Should Billionaires Exist?

[Professor Emeritus]

The systems in place are in place because they are the systems that have produced the best results. Many systems have been tried yet here we are with every nation practicing or drifting towards some form of capitalism. I don't think its a conspiracy by "the rich"... but rather the system that simply offers the best tradeoffs.

Best results for who? Who actually decides what systems are in place? I'm not even talking conspiracy, who OPENLY is behind those decisions?

And like I said earlier, the USA and its other clients have literally gone to war with, invaded, bombed, embargoed, or deposed anyone who wanted to buck the system. And that's been happening ever since the moment European merchants decided that they wanted to force others to join their economic circle. You can't claim "everyone is doing it" without acknowledging that there have been severe consequences for those who didn't do it.

And there are many systems that have not been tried, or which have only been tried on small scales before getting shut down by larger power brokers.

Sounds like you have a beef with human nature...
We are greedy and short sighted... and free of coercion we will democratically elect someone promising us riches over someone promising us environmental protections.
This isn't because of the system or some illuminati.
.

No, like I said before this is not demonstrably "human nature". For example, look at North America during the colonial period. The Native Americans were practicing a very different system from the Europeans. And they preferred it. FAR more Europeans voluntarily left colonial "civilization" and joined Native American tribes and economic networks than the other way around. (Some writers of the colonial period even claim that literally no Indian ever left his tribe for Western civilization except under dire circumstances.) But the colonialist system still "won" because they literally killed and stole the land of anyone who didn't obey their system.

In the current system there are massive incentives and propaganda to convince us to pursue riches. The amount of money spent constantly trying to coerce people to propagate the current system is insane. So it's not surprise that most follow that path, but it is disingenuous to insist that means that people would all follow the same path in a vacuum. We follow the system because we're taught to follow the system.

monetary cost/monetary gain.
Better for everyone If a taxation/redistribution system is in place.

Monetary cost/monetary gain for who?

I have been thinking about your push for redistribution instead of minimum wage and I will say that for part of the problem it "could" work. The key is that the redistribution would have to be at the level that submission to the capitalist masters would be at least borderline unnecessary. If basic needs could be met without wage work, then I agree that minimum wage would be unnecessary, and outlets like Walmart would be punished by the simple lack of incentive for people to work for them. But that would require redistribution at the level that we would call Basic Income. And it would address just one facet of the issues of the current system.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

and what if there is population growth and increased productivity ?

That's the whole point of the story. Constantly increased growth is required just to feed the system, thereby leading to the complete stripping of resources and an anti-cooperative cutthroat ethic. That's the whole problem.

Thank you for exposing from the jump that you didn't get the parable.

What happened to all the goods they exchanged for chicken prior to the banker ?

They would concentrate in the hands of the banker and those with the best production as the ones with lesser production were forced to sell off their goods to pay back the loans.

Everyone converted into a chicken farmer ? The banker didn't assign value to cattle
because he's a poultry loyalist ?

No, because it's a parable it is simplified like all parables. Since both chickens and cows fundamentally draw from most of the same systems of finite resources (land, land to grow feed, ability of landscape to absorb waste, etc.) and meet the same primary need (calorie intake which soon becomes satisfied making additional production unnecessary and wasteful), diversifying to cattle doesn't address the fundamental issues.

This story is chock full of holes ...

If Lietaer hadn't passed away a few months ago it would have been hilarious to watch him run circles around you. The fact that you dismiss him so casually when you didn't even understand the point of the parable suggests some DK-effect here. Lietaer was demonstrably one of the great currency thought leaders of our age and had more actual responsibility over currency processes than the vast majority of economists will ever dream of.

Bernard A. Lietaer
Bernard Lietaer's Beyond Greed and Scarcity: Preface

 

[Cynic]

That's the whole point of the story. Constantly increased growth is required just to feed the system, thereby leading to the complete stripping of resources and an anti-cooperative cutthroat ethic. That's the whole problem.

Constant growth also drives innovation and competition. Are you against this too ?

Thank you for exposing from the jump that you didn't get the parable.

You can make a case against debt and rent-seeking without nonsensical parables.
We are talking about economic models here.

They would concentrate in the hands of the banker and those with the best production as the ones with lesser production were forced to sell off their goods to pay back the loans.

You are assuming now....

No, because it's a parable it is simplified like all parables. Since both chickens and cows fundamentally draw from most of the same systems of finite resources (land, land to grow feed, ability of landscape to absorb waste, etc.) and meet the same primary need (calorie intake which soon becomes satisfied making additional production unnecessary and wasteful), diversifying to cattle doesn't address the fundamental issues.

Simplification isn't warranted. Don't cry wolf when your parable has glaring holes.
No-one in that scenario was forced to go and see the bankers proposals nor were
they were forced to accept it.

What if they told him to f*ck off and burnt him to the ground ? Or better yet seized the currency
he provided them with ?

If Lietaer hadn't passed away a few months ago it would have been hilarious to watch him run circles around you. The fact that you dismiss him so casually when you didn't even understand the point of the parable suggests some DK-effect here. Lietaer was demonstrably one of the great currency thought leaders of our age and had more actual responsibility over currency processes than the vast majority of economists will ever dream of.

I could care less about your appeals to authority. Like the people in your ill-fated parables you need to accept
responsibility for this wanton example. If you have a case against debt and rent-seeking then by all means
make it.

 

[DEAD7]

I have been thinking about your push for redistribution instead of minimum wage and I will say that for part of the problem it "could" work. The key is that the redistribution would have to be at the level that submission to the capitalist masters would be at least borderline unnecessary. If basic needs could be met without wage work, then I agree that minimum wage would be unnecessary, and outlets like Walmart would be punished by the simple lack of incentive for people to work for them. But that would require redistribution at the level that we would call Basic Income. And it would address just one facet of the issues of the current system.

There is no such thing as a perfect human run system, and we will have to accept some level of unfavorable outcomes...
What would the other issues be?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You can make a case against debt and rent-seeking without nonsensical parables.
We are talking about economic models here.

Again, if you think Lietaer's parable is nonsensical you're telling on yourself. You can disagree with him, but to claim that he doesn't even understand what he's talking about is to display a DK effect-level ignorance.

Constant growth also drives innovation and competition. Are you against this too ?

Innovation is nice when it contributes to human welfare. The type of competition that is driven by an absolute need for constant growth is mostly detrimental, as was already pointed out in the parable. Look at any of the sociological or psychological studies on competition and trust in society, competition and cooperation, etc. Watch any show or event where the main point is competition yet the competitors are supposed to interact/live together for any extended period of time. Take a look at a society where communal norms have broken down and "only the strongest survive." It is extremely counterproductive to human welfare.

Simplification isn't warranted. Don't cry wolf when your parable has glaring holes.
No-one in that scenario was forced to go and see the bankers proposals nor were
they were forced to accept it.

There were no glaring holes, you ignored that already. And you are correct that no one was forced to accept the proposal. That doesn't occur until a much later stage in the game. How is that a hole, doesn't that reflect reality?

What if they told him to f*ck off and burnt him to the ground ? Or better yet seized the currency
he provided them with ?

You apparently weren't reading well, that was explicitly given as an option in the parable. And continues to be today except for the military power of the bankers.

I could care less about your appeals to authority. Like the people in your ill-fated parables you need to accept
responsibility for this wanton example. If you have a case against debt and rent-seeking then by all means
make it.

Every one of your critiques were easily and simply refuted already, no appeal to authority was necessary for that.

I only mention Lietaer's credentials and proven understanding of currency to point out how silly your random, unsupported insults were.


I can only remember three conversations with you on this board. In one you were caping for Trump and claiming his aggressive racism was no big deal. In one you were caping for China and telling the residents of Hong Kong to fukk off. And now in this one you're caping for capitalism and mocking monetary experts as if they were children who are below you.

I really don't get your shtick here. It's like you're some sort of authority-worshiper masking as a contrarian.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

There is no such thing as a perfect human run system, and we will have to accept some level of unfavorable outcomes...
What would the other issues be?

Even if you redistributed profits to give some measure of control/freedom back to the workers, the system would still be designed in such a way that would encourage nearly unlimited competition instead of cooperation, encourage complete depletion of environmental resources instead of conservation, provide no inherent cost to the production of pollution and other social ills, and would continue (to at least some degree) to thrive on economic rents.

Most of those issues are primarily driven by the issuance of money at positive interest and the biased control of the money system. If you attacked usury, the money basis, AND the distribution of wealth at the same time, then you'd really be getting somewhere.

 

[Cynic]

Again, if you think Lietaer's parable is nonsensical you're telling on yourself. You can disagree with him, but to claim that he doesn't even understand what he's talking about is to display a DK effect-level ignorance.

That's nice but I never claimed anything of the sort. My quabbles aren't with Lietaer - it's your misguided use case
in this discussion to begin with. Why are you using parables when you can cite actual historical examples with actual data points ?

Innovation is nice when it contributes to human welfare. The type of competition that is driven by an absolute need for constant growth is mostly detrimental, as was already pointed out in the parable. Look at any of the sociological or psychological studies on competition and trust in society, competition and cooperation, etc. Watch any show or event where the main point is competition yet the competitors are supposed to interact/live together for any extended period of time. Take a look at a society where communal norms have broken down and "only the strongest survive." It is extremely counterproductive to human welfare.

Are you saying that innovation under capitalism hasn't contributed to human welfare ?

There were no glaring holes, you ignored that already. And you are correct that no one was forced to accept the proposal. That doesn't occur until a much later stage in the game. How is that a hole, doesn't that reflect reality?

Now you are being intellectually dishonest.

You apparently weren't reading well, that was explicitly given as an option in the parable. And continues to be today except for the military power of the bankers.


Every one of your critiques were easily and simply refuted already, no appeal to authority was necessary for that.

I only mention Lietaer's credentials and proven understanding of currency to point out how silly your random, unsupported insults were.

You could have used :

• Nixon stripping the gold standard
• Milkens junk bonds
• Reaganomics

and a million other examples to make a strong logical case against debt and rent-seeking
but you chose a parable and further doubled down by literally inventing variables that don't
exist within the source material to plug those glaring holes.

In one you were caping for China and telling the residents of Hong Kong to fukk off. And now in this one you're caping for capitalism and mocking monetary experts as if they were children who are below you.

You have a colorful imagination - that's for sure. I already debunked your misguided claims
in the HK thread but you are too loyal to your own solipsism.

Capitalism has done well for me - it's not perfect though.

I only questioned your usage of a parable and your appeal to authority
as arguments. Nothing more - nothing less.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That's nice but I never claimed anything of the sort. My quabbles aren't with Lietaer - it's your misguided use case
in this discussion to begin with. Why are you using parables when you can cite actual historical examples with actual data points ?




Are you saying that innovation under capitalism hasn't contributed to human welfare ?





Now you are being intellectually dishonest.




You could have used :

• Nixon stripping the gold standard
• Milkens junk bonds
• Reaganomics

and a million other examples to make a strong logical case against debt and rent-seeking
but you chose a parable and further doubled down by literally inventing variables that don't
exist within the source material to plug those glaring holes.

You just listed THOSE three events and you still want us to think you understood what the parable was talking about?

It's not a case "against debt and rent-seeking", none of those three events illuminates the actual point in question.

You were so desperate to make a case that you actually listed real-world truths reflected in the parable (that the banker didn't use force initially, that the people could choose to overthrow his system, and that the economy could keep expanding and expanding to survive) as "glaring holes" when they're direct points Lietaer was making that are also true in the real-world system.

 

[Cynic]

You just listed THOSE three events and you still want us to think you understood what the parable was talking about?

I'm addressing you specifically - no idea who "us" refers to.

It's not a case "against debt and rent-seeking", none of those three events illuminates the actual point in question.

Are you saying debt and rent-seeking aren't tied to wealth creation now ?

You were so desperate to make a case that you actually listed real-world truths reflected in the parable (that the banker didn't use force initially, that the people could choose to overthrow his system, and that the economy could keep expanding and expanding to survive) as "glaring holes" when they're direct points Lietaer was making that are also true in the real-world system.

None of those examples ever had an entire economy shift
towards one commodity - why are you avoiding this ?
I handed you a better argument for your own cause with empirical data


You should thank me

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm addressing you specifically - no idea who "us" refers to.


Are you saying debt and rent-seeking aren't tied to wealth creation now ?



None of those examples ever had an entire economy shift
towards one commodity - why are you avoiding this ?
I handed you a better argument for your own cause with empirical data


You should thank me

Breh, this is just really trash posting at this point.

 

[---]

Kinda ignored this thread because this is a redundant question at best.

Should they exist? Yes

Can they exist? Yes

Money serves three purposes, It is a medium of exchange, a unit of measurement, and a store of value. With commodity or fiat-based money, you will always have excess. Commodity money has been around longer but political monsters made sure to minimize the effects of it cause it is harder to manipulate. The money will always act as a storage of wealth. Since it acts as a storage of wealth you will always have excess.

If one creates a product or services that is fixing a massive problem they will be rewarded handsomely either in commodity or fiat money-based system. It's relatively that simple.

In this fiat-based system is it easier for billionaires to exist granted though millionaires have time just as hard as an upper-middle individual or business in terms of accessing credit. All in all, it is harder for billionaires to exist in a commodity-based system of money but they still do exist.

Either way, this version of capitalism needs an upgrade and should have been upgraded in 2008.

My only fear is that since extremes have become so evident that some really bad economic ideas will come into play to try to fix the system. That idea will just make matters way worst.

Seen a few horrific ideas starting to pick up steam!

 

[dish lowry]

yes....the old me would've said no...but if you zoom out & try to understand the business world just a little bit, you'll see there are some genius CEO's out there & some have good vibes.....Jason Few from FuelCell is a genius CEO....he's gonna get a huge bonus when that stock hits $6, and you can get paid along with him just from buying that cheap stock....Lisa Su from AMD is a great CEO. watch the Squawk Box on CNBC, you'll see a lot of different types of mindsets & personalities...they're not a monolith....