Should billionaires exist? 「Yes or No」

[Carrelie]

Millionaires are fine. Billionaires are meh. If they contribute to society and earned those billions accordingly, they're okay.
We shouldn't be forcing people to give up their hard-earned cash

[Cordel One]

Millionaires are fine. Billionaires are meh. If they contribute to society and earned those billions accordingly, they're okay.
We shouldn't be forcing people to give up their hard-earned cash

The problem is they didn't earn it.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Millionaires are fine. Billionaires are meh. If they contribute to society and earned those billions accordingly, they're okay.
We shouldn't be forcing people to give up their hard-earned cash

A lot of the time, they didn't earn shit.

[Fahran]

The problem is they didn't earn it.

How exactly does one "earn" their wealth?

A lot of the time, they didn't earn shit.

Same question as above.

[Cordel One]

I wrote a bit addressing the economic factors on page 1

Given I think that the labor theory of value is complete nonsense on a fundamental level, I didn't find your argument altogether persuasive. Labor has no intrinsic value, and that becomes apparent almost immediately when we take the example of an incompetent baker compared to a maestro baker or, even more magnificently, when we substitute the incompetent baker for a child creating mudpies.

Marxism is refuted by high school economics.

High school economics are outdated and discredited by the reality of supply and demand. Besides that, the bourgeoisie are not necessary for labor to remain organized and professional.

[Lord Dominator]

I wrote a bit addressing the economic factors on page 1

Given I think that the labor theory of value is complete nonsense on a fundamental level, I didn't find your argument altogether persuasive. Labor has no intrinsic value, and that becomes apparent almost immediately when we take the example of an incompetent baker compared to a maestro baker or, even more magnificently, when we substitute the incompetent baker for a child creating mudpies.

Marxism is refuted by high school economics.

Of further note, while the first artificial scarcity link is decent, the second is about farmers destroying crops because they no longer have customers (and generally have already donated what they can), which is an unrelated thing to deliberate scarcity as such, and the link relating to pollution is not really about general corporate/human malfeasance rather than wealth distribution.

[Sanghyeok]

Millionaires are fine. Billionaires are meh. If they contribute to society and earned those billions accordingly, they're okay.
We shouldn't be forcing people to give up their hard-earned cash

As others have mentioned, the problem is they didn't earn it.

[Fahran]

Of further note, while the first artificial scarcity link is decent, the second is about farmers destroying crops because they no longer have customers (and generally have already donated what they can), which is an unrelated thing to deliberate scarcity as such, and the link relating to pollution is not really about general corporate/human malfeasance rather than wealth distribution.

This is accurate. And, to be honest, artificial scarcity with luxury or semi-luxury isn't altogether ground-breaking or damning as an aspect of a broader economic system. We can develop solutions to the problem that aren't "seize the corporation" or "abolish capitalism." They're far more bureaucratic and boring, but they'd address perceived waste a lot more effectively and while minimizing risk. With agricultural goods, you can address "artificial" food shortages by improving food infrastructure and setting up a government food dole. If the government bids on grain, corn, and meat at higher prices, farmers and ranchers don't face the option of destroying products to keep prices sustainable or going out of business to create "artificial" scarcity of food.

[Cordel One]

Given I think that the labor theory of value is complete nonsense on a fundamental level, I didn't find your argument altogether persuasive. Labor has no intrinsic value, and that becomes apparent almost immediately when we take the example of an incompetent baker compared to a maestro baker or, even more magnificently, when we substitute the incompetent baker for a child creating mudpies.

Marxism is refuted by high school economics.

Of further note, while the first artificial scarcity link is decent, the second is about farmers destroying crops because they no longer have customers (and generally have already donated what they can), which is an unrelated thing to deliberate scarcity as such, and the link relating to pollution is not really about general corporate/human malfeasance rather than wealth distribution.

They rarely do donate what they can, especially not the large industrial farms. On top of the article I linked earlier, you might want to read this. It's not profitable to give away food, so most large agricultural companies just throw it away. This is even worse than the destruction of other commodities as food is a necessity that many people don't have access to.

[Cordel One]

The problem is they didn't earn it.

How exactly does one "earn" their wealth?

The only legitimate way to earn wealth is through contribution to the community with one's own labor.

[Fahran]

High school economics are outdated and discredited by the reality of supply and demand.

High school economics are pretty much rooted in a very simplistic idea of supply and demand. We learned the basics of most modern schools of economics - Austrian, Keynesian, Classical, etc. Marxism's labor theory of value, more or less, completely ignores supply and demand by trying to claim an intrinsic value for goods and services based on socially necessary labor. Which is why we're getting some of the frankly bizarre claims we're getting in this thread - that people who received millions in compensation working as managers or executives didn't "earn" it.

Besides that, the bourgeoisie are not necessary for labor to remain organized and professional.

Yes, they are. You absolutely require accumulated capital, financial instruments, and such in order to acquire expensive assets and produce revenue in many sectors. You need accountants if you're going to continue to regulate internal controls and audit corporations to discourage fraud. You need corporate managers who can engage in financial analysis and engage in market research in order to formulate business strategy. And these remain necessary even for successful state-owned corporations. Smaller companies can get away with running wholly as cooperatives, but larger ones aren't going to be competitive without a division of labor and compensation based on the market value of skills and expertise. And, really, the old dichotomy between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is breaking down anyway.

[Fahran]

The only legitimate way to earn wealth is through contribution to the community with one's own labor.

Management is a form of labor. And capital is still vitally important in many industries. If you don't offer incentives for capital, you have to figure out another sustainable way to receive it.

[Cordel One]

High school economics are outdated and discredited by the reality of supply and demand.

High school economics are pretty much rooted in a very simplistic idea of supply and demand. We learned the basics of most modern schools of economics - Austrian, Keynesian, Classical, etc. Marxism's labor theory of value, more or less, completely ignores supply and demand by trying to claim an intrinsic value for goods and services based on socially necessary labor. Which is why we're getting some of the frankly bizarre claims we're getting in this thread - that people who received millions in compensation working as managers or executives didn't "earn" it.

A very simplistic and outdated idea of supply and demand that doesn't take modern scarcities into account. All labor that contributes to a greater need has value, and managing those people has no more value than the work itself.

Besides that, the bourgeoisie are not necessary for labor to remain organized and professional.

Yes, they are. You absolutely require accumulated capital, financial instruments, and such in order to acquire expensive assets and produce revenue in many sectors. You need accountants if you're going to continue to regulate internal controls and audit corporations to discourage fraud. You need corporate managers who can engage in financial analysis and engage in market research in order to formulate business strategy. And these remain necessary even for successful state-owned corporations. Smaller companies can get away with running wholly as cooperatives, but larger ones aren't going to be competitive without a division of labor and compensation based on the market value of skills and expertise.

Labor an have organization and management without an exploitative hierarchy. Business strategy won't matter, but distribution absolutely will. Everything that isn't a cooperative can be broken up, and everything that remains can be organized in a way that doesn't put the workers' labor value in a CEO's pockets.

The only legitimate way to earn wealth is through contribution to the community with one's own labor.

Management is a form of labor. And capital is still vitally important in many industries. If you don't offer incentives for capital, you have to figure out another sustainable way to receive it.

Management contributes to the community and requires one's own labor. Capital will be less relevant when the means of production are in the hands of the workers.

[Lord Dominator]

Of further note, while the first artificial scarcity link is decent, the second is about farmers destroying crops because they no longer have customers (and generally have already donated what they can), which is an unrelated thing to deliberate scarcity as such, and the link relating to pollution is not really about general corporate/human malfeasance rather than wealth distribution.

They rarely do donate what they can, especially not the large industrial farms.

Not in general probably (as typically food is simply not harvested, based on other sources, rather than generically thrown out), but your specific article specifically said that they did.

On top of the article I linked earlier, you might want to read this. It's not profitable to give away food, so most large agricultural companies just throw it away.

That says for the most part that they don't (or can't) harvest it for cost reasons, which is a different problem that can be fixed more easily.

This is even worse than the destruction of other commodities as food is a necessity that many people don't have access to.

Logistical issues are indeed a problem, but the solution needn't involve upending all of society to fix such.

[Odreria]

The problem is they didn't earn it.

How exactly does one "earn" their wealth?

By creating value for other people.

High school economics are outdated and discredited by the reality of supply and demand.

High school economics are pretty much rooted in a very simplistic idea of supply and demand. We learned the basics of most modern schools of economics - Austrian, Keynesian, Classical, etc. Marxism's labor theory of value, more or less, completely ignores supply and demand by trying to claim an intrinsic value for goods and services based on socially necessary labor.

That's not true at all. Marx acknowledged that an increase in supply can lower the price of a good, and an increase in demand can raise the price. Socially necessary labor is an attempt to explain the price of a good when supply and demand are in equilibrium.

The only legitimate way to earn wealth is through contribution to the community with one's own labor.

Management is a form of labor.

Of course it is. And it should be rewarded the same way as other kinds of labor.

[Fahran]

By creating value for other people.

Then pretty much everyone has earned their wealth in some respect.

That's not true at all. Marx acknowledged that an increase in supply can lower the price of a good, and an increase in demand can raise the price. Socially necessary labor is an attempt to explain the price of a good when supply and demand are in equilibrium.

The problem is that socially necessary labor, at least as I have heard it explained, does not seem to treat labor in the same way as any other good or service and relies on rationalizing away the impact of capital in generating profits so that only labor remains as a determinant of value. Subjective preferences, in my view, provides a more elegant solution to the problem and, indeed, is much easy to substantiate than trying to salvage Marxian economics.

Of course it is. And it should be rewarded the same way as other kinds of labor.

Compensation according to perceived value of the labor?

[Odreria]

By creating value for other people.

Then pretty much everyone has earned their wealth in some respect.

Depends how you define "people."

That's not true at all. Marx acknowledged that an increase in supply can lower the price of a good, and an increase in demand can raise the price. Socially necessary labor is an attempt to explain the price of a good when supply and demand are in equilibrium.

The problem is that socially necessary labor, at least as I have heard it explained, does not seem to treat labor in the same way as any other good or service and relies on rationalizing away the impact of capital in generating profits so that only labor remains as a determinant of value. Subjective preferences, in my view, provides a more elegant solution to the problem and, indeed, is much easy to substantiate than trying to salvage Marxian economics.

Perhaps but that's a completely different argument.

Of course it is. And it should be rewarded the same way as other kinds of labor.

Compensation according to perceived value of the labor?

Perceived by who?

[Fahran]

Depends how you define "people."

What do you mean by people then?

Perhaps but that's a completely different argument.

I don't really see it as altogether distinct since it doesn't occur to me at all to treat labor as determining the value of a good or service for precisely the reasons I highlighted. The assumption I made is that labor lacks intrinsic value in much the same way that all other goods and services lack intrinsic value. If we concede that not all labor possesses equal value (or even positive value), that the value of labor is subjective, that capital and natural resources can play a more significant role in determining subjective value of goods and services, and that labor, goods, and services, being exchanged in different markets, may possess different subjective values, then it remains practically impossible to hold to Marxian economics. Or to make axiomatic statements about desserts and billionaires in an economic context. You can still potentially make social arguments, but we have better solutions for those arguments in the form of social democracy or Rhine capitalism.

And all of these assumptions seem very intuitive if you look at how a modern economy functions or even at the earlier examples of a pie chef and a child playing in the mud.

Perceived by who?

Whoever is providing the compensation.

[Ethel mermania]

A person earns their money legally they are entitled to keep it.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Behind every great fortune lies a great crime. No.

[Romextly]

Not really. Millionares though yes

[Odreria]

Depends how you define "people."

What do you mean by people then?

Perhaps but that's a completely different argument.

You can still potentially make social arguments, but we have better solutions for those arguments in the form of social democracy or Rhine capitalism.

lol

Perceived by who?

Whoever is providing the compensation.

First obergefell, now this.

[Deus Ignis]

yes billionaires should exist, why?
Because (unlike popular opinion) most of the rich and wealthy spend more money then they make.
Why do they do this? Because it helps their business to keep the money flowing around the global market then to leave it in their vaults, where it will become worthless.

This is why this saying poped up:
Money makes the world go round

[Postauthoritarian America]

A person earns their money legally they are entitled to keep it.

A privileged minority rigs the system so that no law can be made or enforced that would challenge their ability to continue to exploit others in order to enrich themselves and then claims the veil of legality for their depradations, they need to be taxed until they howl.

yes billionaires should exist, why?
Because (unlike popular opinion) most of the rich and wealthy spend more money then they make.
Why do they do this? Because it helps their business to keep the money flowing around the global market then to leave it in their vaults, where it will become worthless.

This is why this saying poped up:
Money makes the world go round

By that logic, if 1,000 people would spend more of a billion dollars if they were given $100,000 each than one billionaire then the billionaire has no right to his or her money. I think you'll find the middle and lower classes spend money more productively for the economy as a whole than your average billionaire.

[Cordel One]

They rarely do donate what they can, especially not the large industrial farms.

Not in general probably (as typically food is simply not harvested, based on other sources, rather than generically thrown out), but your specific article specifically said that they did.

On top of the article I linked earlier, you might want to read this. It's not profitable to give away food, so most large agricultural companies just throw it away.

That says for the most part that they don't (or can't) harvest it for cost reasons, which is a different problem that can be fixed more easily.

This is even worse than the destruction of other commodities as food is a necessity that many people don't have access to.

Logistical issues are indeed a problem, but the solution needn't involve upending all of society to fix such.

Even if we did fix the problem with food we'd still have companies exploiting the working class, violating environmental laws for profit, and starting wars for their own benefit. Capitalism is not ethical or sustainable, and as long as we have a society driven by greed it will remain that way.