Should billionaires exist? 「Yes or No」

[ImperialRussia]

Billionaires should exist under the influence of the government they will decide what is the will of the nation get what to decide what better or the worst that it can self get into as a rich collective to determine a nations future. Accepting billionaires as your overlord are the wonder of life turning society into a technocracy or a dictatorship determine if better society through a socialism for the betterment of human through robotics. Billionaires should exist but the money they earn should be entitled before they die to other geniuses from a nation into society better for a nation. Billionaires should be entitled to their money under government because they have a say in congress to turn society for a better or worst for a nation they’ll change a government need and whim to have a say as a collective in earning mass amounts of wealth as a billionaire. Billionaires exist because they changed the world and decided the out come of the human race where once they decide what fate of the world to destroy it or restore is a ever ending conflict from the old and new all the need is to proceed what benefits society through normalcy so the populace don’t have to worry about anything in there government only billionaires have to worry to change the whim of a nation’s future for the better or worst out of its outcome to decide it decisions if it benefits a collective.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

As long as we make sure they don't exploit their workers through harsh laws, billionaires and trillionaires should be allowed to exist.

[Nolo gap]

people are welcome to enjoy what fortune comes their way, as long as the do so considerately and it comes their way considerately as well.

as for should, the concept of economic status need not exist at all. absurd privilege need not accompany fortune.

[Witiland]

See what I don't like about the question is what its asking. Heck yes billionaires should exist... now the real question lies whether they should be taxed. See if you know a little about philopshy there was this guy (forgot his name) and he said men are all naturally selfish. And while I do think everyone has good in them, we are all naturally selfish. Now in order to check ones selfishness we therefore need a government to regulate and keep those rich people in check. I believe in government that changes how it treats the rich depending on certain circumstances. When was the last time a government lasted forever? Never... every government usually ends (although sometimes not I'll say why alter) in violence, blood, and gory revolutions. Why though? Well if one looks carefully at all of history, the most violent revolutions happened in governments that refused to one appeal to the needs of the people which leads to two substantially change how they run things. Therefore the only way to advance and move on was to kill murder and destroy. However imagine how much better it would be if the Tsar appealed to the demands of his people, or if King George III did not tax the colonies? I believe then as Thomas Jefferson put it "“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion." How about this let me put in in these terms. Have you ever gone to school and right when you entered the classroom realized you forgot top study for the test today? How good did you do? Most likely terrible. In the same way many ideologies (actually all that i know of) say that changing to something else is bad. See ideologies are too strict and that's why they fail so badly. A successful government is one that changes physically politically and economically. However while there should be basic values such as human rights, the government must still change according to the times and needs of people. You cannot be surprised by a revolution if you the government started it...

I call this Governmental Changism, a system that also changes according to the times...

[Nobel Hobos 2]

See what I don't like about the question is what its asking. Heck yes billionaires should exist... now the real question lies whether they should be taxed. See if you know a little about philopshy there was this guy (forgot his name) and he said men are all naturally selfish.

Well that's plainly wrong: shellfish are not actually fish.

And while I do think everyone has good in them, we are all naturally selfish. Now in order to check ones selfishness we therefore need a government to regulate and keep those rich people in check. I believe in government that changes how it treats the rich depending on certain circumstances. When was the last time a government lasted forever? Never... every government usually ends (although sometimes not I'll say why alter) in violence, blood, and gory revolutions. Why though? Well if one looks carefully at all of history, the most violent revolutions happened in governments that refused to one appeal to the needs of the people which leads to two substantially change how they run things. Therefore the only way to advance and move on was to kill murder and destroy. However imagine how much better it would be if the Tsar appealed to the demands of his people, or if King George III did not tax the colonies? I believe then as Thomas Jefferson put it "“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion." How about this let me put in in these terms. Have you ever gone to school and right when you entered the classroom realized you forgot top study for the test today? How good did you do? Most likely terrible. In the same way many ideologies (actually all that i know of) say that changing to something else is bad.

Changing into an elf is generally agreed to be bad. About the only way it could be worse would be changing into a black elf. You'd get racisted so bad, you'd best go live in the woods!

See ideologies are too strict and that's why they fail so badly. A successful government is one that changes physically politically and economically. However while there should be basic values such as human rights, the government must still change according to the times and needs of people. You cannot be surprised by a revolution if you the government started it...

I call this Governmental Changism, a system that also changes according to the times...

Changing to suit the needs of the people begs the difficult question "what is best for the people?"

Well government could ask the people (by referendum for instance) but this doesn't measure well what the people want strongly. Asking them how strongly the want something, isn't much better: being a political issue, a few might express complete indifference but the others will polarize strongly Yes and No to the proposed change.

Government should respond to what the people demand. It's only when the people are made aware of the downsides, the cost to them of what they demand, that the true strength of their demand becomes apparent. For this is it necessary to have an Opposition, to make the case against change, and only after that listen to the People. Their support for change WILL be more muted now, than it was after they had heard only the Government's proposal for change. But this is necessary to avoid Government proceeding with changes the People (without having thought it through) grow to resent when made ... which causes the People themselves to become indifferent and conservative. This is sometimes glamorized as "the government they deserve" and it is supposed they will "learn from their mistake" but they don't see it that way (they blame government) and all they learn is not to make demands. Opposition is essential to urge the People against making ill-considered choices.

The most difficult step is to avoid Government and Opposition fostering Two Parties, taking turns being Government. A partial and inadequate solution to have a system which creates multiple parties, which usually need to form coalitions to perform the role of Government and Opposition. This is inadequate because the same coalition (or with minor party additions/subtractions) tends to reform election after election, functioning rather like one big party. It is still somewhat better than having Two Parties forever.

[Witiland]

See what I don't like about the question is what its asking. Heck yes billionaires should exist... now the real question lies whether they should be taxed. See if you know a little about philopshy there was this guy (forgot his name) and he said men are all naturally selfish.

Well that's plainly wrong: shellfish are not actually fish.

And while I do think everyone has good in them, we are all naturally selfish. Now in order to check ones selfishness we therefore need a government to regulate and keep those rich people in check. I believe in government that changes how it treats the rich depending on certain circumstances. When was the last time a government lasted forever? Never... every government usually ends (although sometimes not I'll say why alter) in violence, blood, and gory revolutions. Why though? Well if one looks carefully at all of history, the most violent revolutions happened in governments that refused to one appeal to the needs of the people which leads to two substantially change how they run things. Therefore the only way to advance and move on was to kill murder and destroy. However imagine how much better it would be if the Tsar appealed to the demands of his people, or if King George III did not tax the colonies? I believe then as Thomas Jefferson put it "“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion." How about this let me put in in these terms. Have you ever gone to school and right when you entered the classroom realized you forgot top study for the test today? How good did you do? Most likely terrible. In the same way many ideologies (actually all that i know of) say that changing to something else is bad.

Changing into an elf is generally agreed to be bad. About the only way it could be worse would be changing into a black elf. You'd get racisted so bad, you'd best go live in the woods!

See ideologies are too strict and that's why they fail so badly. A successful government is one that changes physically politically and economically. However while there should be basic values such as human rights, the government must still change according to the times and needs of people. You cannot be surprised by a revolution if you the government started it...

I call this Governmental Changism, a system that also changes according to the times...

Changing to suit the needs of the people begs the difficult question "what is best for the people?"

Well government could ask the people (by referendum for instance) but this doesn't measure well what the people want strongly. Asking them how strongly the want something, isn't much better: being a political issue, a few might express complete indifference but the others will polarize strongly Yes and No to the proposed change.

Government should respond to what the people demand. It's only when the people are made aware of the downsides, the cost to them of what they demand, that the true strength of their demand becomes apparent. For this is it necessary to have an Opposition, to make the case against change, and only after that listen to the People. Their support for change WILL be more muted now, than it was after they had heard only the Government's proposal for change. But this is necessary to avoid Government proceeding with changes the People (without having thought it through) grow to resent when made ... which causes the People themselves to become indifferent and conservative. This is sometimes glamorized as "the government they deserve" and it is supposed they will "learn from their mistake" but they don't see it that way (they blame government) and all they learn is not to make demands. Opposition is essential to urge the People against making ill-considered choices.

The most difficult step is to avoid Government and Opposition fostering Two Parties, taking turns being Government. A partial and inadequate solution to have a system which creates multiple parties, which usually need to form coalitions to perform the role of Government and Opposition. This is inadequate because the same coalition (or with minor party additions/subtractions) tends to reform election after election, functioning rather like one big party. It is still somewhat better than having Two Parties forever.

So are what are exactly trying to say? Could you please clarify?

[Ifreann]

You keep making arguments for me about why the market is bad. The market gives the least to those who actually build the building, more to those who design is, and the most to the person who does nothing but have their name on the outside. And this is considered efficient, because the goal is to maximally enrich that last person.

The billionaire is just leeching off of the success of the company, although he does serve an important, if not immediately clear, function. I was speaking of the skilled trades that made the work of building the building possible, by surveying possible locations, assessing the ground to determine the depth of the foundation required for it to be safe, designing it, calculating stresses and loads, determining optimal materials and calculating expenses, ensuring the building is designed to withstand wind and earthquakes, etc. Without those people the workers would be unable to even begin construction. Even if you can't see what they do as easily as you can see the work of the workers, they are critical to the success of the project.

And the people who get the most money are not critical to anything. They just own stuff, but they get the lion's share of everything.

That sounds fantastic. Can you even imagine it? A world where everyone is content, where we all do only such work as is necessary and then we just vibe. No more living with stress for so long that you forget what it was ever like to not be stressed. No more rat race.

Fuck that shit. We should stop trying to force everyone to work as hard as possible for as much of their life as they possibly can. It's ridiculous, we should be doing the exact opposite, we should be trying to get society to a place where the demands we place on each other are minimised and we are otherwise as free as possible to do whatever we want. When we obsolete jobs with new technology we shouldn't invent new jobs to replace them, we should share out the remaining labour among more people so we can all do less work without losing anything. If we don't need people to work then we should leave them alone, not contrive to force them to keep working anyway. If we don't learn to accept providing people with a comfortable life without demanding that they either be born to wealthy parents or they do some kind of work, any kind of work, then eventually we're going to be doing stupid shit like paying people to dig a hole for eight hours and then paying someone else to fill it back in.

Value is labor, things are only worth what you put in to get them, and if you didn't work to earn something, it means nothing to you.

This is obviously false if one thinks about it for even a moment. I didn't pay a penny for the house I grew up in. Do you think it means nothing to me? Of course not, that would be absurd.

You cannot gain happiness from simply being handed things, you have to feel that you have earned them.

What a thing to say so soon before Christmas. Presumably you'll be refusing any gifts on the grounds that you haven't earned them.

People have a deep psychological need to prove their value to society by contributing in some way, although they may not realize this, and find themselves unhappy when they are not doing this and don't understand why. This is much of the problem behind billionaires, they are not doing anything and thus feel something is missing, which they assume is more money. A life without work is an empty life. We even invent false work to entertain ourselves, playing games that simulate doing some job or another, although made easier than it would be in real life.

I agree that people want to contribute to their communities and that they feel a deep satisfaction from working to achieve something. Therefore I believe that a society where we decouple people's material conditions from the work they do, where they do not need to buy either necessities or luxuries with sold labour, is not one that would collapse into idleness. People would voluntarily do the necessary and unnecessary work to maintain such a society precisely because of those psychological tendencies.

Psychology aside, the additional work we are doing now that we have made the production of the essentials of life so cheap is to create more and better things, which people prove are worth it because they are willing to work hard to get them. If people did not think working hard to get these things was worth it, they would not do it. We will never make it to the stars if we are too lazy to take on new jobs as old ones are filled with machines. If we simply sat around while automation did everything we would be nothing more than useless lumps of flesh, consuming food and oxygen and producing only dung in return. The animals on the factory farms would have more worth than us.

I have the exact opposite view. The capitalist machine dehumanises us all. We are reduced to economic cogs, organic machines that must both produce and consume widgets or be disposed of and replaced. Does our work make the world a better place? Is it spiritually enriching? Irrelevant, it is profitable.

Considering we've been knowingly destroying the environment for decades then I would suggest that we don't need the drive forward we see in our economy. Did you know that we grow twice as much food as is necessary to feed everyone on Earth? Do you think that's an efficient use of resources? Because it's certainly profitable.

You don't need financial incentives for people to pursue scientific research. Do you know how I know? Because we saw scientific advancements happen before there was such a thing as a career as a scientist.

Sure, advancements were made when we were not actively funding science, but at a much slower pace, for the majority of human history innovation happened at a crawl, and it was only after people could be an inventor or a scientist as an occupation that we began to discover at a much faster pace, and rocketed through the industrial revolution into the space age. This idea of simply going back to the slow pace of invention of the ancient past

In the ancient and recent past, scientific advancement was driven by those of sufficient means to receive an education and to have the free time to pursue research that interested them. The large majority of people did not have that freedom, obviously. Today we could provide that freedom to everyone.

is sharply contrasted with the need to preserve the environment, as it is not primarily greed which is destroying the environment, but our dependence on fossil fuels, as we currently lack the technology to transition away from them.

In fact it is greed which is destroying the environment. Time moves strangely during the pandemic, but it wasn't so long ago that the we were all hearing about huge swathes of the Amazon being burned down to make space for farms. Farms we don't need, but farms which could be profitable to their owners. And again, the fossil fuel industry has known about global warming for decades, but they hid that knowledge for as long as they could, and worked to discredit the scientists who were independently discovering the truth.

As much as you might talk up solar or wind, they are not nearly enough to replace fossil fuel, and if I were in charge I would be pouring as much money into science as possible before it is too late for the environment. (and before we run out of oil, which is the bigger concern).

But you aren't, and the market doesn't incentivise the protection of the environment. The market incentivises exploiting every available resource to the maximum possible degree. Burn every last speck of coal and drop of oil and die rich.

Besides the environment, research and discovery is the greatest pursuit of mankind, and if you really don't see any value in it then you must be blind. Science may provide technological advancements as an added benefit, but science is its own reward, discovery for the sake of discovery.

And right now we cannot discover for the sake of discovery, we must discover for the sake of returns on investments.

---

Billionaires should definitely exist. Restrictions on the amount of wealth one can obtain is a restriction on individual liberty. The methods by which someone obtains the status of billionaire is, however, more subject to scrutiny. If your value to society is worth the merit of obtaining billions of dollars, then why not have the value. People like to complain about the wealth of billionaires by highlighting their private assets, but forget that those private assets take skilled artisans and craftspeople to create, which means that generates a demand. Billionaires who spend the money they earn are probably one of the best distributors of large sums of money back into a society, so long as they're actually returning to said society.

Abolish money.

---

Yes. Billionaires are awesome.

In fact, given the vast amounts of good companies like Amazon have done for society, I feel people like Bezos are not sufficiently compensated for their efforts. It's not enough that we pay for their services - we should also build a culture that lionizes them the way we do firefighters, nurses, and doctors.

thatsbait.gif

[Cordel One]

Your claim will always be false unless the companies pay the workers the full value of their labor. This would be true if time and effort were equal to the value the workers received for it, but as it stands the majority of the labor value goes to the company, its CEO, and its investors.

The full value of a worker's labor is what they sell their labor for.

Is being robbed at gunpoint a voluntary transaction? This works in a similar sense, with many people having no choice but to work for low wages as the alternative is suffering for themselves and their families.

If a worker identifies a market with high demand and low supply, they should recognize the value of adapting to said market. Some workers do this, and as a result become incredibly wealthy. Underwater welders, nuclear technicians, and other specialist (yet high-risk) professions pay far above what one would expect, because there's been so little supply in spite of demand.

You shouldn't have to risk your life to provide for your family. Besides that, those jobs require a great deal of training which can only happen with lots of time and money. Many people don't have that luxury under capitalism. It's difficult to spend money when you make money faster than you could possibly spend it even if you want to (which they don't).

This doesn't show someone making money faster than they can spend it, it shows them exploiting tax schemes in foreign countries, of which I'm honestly against.

That's because I meant to link this. Bezos, for example, would still profit if he spent every second of his life shopping.

Citizens of countries should be beholden to pay the taxes of said country, though I'm also against an income tax as well. At the most, this still fails to show why billionaires shouldn't exist. Just that there are those who gain such riches immorally or unethically.

I guess it's technically possible that someone could gan that much wealth without exploitation, but not a single billionaire has ever and will ever become so morally or ethically.

Imagine a system in which water is pumped between two enclosed tanks by two separate pumps, one running incredibly fast and the other one much more slowly. Some will go back in the other direction, but the system would hardly be doing its job as the pump to the full tank will always be much faster than the one from it. Now imagine the larger tank hiding some of that water in offshore tax havens, and you'll get the basic idea.

That sounds more like tax evasion than anything else, but unfortunately the corruption at the higher points of government (specifically legislative branches), tend to insulate alleged tax evaders.

This is another fundamental issue with capitalism. It is impossible to become a major politician without corporate money, and you can't have corporate money unless you're willing to give something in return. It's not corruption when you call it "lobbying".

What if someone were to unlock the secret to immortality or the cure for cancer, but did so only at great expense to themselves already, should their right to actually profit from selling said information be restricted? No, it shouldn't because there is no legal challenge or basis to it.

Not only has society been proven to be capable of advancement without the motive of greed, I'd argue it's immoral to profit from it beyond awards. Everyone with cancer deserves access to its cure, not just those who can afford it.

I speak from an almost exclusively American point of view though, so if you come from a legal system which would require the divulgence of such information, then in that society they most definitely should be restricted from doing so. I just find it far more distasteful. I'm also not stating that someone should exclusively benefit from potentially revolutionary or life-saving technologies, but in the circumstances of having developed said technologies, persons should be allowed to benefit from the merit to society they represent.

I'm also an American, but I'm aware that not everyone has the same opportunities as you might. If anything's distasteful, it's that.

[Xenocrat]

If you think about it anyone can be a billionaire if they work hard enough. Or get involved im drig dealing as well as arms dealing.

[Kubra]

For real no one has explained to me why the CEO of LVMH degrading vineyards and then selling the substandard product at a premium is justified labour worth the billions the guy is worth.

I might have missed the source. I'm more than willing to tackle it.

Mind you, I'm not altogether keen on specific business practices or aspects of our present system. My argument is more in the "socialism still sucks" camp than in the "neoliberalism rocks and capitalists can do whatever they want" camp.

Oh certainly.
https://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2020/01 ... -champagne
tl;dr LVMH pays farmers in the region for the grapes at a greater price than if they made it into wine, causing them to orient their business towards grapes as opposed to to the finished product. As the article says, this means that LMVH gets the set the price in the long term, as well as shift the tax burden onto their affiliated growers. Once dependent on LMVH there's no breaking out, going back to making champagne in-house means a significant capital investment into an industry dominated by one firm, which means LVMH can put on the squeeze. Short term gains become long term chains.
And that's terrible and all, but here's something unmentioned: to divide the labour in this way means to divorce the growing of the grapes from the vision of the product. When a vigneron sets out to itself grow, it must ask itself: what sort of flavour should the finished product be? To sell in bulk reduces the process to yield, rather than a unified vision. The result is, well, it's soon to be december so now doubt you will be able to find plenty of brut imperial bottles at discount. Taste for yourself.

[Duvniask]

Your claim will always be false unless the companies pay the workers the full value of their labor. This would be true if time and effort were equal to the value the workers recieved for it, but as it stands the majority of the labor value goes to the company, its CEO, and its investors.

People who harp about workers receiving the "full value of their labor" or "the full product of their labor" are committing an error as Marx explained in Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875):

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society. "

In short, it's not that simple.

[Adamede]

The top elite of societies will always exist, regardless of what you call them.

[HIreland]

The billionaire is just leeching off of the success of the company, although he does serve an important, if not immediately clear, function. I was speaking of the skilled trades that made the work of building the building possible, by surveying possible locations, assessing the ground to determine the depth of the foundation required for it to be safe, designing it, calculating stresses and loads, determining optimal materials and calculating expenses, ensuring the building is designed to withstand wind and earthquakes, etc. Without those people the workers would be unable to even begin construction. Even if you can't see what they do as easily as you can see the work of the workers, they are critical to the success of the project.

And the people who get the most money are not critical to anything. They just own stuff, but they get the lion's share of everything.

The billionaires make most of the money, which isn't really fair, but it does serve an important purpose: it ties their personal success to the success of the company, ensuring they will steer the company to success, rather than being apathetic managers who will neglect the company. They also serve as the dream that many people work towards, fueling the economy as so many workers strive to one day become a billionaire themselves. What I was pointing out though is that the skilled trades are extremely valuable to the project, and have earned their higher pay.

Value is labor, things are only worth what you put in to get them, and if you didn't work to earn something, it means nothing to you.

This is obviously false if one thinks about it for even a moment. I didn't pay a penny for the house I grew up in. Do you think it means nothing to me? Of course not, that would be absurd.

You cannot gain happiness from simply being handed things, you have to feel that you have earned them.

What a thing to say so soon before Christmas. Presumably you'll be refusing any gifts on the grounds that you haven't earned them.

Funny that you should mention Christmas and your home as examples, as they have deep sentimental value to you, and also in the case of your home a deep practical value. Just like a rock can have sentimental value if it is some memento of your childhood, despite it otherwise being worthless. We don't value rocks and do value pearls because pearls are so much rarer and harder to get, which is the same system which determines value for everything else. A beautiful piece of jewelry is a show of wealth and taste, but if everyone were handed an identical one by the state it would mean nothing. People gain a deep satisfaction from having earned things themselves, as their belongings represent the return on their labor, so they value them a lot more than they otherwise would have. You would still enjoy food and things if they were handouts from the government, but they would mean a lot less.

People have a deep psychological need to prove their value to society by contributing in some way, although they may not realize this, and find themselves unhappy when they are not doing this and don't understand why. This is much of the problem behind billionaires, they are not doing anything and thus feel something is missing, which they assume is more money. A life without work is an empty life. We even invent false work to entertain ourselves, playing games that simulate doing some job or another, although made easier than it would be in real life.

I agree that people want to contribute to their communities and that they feel a deep satisfaction from working to achieve something. Therefore I believe that a society where we decouple people's material conditions from the work they do, where they do not need to buy either necessities or luxuries with sold labour, is not one that would collapse into idleness. People would voluntarily do the necessary and unnecessary work to maintain such a society precisely because of those psychological tendencies.

Wrong. People do gain satisfaction from work, but only when the work accomplishes something. As known in video game mechanics, if given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game. Just because we need to work to gain satisfaction does not mean we will seek out work, we will seek out a goal and do the minimal amount of work we can to accomplish that goal. If people can get away with doing the same amount of work for the same result, they will, even if it is detrimental towards their happiness. No one will pride themselves on a hard days work pushing a rock in circles, because there was no goal they were working for, nothing accomplished. Working to gain things is why we work, and although we would be unhappy without that work, we would not go and seek out work because we would not have a goal to work towards. While benefiting society might be considered a goal, it is so abstract and removed from your life that very few would feel motivated by it, certainly not enough to put in a lifetime of labor, and it would be incredibly hard to see the effect your labor has made, since it is spread out over the whole of society rather than being concentrated on you and your family where you can observe the fruits of your labor. Even the most benevolent after failing to see any difference caused by their work would become disheartened and sink into idleness.

Psychology aside, the additional work we are doing now that we have made the production of the essentials of life so cheap is to create more and better things, which people prove are worth it because they are willing to work hard to get them. If people did not think working hard to get these things was worth it, they would not do it. We will never make it to the stars if we are too lazy to take on new jobs as old ones are filled with machines. If we simply sat around while automation did everything we would be nothing more than useless lumps of flesh, consuming food and oxygen and producing only dung in return. The animals on the factory farms would have more worth than us.

I have the exact opposite view. The capitalist machine dehumanises us all. We are reduced to economic cogs, organic machines that must both produce and consume widgets or be disposed of and replaced. Does our work make the world a better place? Is it spiritually enriching? Irrelevant, it is profitable.

No one cares about how their work affects the world, they care about how it affects themselves and their family. They do show altruism, just on a smaller, more immediately observable scale. Work hard to secure a future for yourself and your children, and rest in the knowledge that your family will live well.

Sure, advancements were made when we were not actively funding science, but at a much slower pace, for the majority of human history innovation happened at a crawl, and it was only after people could be an inventor or a scientist as an occupation that we began to discover at a much faster pace, and rocketed through the industrial revolution into the space age. This idea of simply going back to the slow pace of invention of the ancient past

In the ancient and recent past, scientific advancement was driven by those of sufficient means to receive an education and to have the free time to pursue research that interested them. The large majority of people did not have that freedom, obviously. Today we could provide that freedom to everyone.

While we as an industrial society may have the funds to support many, many more hobbyist scientists, they will not nearly match the efficiency of career scientist, as no hobbyist will put in long hours every day pouring over notes and a microscope to crack a small and very specific protein coding. The vast majority of scientific research is not interesting or fun, but necessary, and no one would do it if they were not being paid to do so. Some small increase in efficiency is more than worth the research, but is not interesting in the slightest to be researched.

is sharply contrasted with the need to preserve the environment, as it is not primarily greed which is destroying the environment, but our dependence on fossil fuels, as we currently lack the technology to transition away from them.

In fact it is greed which is destroying the environment. Time moves strangely during the pandemic, but it wasn't so long ago that the we were all hearing about huge swathes of the Amazon being burned down to make space for farms. Farms we don't need, but farms which could be profitable to their owners. And again, the fossil fuel industry has known about global warming for decades, but they hid that knowledge for as long as they could, and worked to discredit the scientists who were independently discovering the truth.

As much as you might talk up solar or wind, they are not nearly enough to replace fossil fuel, and if I were in charge I would be pouring as much money into science as possible before it is too late for the environment. (and before we run out of oil, which is the bigger concern).

But you aren't, and the market doesn't incentivise the protection of the environment. The market incentivises exploiting every available resource to the maximum possible degree. Burn every last speck of coal and drop of oil and die rich.

Indeed capitalism has been cruel to the environment. This is a human flaw, and not a uniquely capitalist one, however. Just look at Communist China which decided to exterminate all the sparrows which were seen eating their crops, only to get a lesson in environmentalism when the insect population skyrocketed without the sparrows and ate all of their crops. Or look at modern China, which is the world's leading source of pollution, all thanks to a central planning committee which refuses to impose environmental regulations because they want all the manufacturing done in their country, and care nothing for the environment.

Besides the environment, research and discovery is the greatest pursuit of mankind, and if you really don't see any value in it then you must be blind. Science may provide technological advancements as an added benefit, but science is its own reward, discovery for the sake of discovery.

And right now we cannot discover for the sake of discovery, we must discover for the sake of returns on investments.

Yes many scientists are pushed to invent things for the sake of profit, but they do this inventing at a much faster pace than unmotivated, unfunded communist research would have. These inventions created for profit form a basis on which pure science can be conducted, if it were not for profit science and its industrial applications pure science would still be staring at the stars through spyglasses unable to benefit from any of the inventions of the industrial revolution.

[Cordel One]

Your claim will always be false unless the companies pay the workers the full value of their labor. This would be true if time and effort were equal to the value the workers recieved for it, but as it stands the majority of the labor value goes to the company, its CEO, and its investors.

People who harp about workers receiving the "full value of their labor" or "the full product of their labor" are committing an error as Marx explained in Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875):

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society. "

In short, it's not that simple.

Most of the things I say here are oversimplified to the exent that they can be painful to read, but if you want to teach others you've got to start with the basics. While you are right, I'm talking to someone who believes in trickle-down economics. I understand both this, and I understand that "labor is not the source of all wealth". Unfortunately, I tend to lose people when I describe the intricacies of the distribution of labor value in a post-wage labor society.

[Sanghyeok]

The top elite of societies will always exist, regardless of what you call them.

You may be right, but we should still do what we can do reduce the gap.

[Adamede]

The top elite of societies will always exist, regardless of what you call them.

You may be right, but we should still do what we can do reduce the gap.

You’re never going to be able to close the gap, at least in the current form of civilization we live in. Better off trying to improve the living standards of the poorest of society, and making the social ladder as easy to climb as possible. Social democracy’s, while I’m not a fan of all their pickles or common positions, seem to understand that very well.

[Sanghyeok]

You may be right, but we should still do what we can do reduce the gap.

You’re never going to be able to close the gap, at least in the current form of civilization we live in. Better off trying to improve the living standards of the poorest of society, and making the social ladder as easy to climb as possible. Social democracy’s, while I’m not a fan of all their pickles or common positions, seem to understand that very well.

I don't see how we improve things for the poor without redistributing wealth from the top in a drastic way.

[Sundiata]

I think that if regular people had more of a say in the policies that affected them, there'd be a lot more wealthy people in the world. There's no reason why the poorest student shouldn't have the same quality education as the richest student. These are injustices that our society seems to be okay with.

[Adamede]

You’re never going to be able to close the gap, at least in the current form of civilization we live in. Better off trying to improve the living standards of the poorest of society, and making the social ladder as easy to climb as possible. Social democracy’s, while I’m not a fan of all their pickles or common positions, seem to understand that very well.

I don't see how we improve things for the poor without redistributing wealth from the top in a drastic way.

Plenty of welfare states that still possess billionaires out there.

[Post War America]

I don't see how we improve things for the poor without redistributing wealth from the top in a drastic way.

Plenty of welfare states that still possess billionaires out there.

Those billionaires are also a lot more heavily taxed. That welfare states *exist* is not a refutation of the concept of redistributivism.

[Sundiata]

Welfare is a good thing.

[Adamede]

Plenty of welfare states that still possess billionaires out there.

Those billionaires are also a lot more heavily taxed. That welfare states *exist* is not a refutation of the concept of redistributivism.

Thing is that’s a comely let separate question from “should billionaires exist”.

They’re heavily taxed, and frankly I don’t have a problem or care with that. Fact is however is that you don’t need to bleed the wealthy dry for it, nor does elimination of the uberwelsthy change the fact that there will likely always be those in society that have higher, drastically higher, living standards and wealth than others. It’s a non sequitor.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

[Post War America]

Those billionaires are also a lot more heavily taxed. That welfare states *exist* is not a refutation of the concept of redistributivism.

Thing is that’s a comely let separate question from “should billionaires exist”.

They’re heavily taxed, and frankly I don’t have a problem or care with that. Fact is however is that you don’t need to bleed the wealthy dry for it, nor does elimination of the uberwelsthy change the fact that there will likely always be those in society that have higher, drastically higher, living standards and wealth than others. It’s a non sequitor.

If you are a billionaire, you are likely in possession of more wealth than any one person can meaningfully spend to improve their living conditions. There's a wide gulf of difference between persons with a drastically higher standard of living and somebody who does not need more wealth but hoards it anyway.

[Stylan]

The existence of billionaire’s themselves isn’t a bad thing, but the upper classes have an inherent obligation to improving the lives of the lower classes, and those of the upper class who fail to do so should be stripped of their status by the state

That will literally never happen, because the state is merely the organ by which the wealthy exercise power, at least so long as capitalism exists.