Should Billionaires Exist?

[MMS]

As you obviously have zero capacity to even hand out 3,000,000 cups of lemonade a day, much less make the lemonade, grow the trees, etc., your hypothetical lemonade stand is obviously impossible. Which is the point we're making.

Someone else, a LOT of someone elses, are doing the work to move 3 million cups of lemonade a day. You somehow want to decide that you deserve all their profits even though you haven't even defined which tiny minority of the work you happen to be doing yourself.


p.s. - how did you acquire the land to get enough lemons to sell 1 billion cups of lemonade? Why is it that you have the right to use up so much land when most of humanity has no land at all?

LOTS of unanswered questions in this hypothetical scenario.

Lets break it down then

Suzy decides to start Bullshyt Lemonade LLC
She begs a bank for 2 years worth of operating capital as a loan
Bullshyt Bank decides they will give her millions of startup capital along with other buffoons

Suzy with money in hand, goes to a soft drink co-packer and negotiates a deal to slap Bullshyt Lemonade label on their blank lemonade bottles at the cost of $0.15 per bottle as long as she buys 5000 per month.
Suzy builds a lemonade stand and begins hiring people to help build it and run the place and spends more of the bank money
Suzy buys marketing to get the word out that Bullshyt Lemonade is here and different and that people should try it

The lemonade stand goes live
Lemonade sales of 100 million units per month

Everyone keeps getting paid, Suzy after paying all of her employees and copackers and marketers etc takes home a profit of $2 billion even though $3billion in revenue (somehow she spends 1billion in operating expense)

Now if you are Suzy, why would you change the amount you pay anyone outside of ensuring smooth operation and high customer satisfaction

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

And the degree to which Steve Jobs has ever even "invented a better phone" is debatable. Steve Jobs invented very little:

"According to Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, "Steve [Jobs] didn't ever code. He wasn't an engineer and he didn't do any original design..."[238][239] Daniel Kottke, one of Apple's earliest employees and a college friend of Jobs', stated that "Between Woz and Jobs, Woz was the innovator, the inventor. Steve Jobs was the marketing person."[240]"

That's what Jobs became a billionaire for. Some asthetic design ideas and "marketing".




You're just describing the status quo, you're not defending it. Why should stock ownership determine who profits? Why don't other employees have stock ownership? And how many people (workers, colleagues, employees, competitors) did Jobs screw over to get where he did?

screwed over is always going to happen where there is competition...doesn't even have to be in business, can be in sports, the arts, academics, etc.

and most FT employees get stock in tech firms...it should be the norm in all industries IMO, but that's the exact types of things that address the middle being left behind, it has nothing to do with eliminating the ability to become a billionaire. lastly, if you found a company, you're going to have stock options or an ownership stake, that will always have a much bigger upside than someone who just joins as a random worker...i'm sorry, but are you sitting here saying people who start (and head up) successful companies shouldn't be compensated more? if so, i fully disagree

 

[ThaRealness]

think less of the title

in fact disregard work titles completely.

There are 4 main types of people:

Individuals - Salary/Hourly
Individuals - Contractors (Doctors, Lawyers, Plumbers etc)
Companies - LLCs, Partnerships etc (still considered persons)
Investors - Simply own shares of companies (considered persons)

There is no pie. Company gets money from investor, hires individuals and buys shyt to run the company. Revenue from sales gets broken down within the company to individuals and overhead. Profits go to Investors

rinse and repeat. If you are an individual your money is auto-capped based on the time you put in working aka you lose constantly.

Whereas the company and investor roles build things soley to sell to multiple customers (aka $$$ not tied to their time), thus they win exponentially (if the market likes the product)

This is not hard to put your head around. Anyone can become a company, just very few try and most that do always do it from the individual mindset.

I understand all of that. Im just saying society is in a pretty bad juncture right now. Capitalism was invented in the fukking 17th century bruh. The planet was an infinite expanse of resources. Its not the 1700s anymore. The entire planet has been subjugated under capitalism, and valuable resources will start to run out in our lifetime. The context is different. In addition to forcing most of the worlds population to live in poverty, capitalism will use up our resources in the near future.

If we were a smart species we would alter the economic model entirely, to save ourselves. We are not a smart enough species to endure this degree of globalization.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

the people doing the "work" ARE NOT THE PRODUCERS

this is the greatest fallacy that yall got to get the fukk over. If im in NJ and i pump gas for Hess. The money that is exchanged from the driver wanting his tank filled up is not with me but with Hess. I get paid for the time i spend doing that job

It is a very distinct but obvious difference

Yet again, you are describing the status quo, you are not defending it. This bullshyt could have come straight from Ayn Rand, you haven't said WHY it should be true. You just accept Hess's claim that their prior possession of money, from whatever source, therefore means that most of the profits from other people's work should also belong to them.

What a stupid fukking system. "We already have money, therefore we get YOUR future money too!" You haven't even tried to defend that system, you just keep repeating its basic existence.



A geologist discovers an oil field using equipment developed by mechanical engineers along with the expertise he developed during his extensive ph.D education followed by continued research. A team of engineers and geologists maps out the oil field and calculates the best place to tap it. Engineers, welders, and other laborers build the necessary equipment in a factory, which is then assembled on site by more engineers, labor managers, and laborers. Eventually the field is drilled and pumping begins, with continual upkeep by laborers as well as various troubleshooting and future planning by the geologists and engineers.

I could keep going through many other levels of the system, but let's stop there. In your scenario, NONE of those people are producers. Instead, the "producer" is just the rich white guy who invested some money from his crook of a father and used it to pay enough Congressmen to grant him the rights to that oil field. Somehow, because he "has money", no matter how he got it, he gets to be designated "the producer" even though other people do all the work. And because he "has money", he gets most of the profits, even though little of the expertise or work is his and if he hadn't been given the rights, someone else would have done the exact same production anyway.

You put far too much stock in "owning money".

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Facts. Dudes in here trying to glamorize capitalism. "Producers". Like Billionaires are all brilliant minds like Steve Jobs. I bet its some dudes close to a billion off of private prisons too. Are they producers?

it's not about glamorizing capitalism, capping monetary gain for an individual doesn't mean you're addressing the other x-number of issues with capitalism. that's what i'm not getting here. i don't have an issue with billionaires existing, i have an issue with the rigged game for the middle. if you fix the obstacles in the middle and that ends up eliminating billionaires, cool. but i by no means believe that capping earnings or taxing them at 100% over a certain amount equates a better outcome for the 99% nor does it mean the other issues with capitalism were addressed. those caps might just mean more payout to other execs, board members and/or large shareholders, reinvested in the company to produce more, stored and hoarded, taxes could easily go to defense spending, hell, maybe even infrastructure, but that still leaves an entire capitalist business structure unchanged.

 

[Serious]

i do understand what a billion is do you is the question?

do you think these folks just be sitting on piles of gold like

owning a business means owning an investment. Probably 95% of it is physical and intangible assets.

billionaires own investments that are worth more than a billion and their worth is their share in that investment.

If that is possible, any random ass dude can think of something to sell and make $1k per month on the side. Folks just cant let the real addiction go (Paychecks)

@DEAD7

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Lets break it down then

Suzy decides to start Bullshyt Lemonade LLC
She begs a bank for 2 years worth of operating capital as a loan
Bullshyt Bank decides they will give her millions of startup capital along with other buffoons

Suzy with money in hand, goes to a soft drink co-packer and negotiates a deal to slap Bullshyt Lemonade label on their blank lemonade bottles at the cost of $0.15 per bottle as long as she buys 5000 per month.
Suzy builds a lemonade stand and begins hiring people to help build it and run the place and spends more of the bank money
Suzy buys marketing to get the word out that Bullshyt Lemonade is here and different and that people should try it

The lemonade stand goes live
Lemonade sales of 100 million units per month

Everyone keeps getting paid, Suzy after paying all of her employees and copackers and marketers etc takes home a profit of $2 billion even though $3billion in revenue (somehow she spends 1billion in operating expense)

Now if you are Suzy, why would you change the amount you pay anyone outside of ensuring smooth operation and high customer satisfaction

Where did that millions of dollars come from in the first place? Was it invented out of nowhere? Why did the bank even have the right to grant that money to Suzie, and why do others not have the same opportunity? Why should the bank's decision to grant Suzie millions of dollars then allow her to dominate the productive capacity of thousands of acres of our nation's land?

If you really know the answers to those questions, and you start to question them instead of accepting blindly, you might begin to realize why the system as it exists is not only unjust by completely unsustainable.

You basically said that because Suzie was the one with a shytload of money, even though she didn't actually do anything to deserve that money, she deserves the bulk of all profits that follow. fukk, she might not even have made any decisions, she could have simply hired someone to make the decisions or bought out part of someone else's company. Where, in your story, does Suzie add any value to society AT ALL?

Because she sure took a lot of value. Is using up the productive capacity of tens of thousands of acres of the country's land and apparently underpaying a shytload of employees too.

screwed over is always going to happen where there is competition...doesn't even have to be in business, can be in sports, the arts, academics, etc.

and most FT employees get stock in tech firms...it should be the norm in all industries IMO, but that's the exact types of things that address the middle being left behind, it has nothing to do with eliminating the ability to become a billionaire. lastly, if you found a company, you're going to have stock options or an ownership stake, that will always have a much bigger upside than someone who just joins as a random worker...i'm sorry, but are you sitting here saying people who start (and head up) successful companies shouldn't be compensated more? if so, i fully disagree

The proportionality is what's insane.

Imagine, for example, that you decided that no one in the company should make more than 900% more than the lowest-paid person in the company. 900% more is a LOT more, saying that you need nine times as much money as someone else needs is a big claim. Perhaps you're essential to the operation, but so are they, otherwise you wouldn't be paying them.

If we kept to very reasonable rules like that, saying that the wealthiest person in the business should only make X times more than the lowest-paid person, then no, we wouldn't have billionaires. Billionaires only exist when people use their financial power to demand WILDLY more compensation than everyone else.

I never said, "people who head up successful companies shouldn't be compensated more". I am talking about the degree of "more" that we're working with. And that, of course, assumes someone heading up a company and doing actual work. A ton of the profits that billionaries make don't come from doing fukk shyt for work, they come from economic rents, from cheating the system due to the inherent advantages of owning wealth and then "letting your money work for you."

And that is simply saying, "I should profit because injustice exists and I'm the beneficiary!" Which is really dumb fukking logic but hey, people naturally root for the status quo.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Where did that millions of dollars come from in the first place? Was it invented out of nowhere? Why did the bank even have the right to grant that money to Suzie, and why do others not have the same opportunity? Why should the bank's decision to grant Suzie millions of dollars then allow her to dominate the productive capacity of thousands of acres of our nation's land?

If you really know the answers to those questions, and you start to question them instead of accepting blindly, you might begin to realize why the system as it exists is not only unjust by completely unsustainable.

You basically said that because Suzie was the one with a shytload of money, even though she didn't actually do anything to deserve that money, she deserves the bulk of all profits that follow. fukk, she might not even have made any decisions, she could have simply hired someone to make the decisions or bought out part of someone else's company. Where, in your story, does Suzie add any value to society AT ALL?

Because she sure took a lot of value. Is using up the productive capacity of tens of thousands of acres of the country's land and apparently underpaying a shytload of employees too.





The proportionality is what's insane.

Imagine, for example, that you decided that no one in the company should make more than 900% more than the lowest-paid person in the company. 900% more is a LOT more, saying that you need nine times as much money as someone else needs is a big claim. Perhaps you're essential to the operation, but so are they, otherwise you wouldn't be paying them.

If we kept to very reasonable rules like that, saying that the wealthiest person in the business should only make X times more than the lowest-paid person, then no, we wouldn't have billionaires. Billionaires only exist when people use their financial power to demand WILDLY more compensation than everyone else.

I never said, "people who head up successful companies shouldn't be compensated more". I am talking about the degree of "more" that we're working with. And that, of course, assumes someone heading up a company and doing actual work. A ton of the profits that billionaries make don't come from doing fukk shyt for work, they come from economic rents, from cheating the system due to the inherent advantages of owning wealth and then "letting your money work for you."

And that is simply saying, "I should profit because injustice exists and I'm the beneficiary!" Which is really dumb fukking logic but hey, people naturally root for the status quo.

breh, at the end of the day, arbitrarily capping pay or eliminating the path to billions doesn't mean capitalist business practices will change or positively effect the other 99%. yall rooting for the elimination of a class of wealth like that up and means problem solved sound illogical. if 99% of people could live "comfortable" lives and billionaires still exist, i don't have a problem with it

 

[MMS]

Where did that millions of dollars come from in the first place? Was it invented out of nowhere? Why did the bank even have the right to grant that money to Suzie, and why do others not have the same opportunity? Why should the bank's decision to grant Suzie millions of dollars then allow her to dominate the productive capacity of thousands of acres of our nation's land?

If you really know the answers to those questions, and you start to question them instead of accepting blindly, you might begin to realize why the system as it exists is not only unjust by completely unsustainable.

You basically said that because Suzie was the one with a shytload of money, even though she didn't actually do anything to deserve that money, she deserves the bulk of all profits that follow. fukk, she might not even have made any decisions, she could have simply hired someone to make the decisions or bought out part of someone else's company. Where, in your story, does Suzie add any value to society AT ALL?

Because she sure took a lot of value. Is using up the productive capacity of tens of thousands of acres of the country's land and apparently underpaying a shytload of employees too.

the reason you're having a hard time is cause you and I dont see money the same way

money is NOT a store of value. It is a MEASURE of value. Like the meter, gram or pound.

When Suzy goes to the bank in reality, she actually has to make a strong argument that the money that the bank gives her is going to be paid back via the scheme (Bullshyt Lemonade LLC) presented to them.

They will only give the money to Suzy if not only is that good but herself and her company has a strong credit history.

Banks are hte only ones that receive money from the Federal Reserve (printing money) because they have done the necessary things as businesses to qualify as banks (IE they need to bring their own money, assets and investors to the table as collateral with the US Government)

What you think is value is completely bs. The work is not valuable AT ALL. The finished product is. Noone gives a fukk that someone bought feed stocks to mold cups, they dont care that the co-packer operates with el salvadoran slave labor, or are awares to what Bullshyt Lemonade does behind the scenes.

They just care about their cup of lemonade.

Ultimately every business is putting the needs of consumer first. The minute they stop doing that is the minute they stop making money

Instead of demanding that a company gives you X to be a part of THEIR company, create your own and do it better and earn money yourself

 

[Strapped]

is 900 million ok?

Noo

 

[Silky Johnson]

breh, at the end of the day, arbitrarily capping pay or eliminating the path to billions doesn't mean capitalist business practices will change or positively effect the other 99%.

That's exactly what it means. Instead of the race to the bottom to fukk over the people in the middle for unlimited revenue, business practices will have to change in ways that positively effect the other 99% or they won't compete.

If you can apply a salary cap to sports teams and athletes, you can apply one to corporations and execs. It's still capitalism and it's still business.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

That's exactly what it means. Instead of the race to the bottom to fukk over the people in the middle for unlimited revenue, business practices will have to change in ways that positively effect the other 99% or they won't compete.

If you can apply a salary cap to sports teams and athletes, you can apply one to corporations and execs. It's still capitalism and it's still business.

no it's not, just because the pay of top people is capped doesn't mean the practices of the business will change...your sports analogy shows exactly that, take the NFL - capped pay for athletes and shytty business practices by the business - not honoring contracts, not paying health claims, up and trading or cutting people, franchise tags, etc.

yall are bugging if you think just capping pay means businesses won't still exploit lower paid employees, exploit local communities, monopolize natural resources, form monopolies, price gouge, pollute, avoid paying taxes, raise wages, provide quality health care or guaranteed pensions. that money will just go back into the pockets of other shareholders or be reinvested in operations that help them expand and exert more control.

billionaires are not capitalism, they are one possible outcome, capitalism is an institutional economic practice. eliminating one possible outcome does not mean you've changed the structure that causes harm.

 

[ogc163]

Only Singer actually dealt with the motion as constructed. Anand's point that it is immoral for billionaires to stand by and do nothing was a decent point, but still doesn't get to the point of the motion.

Being a billionaire is not inherently immoral, but the actions taken to obtain and sustain billionaire status is often immoral. And the influence and impact they have on the political system usually undermines the tenets of democracy. But I am skeptical of the creation of wealth caps and their practicality, especially in terms of enforcement. It can be argued that increasing taxes on Billionaires will lead to more revenue, but deficits could still remain high if government spending increases at the same time. And increased government revenue doesn't necessarily mean that it will go to social programs. At best the government obtains more revenue, but that doesn't move the needle on the issue of inequality or quality of life. Therefore, billionaires will likely continue acting immorally and their respective place in the system will remain the same.

 

[rapbeats]

Millionaires and billionaires existing isn't a problem and they should exist. The issue when those Mers and Bers require the suffering and force poverty of the masses to be Mers and Bers. When that is the case, then no they shouldn't exist.

So sounds like they shouldnt exist.

Otherwise you will have to explain to us, how can they possibly get that rich without exploiting people and the system? Is that possible?

The only way i see that happening is on a select few fronts. one obvious one. someone comes up with an insane idea for some product or service or something. and that thing gets bought out by some billion dollar corporation. but see...we still have to first have some billion dollar(s) person or corp to pull this off.

that mine craft dude got that kind of money for selling mind craft. so i dont think he necessarily had to do anyone dirty or cheat the system. but most people do. and he took the money from a company who most likely has and will continue to cheat people and the system in order to keep making that crazy money.

so again, how can you make a billi without a billi shady company out there to give it to you in a sell or without you running over people and the political economic system?

 

[Silky Johnson]

no it's not, just because the pay of top people is capped doesn't mean the practices of the business will change...your sports analogy shows exactly that, take the NFL - capped pay for athletes and shytty business practices by the business - not honoring contracts, not paying health claims, up and trading or cutting people, franchise tags, etc.

yall are bugging if you think just capping pay means businesses won't still exploit lower paid employees, exploit local communities, monopolize natural resources, form monopolies, price gouge, pollute, avoid paying taxes, raise wages, provide quality health care or guaranteed pensions. that money will just go back into the pockets of other shareholders or be reinvested in operations that help them expand and exert more control.

billionaires are not capitalism, they are one possible outcome, capitalism is an institutional economic practice. eliminating one possible outcome does not mean you've changed the structure that causes harm.

A team with poor business practices does not attract or retain quality players and therefore fail to remain competitive in the market (in the nfl, think of the mess that are the jets and browns. Nba the knicks). The leagues themselves do Wtf they want because the owners (billionaires) aren't held to the same restrictions as the organizations.

Put another way, they busted up unions for precisely these reasons. If the lowest workers had common rights and benefits regardless of company, the incentive would be on the business to do better by their people or risk losing the people that actually produce what they make money from.