Topic: Should billionaires exist?

[Mutton Geoff]

Also if you are of the view all Billionaires are evil then maybe Bill Gates was the wrong horse to ride to make that point. I can think of one or two closer to home which might have been a better fit.

In the end Gates and his team invented something because he noticed a niche in the market was not being filled and how many of us use his products now even to moan about him in here?

I cant help but think some of this comes downs to the politics of envy.

[Red Viper]

Socialist RAWK there, with a 50/50 split on "should billionaires exist" 

This place is no more a socialist forum than it is a Man City forum, mate. You clearly haven't been in the News subforum for a while.

[Red Viper]

You guys are all right by the way. It's totally fine for a half dozen or so people to control over half the world's wealth. Why wouldn't this be a problem?

Fucks sake, some of the stuff I read on this place lately makes me cringe so much.

[Elmo!]

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way round. In an ideal world people should be able to be rich and if you are not rich you should not have anyone being poor or in poverty.

The way I see it you should ask the question 'Should poverty exist?' (which I'm sure everyone on here can agree on) and then if the existence of billionaires precludes the eradication of poverty then you have a case for saying they shouldn't exist, but there is nothing wrong per se with someone being a billionaire.

[Mutton Geoff]

You guys are all right by the way. It's totally fine for a half dozen or so people to control over half the world's wealth. Why wouldn't this be a problem?

Fucks sake, some of the stuff I read on this place lately makes me cringe so much.

is this your bid to be the top red in Rawk?

First in your OTT diatribe nobody is fine and dandy with the way wealth is spread out in this world, however as Elmo said you are looking at it the wrong way , we should have political stategies in place on a global scale to eradicate poverty and improve the lives of all  but that is if the political leaders have the will to do so and frankly they don't.

Certainly your Billionaires cannot change the world on their own, mind you it seems at least Bill Gates is trying. If all these billionaires gave up all their wealth away tomorrow do you think it would filter down to the least well off or just many more would filter off  their share and become a new millionaires/billionaires?

 

[vagabond]

An academic's take on the grift of philanthropy.

But honestly, the only reason this is being discussed is because nobody can defend the institutional power that billionaires have. The best that they can do is say 'well look, at least some of them are nice and use their unaccountable power and wealth to do good things!' This is such a bad argument that I don't know why it's still being made. The point is whether or not they deserve that kind of power as a class of people, not whether they are individually ethical with their money.

[Red Viper]

is this your bid to be the top red in Rawk?

First in your OTT diatribe nobody is fine and dandy with the way wealth is spread out in this world, however as Elmo said you are looking at it the wrong way , we should have political stategies in place on a global scale to eradicate poverty and improve the lives of all  but that is if the political leaders have the will to do so and frankly they don't.

Certainly your Billionaires cannot change the world on their own, mind you it seems at least Bill Gates is trying. If all these billionaires gave up all their wealth away tomorrow do you think it would filter down to the least well off or just many more would filter off  their share and become a new millionaires/billionaires?

Why can't billionaires change the world on their own? They certainly have the resources and power to.

[Strummer77]

Why don't you become good at something, amass a considerable wealth and give it all away? It all seems piss easy!

The whole point is it is almost impossible for anyone from a 'normal' background to become that rich however good they get at it. It may involve talent but it also relies on huge amounts of luck and circumstance - and probably a shitton of favours or foul play along the way.

Meanwhile there are literally millions of people in this country who are good at what they do but still struggle to get by because the deluded are letting people hoard wealth.

And Cpt_Reina would sooner have the likes of Trump and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson dictate where and how to spend $100bn than Bill Gates. That just shows the sense behind his argument.

Loathe the Tories but the fact you would rather have a financial dictatorship run by a tech nerd over an elected democracy says a lot.

To be honest it's a rubbish point anyway, as 'Johnson or billionaires' is a moot point - billionaires control Johnson and the Tory party policy anyway. If you let people hoard wealth, they will have power and will dictate.

[Strummer77]

If people want to full 'Everton' on all billionaires just remember the one who saved our club and put us back to where we are today.

Oh this is a fun game!

What about the one who bought us in 2007 and almost bankrupted the club?

What about that wrinkly Australian c*nt who owns the Sun?

[Mutton Geoff]

Why can't billionaires change the world on their own? They certainly have the resources and power to.

To begin with it takes a massive amount of infrastructure to eradicate poverty throughout the world, does one individual or even a small group of individuals working seperately have that,  rather than global governments?
The power they have is to put pressure on governments to eradicate poverty, you could argue many should do that for the sake of the rest  but that is a different discussion and one i would agree with.

But you cant blame Bill Gates for the corrupt political systems and financial systems which leave a great amount of people destitute.

[Mutton Geoff]

Oh this is a fun game!

What about the one who bought us in 2007 and almost bankrupted the club?

What about that wrinkly Australian c*nt who owns the Sun?

They are bastards because they are bastards and would be if they were skint or rich.

[TepidT2O]

Again, I think we get confused between asset billionaires and cash billionaires.

If you own a successful company that goes global then being an asset billionaire is going to happen no matter how much you pay your staff or how much tax you pay.

It’s the inherent worth of your company.

I totally agree multinationals should be pinned down on tax much much more. I agree they should pay staff more when they can.  I agree that they should involve staff in the ownership of the company.

But the fact remains that if you start start and own a company that goes multinational, it’s somewhat inevitable that you end up as a billionaire as your company becomes more valuable.

[vagabond]

If people want to full 'Everton' on all billionaires just remember the one who saved our club and put us back to where we are today.

Is this a joke? There are hundreds of thousands visiting food banks every day while a few dozen are sitting on more money than they can spend in 7 lifetimes and you think it's fine because they saved your hobby horse?

[Strummer77]

They are bastards because they are bastards and would be if they were skint or rich.

What a load of tosh. The fact Rupert Murdoch has obscene amount money and thus power has enabled him to destroy thousands if not millions of lives. It’s an entirely valid counterpoint to the idea billionaires are good because John Henry isn’t a complete wanker.

[TepidT2O]

What a load of tosh. The fact Rupert Murdoch has obscene amount money and thus power has enabled him to destroy thousands if not millions of lives. It’s an entirely valid counterpoint to the idea billionaires are good because John Henry isn’t a complete wanker.

But that’s because Murdoch has a near monopoly surely?

And that should have been stopped.

Your argument is against monopolies rather than billionaire

[Mutton Geoff]

What a load of tosh. The fact Rupert Murdoch has obscene amount money and thus power has enabled him to destroy thousands if not millions of lives. It’s an entirely valid counterpoint to the idea billionaires are good because John Henry isn’t a complete wanker.

You are a classic case of the politics of envy, so lets just for try this for fun,  how do you think the world would look with no billionaires within it ? Would you want everyone to have enough to live with and no more so everyone is at the same financial level ?  Nothing to aspire to become, no need to try to create products for the benefit of others as there is no personal gain in taking the risk.

I have no problem with some self made people who create something we all use now to make our lives better.

I would also add i think like that even though i am on the streets helping rough sleepers a couple of nights each week, but i blame all governments for that rather than the Bill Gates of this world.

[Snail]

Would you want everyone to have enough to live with and no more so everyone is at the same financial level ?

Yes.

[TepidT2O]

Yes.

Your ideals are admirable.

But is this something that is realistically possible?

[vagabond]

Your ideals are admirable.

But is this something that is realistically possible?

Isn't this a thread about about what should be the case, and not what is merely realistically possible?

[Mutton Geoff]

Yes.

So then why would you bother working or educating yourself to get a better job for example a decent car, etc nothing to strive for don't you think that would be a bit boring?

Even in Communist societies there are divisions of wealth and power.

[Mutton Geoff]

Isn't this a thread about about what should be the case, and not what is merely realistically possible?

Idealism V Realism

[TepidT2O]

Isn't this a thread about about what should be the case, and not what is merely realistically possible?

Is that not a reasonable next step in the discussion?

Because fir me the practicalities kill what is in essence a sound ideal

[Cpt_Reina]

"I would sooner Bill Gates have the money to spend rather than a democratic system enforced by checks and balances as well as giving me the regular opportunity to vote them out if they spend incorrectly" is one step removed from a Lords and Ladies of the land dictating to their peasants how the fruits of that land are returned to them if at all.

Its a bootlicker mentality if ever there was one and a step backwards.

Please Mr Gates bequeath me with some of your wealth and pay for a school for my kids to attend.

[Strummer77]

You are a classic case of the politics of envy,

Lol at this ad hominem - you can do one with this generalisation. 'Politics of envy' is such a pathetic trope. I'm not rich but comfortable financially and could earn more if I wanted to. I have no burning desire to be rich, I just don't think people should be allowed unlimited personal wealth whilst others die because they don't have any. Radical stuff!

Would you want everyone to have enough to live with and no more so everyone is at the same financial level ?  Nothing to aspire to become, no need to try to create products for the benefit of others as there is no personal gain in taking the risk.

Are you actually saying that unless you become a billionaire there is nothing to aspire to? No reason to create and inspire and innovate unless you can make billions of pounds?

I have no problem with some self made people who create something we all use now to make our lives better.

So because Jeff Bezos made our life easier through Amazon it's ok for him to hoard money that could literally save lives?

I would also add i think like that even though i am on the streets helping rough sleepers a couple of nights each week, but i blame all governments for that rather than the Bill Gates of this world.

I am blaming the governments. I'm blaming the governments for allowing obscene levels of wealth inequality. I am blaming a system that allows this to happen.

[Strummer77]

So then why would you bother working or educating yourself to get a better job for example a decent car, etc nothing to strive for don't you think that would be a bit boring?

Even in Communist societies there are divisions of wealth and power.

You can buy a car without becoming a billionaire you know?

[Kashinoda]

I'd sooner the $100b be taken out of his hands tomorrow and not be spent according to his own whims, but according to elected officials through a democratic process.

Whilst im here, Bill Gates' foundation and his investments...they wouldnt by any chance possibly be contributing to any off the issues he's outwardly looking to resolve are they? Or profiteering from his own donations on the flipside?

All of his investments are highly ethical and fit for purpose, I'm assuming?

Wouldn't be like a billionaire to be invested in unsustainable or untoward practices would it, this stuff is all made public and highly visible right?

Why don't you check the Foundations contributions? It's a transparent organisation.

Here's the top 5, you can check the others yourself.

Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization - $3.1b
World Health Organization - $1.5b
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria - $777m
PATH (global health organization) - $635m
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - $465m

[Cpt_Reina]

Why don't you check the Foundations contributions? It's a transparent organisation.

Here's the top 5, you can check the others yourself.

Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization - $3.1b
World Health Organization - $1.5b
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria - $777m
PATH (global health organization) - $635m
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - $465m

And Gates' private investments?

[Kashinoda]

And Gates' private investments?

If you want to check Gate's investments look at Cascade Investment.

If you want to check the Foundations investments, check the foundation.

Again, not sure if there's anything untoward here.

[Strummer77]

But that’s because Murdoch has a near monopoly surely?

And that should have been stopped.

Your argument is against monopolies rather than billionaire

It's both, clearly. The argument was billionaires = good because John Henry saved us. So going by that notion, if we are accepting billionaires' wealth enables them do 'good things', we can't pretend that wealth isn't also enabling awful things to happen.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

So then why would you bother working or educating yourself to get a better job for example a decent car, etc nothing to strive for don't you think that would be a bit boring?

Even in Communist societies there are divisions of wealth and power.

exactly, we aren’t all equal and everyone being on the same amount would be ridiculously unfair and there wouldn’t be any progression in society, as why would you bother when you can’t reap the rewards? Why bother training to be a doctor when I can make the same amount working at McDonald’s or a data entry office job?

Good reason why the ex communist countries wanted capitalism and not the other way round, the old joke about the East German officials getting giddy at seeing different types of cheese in western supermarkets and all that

[Lush is the best medicine...]

It's both, clearly. The argument was billionaires = good because John Henry saved us. So going by that notion, if we are accepting billionaires' wealth enables them do 'good things', we can't pretend that wealth isn't also enabling awful things to happen.

theres good and bad rich people like there are good and bad poor people, one doesn’t mean you are automatically bad or good

[KeithK83]

So then why would you bother working or educating yourself to get a better job for example a decent car, etc nothing to strive for don't you think that would be a bit boring?

Even in Communist societies there are divisions of wealth and power.

With respect, the idea that we are motivated to do anything only to accumulate material wealth is an insult to the very concept of sentient life.  We strive for things because we have consciousness, awareness and intelligence. Life without the incessant need for accumulation to survive might afford us the chance take a less destructive path as individuals and as a species.

Communist societies were statist hierarchies where power was concentrated in the hands of the few. That particular implementation of what was called communism is not the only one possible but more a perversion of socialism designed to legitimise and reinforce certain power structures. basically human history 101 with whatever 'ism' you want to insert there.

[Snail]

Why bother training to be a doctor when I can make the same amount working at McDonald’s or a data entry office job?

Doctors do it for the money, do they?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Might I suggest some (easily Googleable) background reading? There is an awful lot of speculation espoused here as though it is fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-28/bill-gates-says-rich-should-pay-more-taxes/4718650

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Taxes

It is not as though I think Gates and Buffet are above criticism. But at least get the target of your criticism right.

[vagabond]

theres good and bad rich people like there are good and bad poor people, one doesn’t mean you are automatically bad or good

Except a bad poor person has no power. A bad rich person gets to control the media and politicians. How is this equivalent?

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Doctors do it for the money, do they?

of course there are loads who do, 6 years training and getting in loads of debt of course it’s a money thing, go look at how many people do nursing

[Snail]

of course there are loads who do, 6 years training and getting in loads of debt of course it’s a money thing, go look at how many people do nursing

With respect, that’s absurd.

[TepidT2O]

With respect, the idea that we are motivated to do anything only to accumulate material wealth is an insult to the very concept of sentient life.  We strive for things because we have consciousness, awareness and intelligence. Life without the incessant need for accumulation to survive might afford us the chance take a less destructive path as individuals and as a species.

Communist societies were statist hierarchies where power was concentrated in the hands of the few. That particular implementation of what was called communism is not the only one possible but more a perversion of socialism designed to legitimise and reinforce certain power structures. basically human history 101 with whatever 'ism' you want to insert there.

I do think there is an ‘instinct’ to acquire or hoard more.  That’s not to say that people can’t override that, but it’s there.
And it can just be a desire to be better, do more, be the best.
And I think for some people who build their own company, it’s just that.  It’s not wealth or power for many (although it is for some).

As for the destructive path as a species? It’s common in nature, end product inhibition, over predation leading to population crash...
We are nothing if not animals

[vagabond]

Quite startling that posters here can't imagine anything but money motivating people.

[Cpt_Reina]

Where is the correlation between earning 100k-250k in a profession such as being a doctor and being a billionaire?

There isn't one. These two things are in no way the same.

Its like people can't conceive of just how far removed billionaires are from the rest of us, they're not just 'well off' they're robber barons.