Should billionaires exist? 「Yes or No」

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I have a friend who came up with a somewhat facetious but also somewhat serious idea, that we should go to every billionaire and give them a trophy and say "Congratulations, you won capitalism. But the game is over now so we'll be taking all your assets."

I liked communists better when they where just industrial about their revolution and following liquidations.

Income redistribution is democratic socialism, not communism. Page's joke goes a bit further than I would: I'd be satisfied with personal wealth up to a billion dollars, but anything more forbidden. Those people could continue to earn more, but not keep it, and if they like we'll hand out medals for a billion over that, forfeited. And five billion, ten billion, etc. But of course, they're welcome to stop working too.

[Adamede]

I liked communists better when they where just industrial about their revolution and following liquidations.

Income redistribution is democratic socialism, not communism. Page's joke goes a bit further than I would: I'd be satisfied with personal wealth up to a billion dollars, but anything more forbidden. Those people could continue to earn more, but not keep it, and if they like we'll hand out medals for a billion over that, forfeited. And five billion, ten billion, etc. But of course, they're welcome to stop working too.

1: From what I’ve seen I’d say it’s not something inherent to just one aspect of the left

2: I think you’d be better off just shooting them.

[Fahran]

2: I think you’d be better off just shooting them.

You'd be better off taxing them and destroying atomized individualist culture in general. There are small number of circumstances in which large-scale reallocations of access constitute prudent economic and ethical policy. We have a lot of tools at our disposal for addressing social and economic problems without going full-blown revolutionary, and I have no idea why the first option for many is to go full-blown revolutionary.

[Adamede]

2: I think you’d be better off just shooting them.

You'd be better off taxing them and destroying atomized individualist culture in general. There are small number of circumstances in which large-scale reallocations of access constitute prudent economic and ethical policy. We have a lot of tools at our disposal for addressing social and economic problems without going full-blown revolutionary, and I have no idea why the first option for many is to go full-blown revolutionary.

I agree, I was talking about as opposed to giving them a medal for every bullion you took from them.

And at least the revolutionaries take actions, that while consolatory evil more often than not, are actually somewhat effective when it comes to changing social structure.

[Fahran]

And at least the revolutionaries take actions, that while consolatory evil more often than not, are actually somewhat effective when it comes to changing social structure.

It doesn't really matter if the changes are bad.

[Adamede]

And at least the revolutionaries take actions, that while consolatory evil more often than not, are actually somewhat effective when it comes to changing social structure.

It doesn't really matter if the changes are bad.

When it comes to the question of if they’re effective at chasing change, no it does not.

[The Emerald Legion]

2: I think you’d be better off just shooting them.

You'd be better off taxing them and destroying atomized individualist culture in general. There are small number of circumstances in which large-scale reallocations of access constitute prudent economic and ethical policy. We have a lot of tools at our disposal for addressing social and economic problems without going full-blown revolutionary, and I have no idea why the first option for many is to go full-blown revolutionary.

You do realize that collectivist culture has been responsible for almost literally *every* major atrocity in history right?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Generational poverty destroys your claim entirely.

Generational poverty does no such thing, it highlights a completely separate issue. My point is that the homeless of Los Angeles, by and large, are homeless because they suffer from mental health disorders, or a desire to avoid the responsibilities of a citizen.

My point in this was that the homeless are not a part of the equation which everyone else is stating billionaires are a part of. They're another issue in the same genre, but wholly different and inconsequential. You can have homeless people in any society, unless you take a proactive stance in treating their issues. Rojava had stated that there was no need for someone to have the ability to amass billions while some sleep on the streets. That's entirely beggaring Paul to pay Peter.

What about someone with no mental health issues, a bit below average intelligence and went to a bad school so they never even thought about college. Their first job is in their home town, working for a relative, now it's ten years later and they've done a dozen different jobs. Some were better but didn't last, and all their savings went to pay bond and buy some things for an unfurnished rental property they meant to share with their partner. Going to the city isn't an option because they have no savings and can barely get by sharing rent on a small house with their partner (who works in similar low-paid jobs).

This person's career is not going well, right, but I'm not the one to blame them. They're stuck in the town they grew up in, they're stuck with the same partner because without his/her contribution they can't pay rent, and they're currently working 60 hours a week at the best-paying job they could get when they lost their last job.

Don't you think the billionaires should give up some of their money, so this person I've sketched out only has to work 40 hours a week to get by? The choice is up to them, then, whether to work another 20 hours a week (at some other job perhaps, giving at least partial income security) to save and invest. Or just keep getting-by working the 40 hours.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You'd be better off taxing them and destroying atomized individualist culture in general. There are small number of circumstances in which large-scale reallocations of access constitute prudent economic and ethical policy. We have a lot of tools at our disposal for addressing social and economic problems without going full-blown revolutionary, and I have no idea why the first option for many is to go full-blown revolutionary.

You do realize that collectivist culture has been responsible for almost literally *every* major atrocity in history right?

What you're generalizing as "collectivist culture" is mostly nationalism. You're definitely opposed to that, right?

[Heloin]

You'd be better off taxing them and destroying atomized individualist culture in general. There are small number of circumstances in which large-scale reallocations of access constitute prudent economic and ethical policy. We have a lot of tools at our disposal for addressing social and economic problems without going full-blown revolutionary, and I have no idea why the first option for many is to go full-blown revolutionary.

You do realize that collectivist culture has been responsible for almost literally *every* major atrocity in history right?

You do realise that what you said makes no earthly sense if you know anything about history.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Income redistribution is democratic socialism, not communism. Page's joke goes a bit further than I would: I'd be satisfied with personal wealth up to a billion dollars, but anything more forbidden. Those people could continue to earn more, but not keep it, and if they like we'll hand out medals for a billion over that, forfeited. And five billion, ten billion, etc. But of course, they're welcome to stop working too.

1: From what I’ve seen I’d say it’s not something inherent to just one aspect of the left

2: I think you’d be better off just shooting them.

1. Missing the point. Everyone left of 'democratic socialist' believes in income redistribution. Characterizing it as communism misses far more numerous "leftists" who are not communists. Also characterizing most of the left as communists, you'll never land a punch that way.

2. If they're stupid enough to have all their wealth stored in their cellar, perhaps.

[Heloin]

You do realize that collectivist culture has been responsible for almost literally *every* major atrocity in history right?

What you're generalizing as "collectivist culture" is mostly nationalism. You're definitely opposed to that, right?

The British Empire is collectivist now. *nods*

[Nobel Hobos 2]

What you're generalizing as "collectivist culture" is mostly nationalism. You're definitely opposed to that, right?

The British Empire is collectivist now. *nods*

Damn, I forgot colonialism. I forgot colonialism. I need sent to gulag

[Exxosia]

Billionaires should not exist simply because for a single person to have that much money means the currency is inflated to pointlessness and the economy is ruined. They are a symptom of bad economic management.

I dunno billionaires currently exist and I can still buy candy bars with loose change
current inflation don't seem to but dunnit

Considering that that candy bar likely costs 20 to 50 times more than it should, just because you have enough loose change does not mean the economy is not completely distorted.

Bezos has 181.4 billion USD. The last "billionaire" to gain "billions" in wealth through horrendous — but technically legitimate — means would likely be W.H.Vanderbilt who would have about 2.6 billion USD in 2020 adjusted for inflation. The trend otherwise appears to be that the richest people in an undistorted economy throughout history, often even with a some measure of malfeasance, negligence, corruption, and systematic problems in an economy, and not including raiding kings and whatnot, rarely get past the 900 million mark in 2020 currency.

The only way someone today should have more than a billion dollars is that they are the sole beneficiary of generations of people accruing wealth hand over fist. And even then, in any sort of functional economy, it would be effectively impossible for them to exceed around 2 billion if the economy is not being mishandled.

[Heloin]

The British Empire is collectivist now. *nods*

Damn, I forgot colonialism. I forgot colonialism. I need sent to gulag

Good comrade, admitting is the first step.

[Fahran]

You do realize that collectivist culture has been responsible for almost literally *every* major atrocity in history right?

I'm not proposing a collectivist culture. I'm proposing a personalist culture rooted in more traditional attitudes about extended kinship and civic responsibility. Essentially, I'm proposing what Richard Weaver, C. S. Lewis, Russell Kirk, and even John F. Kennedy proposed.

[Fahran]

Billionaires should not exist simply because for a single person to have that much money means the currency is deflated to pointlessness and the economy is ruined. They are a symptom of bad economic management.

Not how inflation works, at least not as a sole consideration.

[The Emerald Legion]

You do realize that collectivist culture has been responsible for almost literally *every* major atrocity in history right?

You do realise that what you said makes no earthly sense if you know anything about history.

No. It makes perfect sense if you actually know something about History, rather than getting your history from the sort of nutjobs who think the 1619 project is a good idea.

[Heloin]

You do realise that what you said makes no earthly sense if you know anything about history.

No. It makes perfect sense if you actually know something about History, rather than getting your history from the sort of nutjobs who think the 1619 project is a good idea.

That had nothing to do with what I said. But hey, you're the one calling the German Empire collectivist so how can that break from reality really every be countered.

[Kolm]

No.

[Senkaku]

You do realize that collectivist culture has been responsible for almost literally *every* major atrocity in history right?

I'm not proposing a collectivist culture. I'm proposing a personalist culture rooted in more traditional attitudes about extended kinship and civic responsibility. Essentially, I'm proposing what Richard Weaver, C. S. Lewis, Russell Kirk, and even John F. Kennedy proposed.

I sensed loose and ill defined talk of "collectivism" or "collectivist culture" as a vague and essentially meaningless boogeyman and came here to say stop

[New haven america]

You do realise that what you said makes no earthly sense if you know anything about history.

No. It makes perfect sense if you actually know something about History, rather than getting your history from the sort of nutjobs who think the 1619 project is a good idea.

We get it, you have an irrational fear of universal healthcare.

[Hanoverian Great Britain]

In my opinion, billionaires should be allowed to exist to an extent where the poor and middle class people could profit from their wealth in general.

[Senkaku]

You do realise that what you said makes no earthly sense if you know anything about history.

No. It makes perfect sense if you actually know something about History, rather than getting your history from the sort of nutjobs who think the 1619 project is a good idea.

1619 Project equals historical revisionism equals collectivism equals every atrocity in history, got it

[Sanghyeok]

You do realise that what you said makes no earthly sense if you know anything about history.

No. It makes perfect sense if you actually know something about History, rather than getting your history from the sort of nutjobs who think the 1619 project is a good idea.

And your argument has to do with collectivism how?