought provoking about this.
I also don’t know why it doesn’t show that a billionaire hasn’t earned their money. If Taylor Swift gets 10 million people to pay her $150 to go to her concerts in her life time, and her expenses are $50 per show, is she not a billionaire that earned $1B?
10 million tickets is only 400 shows if she’s filling 25k seat arenas.
None of this is actual math, but it’s not insane to me that someone could earn a billion dollars.
What is insane is that someone would sit on a billion dollars like a dragon on their pile of gold.
Yeah, I think if we had hyperinflation, you'd see the scaling back of the "there are no ethical billionaires" umbrella shorthand that sort of simultaneously gestures towards and obfuscates the rent-seeking behavior and owning of capital that's really being lambasted in that statement. Regardless of whether or not the speaker knows it, the speaker might just be spouting shit. We'd probably see "there are no ethical hundred-billionaires" or something instead, anyways. It's just a kind of oversimplification, common to like every stupid slogan in which we are condemned to do all political discourse, compounded by people taking everything hyper-literally and uncritically reading everything as though their own set of definitions is the absolute merriam webster set.
I dunno, I wonder if that's just the kind of horribly stupid strategy that social media has foisted upon everyone, with character limits and short-form content. And then character limits means that everyone can browse through a much broader pool of stupidity at once, absorbing all of it, understanding none of it, and then regurgitating it into whatever new form will reach as many people as possible by the same token.
I think ever having that money, unless it's just shit into your lap for some reason, precludes you from being the kind of person who can do that good. It takes a level of cutthroat and a degree of psychopathy to accumulate that much wealth in a single lifetime. So in essence, having and making that much are both fucked.
Bill Gates is probably the better billionaire of the bunch, but I can't tell if he's against the anti-billionaire tax policies because it would take away his privilege or if he believes he does more good with the money providing medicine in Africa than the government would do with it. Depending on his answer he's just as bad as the rest of them.
He's evil with billionaire PR and he actually wants to be thought well of. Don't be fooled.
There can also be flawed but not evil billionaires.
He's helped more people in impoverished nations than any other person I know of to have ever walked the earth. It's estimated his charity programs saved 122 Million lives directly with medications, antibiotics, and vaccines. That is in addition to the indirect help from creating herd immunity and eradicating diseases in places that otherwise had no chance of controlling outbreaks. He's been promoting CEPI and funding pandemic response efforts since the Mers and Sars outbreaks in the Middle East and further over a decade ago.
If it were discovered he butchered 15 people in his basement he would still be the best billionaire by a long stretch.
What if the actual crimes are even worse? What about the impacts of his company, his all-consuming brand? How many people have been killed as a result of the business practices that one HAS to employ in order to acquire that absurd level of wealth?
The real danger with billionaires isn't them directly. They're usually not so bloodthirsty as to directly kill people. That's bad for the bottom line. But the simple fact is that getting to that point in the first place necessitates some fucked up shit happening, and at best donating all of his wealth may even the scales.
Not only is Microsoft not the monopoly that it is in the timeline where they obtained Apple and fought against Linux, but they also have very little negative impacts as a whole compared to larger hardware manufacturers. The majority of their income is from Office, Azure Servers, and Linkedin while minor contributions would be Gaming at 8% and Advertisement at 6%.
I absolutely support laws and systems that prevent Billionaires from ever forming to begin with, but the conversation I was having was that among all the Billionaires I think Bill Gates is top contender for good person status. I am also very apprehensive to right wing anti-Gates conspiracies because they're very likely fueled by racists who don't want to see him doing good things for impoverished in Africa, the Middle East, or Asia.
Like Buffet, Bill Gates has been publicly supportive of increased taxes for the rich. One could argue that he should disperse his wealth without being forced to, but one could also argue that if every good rich person gave away their money, without the bad rich people being forced to, we would only have bad rich people controlling our politicians. One could also argue that a good rich person can invest in good things that the public run government would not be able to or willing to. For instance vaccinating the entire world to make tuberculosis extinct would never be supported by the US government as a majority of americans don't care about the poor in other countries and don't want to pay for it. I find the whole "all rich people are evil" arguement to not hold up to pragmatic logic.
On this note, Bill Gates started a club for billionaires in which the only requirement to join was to donate enough of your fortune during the time you're in the club that you're not longer a billionaire.
So he kind of checks every box here in your sentence, for better or for worse.
Bill Gates supports higher taxes for the rich, that is true. However, he does not support a taxation policy that would eliminate billionaire status.
The argument is basically just that there's not much of a way to make a billion dollars, as a relatively arbitrary metric, without resulting to unethical means, and trying to make up for it with ethical strategies afterwards is kind of a losing game, you're starting from behind. There's rent-seeking behavior and the ownership of the means of production yadda yadda ya, but really, it's just that the rich tend to hold a large portion of undemocratic power, control over other people. You can maybe say it's democratic on the basis that people "voted with their dollar" to make them rich or some shit, but that's kind of a stupid chain of logic and I just want to bash it without contestation right now.
I think the counterpoint to "we would only have rich people controlling our politicians", would be, we should not have lobbying, you know. Nobody should be controlling our politicians, sort of thing. Or, we should all equally be controlling our politicians, I guess. Which isn't really something that I've seen any of these guys trying to get politicians to do, and I don't think it'd be effective if they did, because it would be both against their own self-interest, so there's a selection bias against that, and it'd be against the interest of the politician that wants to make money, so there would be a selection bias against that. You're also getting a selection bias for the politicians and the rich in the form of, they both probably believe the system works, or, they both believe that money being allocated to someone generally means that person is capable, and is simply valuable to the economy. If they didn't believe either of those, the chances that they find themselves in their positions goes down.
Any charity a rich person does is FAR better then giving it to the government to do something with.
I think it's a mixed bag, but to each their own.
You could argue most of the money some top athletes make is from advertising deals and you might see that as amoral. Being really good at running is impressive, but doesn't inherently contribute hundreds of millions of dollars worth of value to society.
Brand deals with companies that sell stuff that's probably made by slave Labor. Not so ethical.
And don't forget taxes reduction schemes.
Is anything that any of us do in the western world ethical based on that though?
I mean who are to judge athletes for those brands deals when we're buying those products, using those phones/computers to go on Lemmy etc.
I'd argue musicians/athletes that do this are not the most ethical, but it's not this stuff that makes them the worst offenders.
They are famous people, if they advertised a more ethical brand, people would buy that brand instead.
Consumption in the modern world has inherent problems, yes. The ethical way to exist in a world that values consumption as much as ours does is to consume less. You still HAVE to consume. There's a lot of stuff we either flat out need(food, water, shelter) or would be at SUCH a disadvantage without it becomes required (Internet, phone, car).
How you consume is important though. Use your phone until it's a brick. Buy local, and cook your own food. Vet whatever you buy as much as you can.
Entertainers feed into this lifestyle. They become the thing to consume. And that's OK in moderation, but not to the level that they become worth hundreds of millions, billions of dollars. That's excessive.
A world tour like that requires a shit ton of labor, sure it's less straight forward to decide how much surplus value of that labor goes to her, but I would argue it's certainly not negligible
If she had to do everything by herself, the world tour would consist of a few one-woman-gigs at local bars.
That's a great way of putting it. Side note, it'd also mean no private jet.
Like all things, there's a middle ground. No, don't do everything yourself, but give back proportionally. Swift is better than most in that regard, sure, but she can clearly give more if she's encroaching on being with 10+ digits. This is the problem.
That was exactly what I meant. I chose the "Taylor Swift does everything on her own" scenario to disprove the notion that she does all or most of the important work on a show.
Just the handful of concerts I’ve been nominally involved in settin up… there’s hundreds of security staff. 20-50 semi trucks for the stage, a hundred or so roadies. Dozens of forklift drivers. Traffic direction.
And that’s ignoring increases staffing/labor by cities and neighboring properties (increased cops, paramedics, increased security adjacent to the event…)
Like.
It’s far from negligible
There is an option other than lowering ticket prices. And that is to pay the workers more.
This is the way. A billion dollar net worth is at least 900 million in surplus labor that should have already gone to the workers. Probably closer to 999 mil.
She could also pay her employees a lot more.
Their money comes from the same place it does with the ones you already label as shit. They're just the pretty, personable face that you see. You cannot get to that level of wealth in a single lifetime without a whole slew of fucked up shit. Doesn't matter if it's directly or only complicit, earning that much in a lifetime is problematic at the absolute best.
Are you actually that far gone?
No, but you seem to be.