Should billionaires exist? 「Yes or No」

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Not really no. By taking his money for their time, the labor his employees perform is his he can sit on his ass all day long, and it's still his labor that he bought and paid for that got all that done.

So much for hard work. Are you really okay with this parasitism?

I was a bit surprised that TEL grasps the alienation of labor. Maybe he's been reading stuff that isn't from the Mises Institute?

However I'm dubious that the model holds up when the capitalist only directly employs an accountant or investment manager, who then spends the capitalist's income on a portfolio of partial ownership in myriad corporations, each of which has capitalists in a hierarchy doing the transactions of pay for labor. There is so much process there that it can't be reduced to "bezos pays for work" in any meaningful sense.

[Fahran]

Because billionaires hoard money and don't put it back into the system,

Stocks and bonds are a form of reinvestment in the system, and a lot of billionaires aren't liquid. Their networth comes from assets, securities, and investments. People who think they're hoarding money aren't knowledgeable about how this works. There is an argument to be made about the overall distribution of wealth and about what society invests in as a whole, but "hoarding" isn't the problem here.

thus causing the consumer based economy to stagnate because the actual consumers who drive the economy can't afford anything because there's no money to buy things with. It's a positive feedback loop.

While consumption is important, savings can matter quite a bit as well. You don't get large purchases without someone doing a little bit of saving or investment somewhere. Idle consumption for the sake of consumption isn't always a good thing.

You know, for a supposed capitalist, how do you not know shit that's in Econ 101?

Let's not do that.

[Sanghyeok]

Jeff Bezos would only have earned the money he has if he personally ran the warehouses, packaged and delivered all items, upkept the website and all its assets, did all behind-the-scenes planning and marketing, fought his own lawsuits, and paid taxes.

He is in charge of management in its totality and essentially built Amazon with starting capital and early labor, which added and continues to add a lot of value. You don't have to be a menial laborer or immediate management to add substantial value. We have pretty ample evidence of what poor top-level management can do to tank the value of a corporation and its products and services.

Even if you do believe that management is important- which I can accept to some degree- you can't say his management is worth a few million times what his underlings do. Is his management really so good that he deserves to be a billionaire?

[Sanghyeok]

Because billionaires hoard money and don't put it back into the system,

Stocks and bonds are a form of reinvestment in the system, and a lot of billionaires aren't liquid. Their networth comes from assets, securities, and investments. People who think they're hoarding money aren't knowledgeable about how this works. [quote]

Clearly they have enough liquid assets to be buying themselves yachts and mansions worth half a billion. And as for their networth- how about giving some of those investments and assets to those who really need them?

[Fahran]

They would love to leave but can't, because other companies are also only offering the same. It would be bad enough if only Amazon was doing this, but as you and I both know terrible working conditions and poor pay tend to be the norm.

This is a more valid point at least. I don't buy into Marxian definitions of exploitation, but I do agree that Bezos treats his workers badly from a personalist, virtue-oriented, and communitarian (not communist) perspective. And that is a serious fault.

[Sanghyeok]

They would love to leave but can't, because other companies are also only offering the same. It would be bad enough if only Amazon was doing this, but as you and I both know terrible working conditions and poor pay tend to be the norm.

This is a more valid point at least. I don't buy into Marxian definitions of exploitation, but I do agree that Bezos treats his workers badly from a personalist, virtue-oriented, and communitarian (not communist) perspective. And that is a serious fault.

You don't need to be Marxian to know that giving workers 10 minute bathroom and lunch breaks isn't ethical.

[Fahran]

Clearly they have enough liquid assets to be buying themselves yachts and mansions worth half a billion.

Asset purchases that constitute consumption and that give menial laborers who build those yachts and mansions work and revenue.

And as for their networth- how about giving some of those investments and assets to those who really need them?

That's a much more valid argument, but isn't really the one I was trying to address in my refutation of remarks about "hoarding" and "parasitism." Like I said, I do think we ought to tweak the system to ensure greater investments in public institutions and in families as opposed to private economic ventures.

[Fahran]

You don't need to be Marxian to know that giving workers 10 minute bathroom and lunch breaks isn't ethical.

That and Bezos tends to compensate them poorly, treat them like inmates at a prison, etc. Which is a bad business policy because it creates economic incentives and rationalizations for employees to behave unethically.

[The Emerald Legion]

How is it parasitism? It's mutual exchange. He exchanges his money, for their time and labor. At any point in the relationship, they could say 'Nah, fuck you Bezos, I want to work somewhere else.' And stop providing him with their time and labor, and then he'll stop giving them money and both will go their separate ways.

Because billionaires hoard money and don't put it back into the system, thus causing the consumer based economy to stagnate because the actual consumers who drive the economy can't afford anything because there's no money to buy things with circulating around. It's a positive feedback loop. (Course the government could just starting printing more money, but that would lead to things like the Weimar Republic's unbelievable inflation)

You know, for a supposed capitalist, how do you not know shit that's in Econ 101?

It's almost like you don't actually understand what Billionaires do at all.

Not really no. By taking his money for their time, the labor his employees perform is his he can sit on his ass all day long, and it's still his labor that he bought and paid for that got all that done.

I see you don't know how labor works. Do you have a job?

Oh, and I like how you ignore the fact that Bezos makes money off of government assistance, as do the majority of rich people. How is it taxes is legalized theft when a city wants to pave roads, but hard earned cash when the Feds throw your money at billionaires?

Of course I have a job.

I ignore it because I frankly don't particularly like that either.

[Sanghyeok]

Like I said, I do think we ought to tweak the system to ensure greater investments in public institutions and in families as opposed to private economic ventures.

Fair, we'll agree on this.

[Sanghyeok]

You don't need to be Marxian to know that giving workers 10 minute bathroom and lunch breaks isn't ethical.

That and Bezos tends to compensate them poorly, treat them like inmates at a prison, etc. Which is a bad business policy because it creates economic incentives and rationalizations for employees to behave unethically.

If every capitalist was a decent person and treated their employees decently for once, I might not think socialism is so desperately needed.
As for now? I don't see Bezos's standards (which have become the norm) falling away anytime soon.

[Fahran]

If every capitalist was a decent person and treated their employees decently for once, I might not think socialism is so desperately needed.

It's a mixed bag because people are people. I dislike my previous managers because they allowed female employees to be harassed by male employees and generally did nothing to address the hostile environment such chronic harassment created. My current employers, on the other hand, are lovely people who treat me almost like an adoptive daughter and are very appreciative of their workforce. I didn't feel exploited in either situation with regard to my compensation, but that doesn't mean one group of bosses wasn't clearly superior to the other.

As for now? I don't see Bezos's standards (which have become the norm) falling away anytime soon.

It's part of the general cultural attitude we've adopted. Social liberalism is largely rooted in the same sorts of sentiments, namely that you have no social or moral responsibilities to anyone except yourself. If no one is perceived to have duties in society, it's not really surprising when this extends to elites and society begins to have problems.

[Alcala-Cordel]

So much for hard work. Are you really okay with this parasitism?

How is it parasitism? It's mutual exchange. He exchanges his money, for their time and labor. At any point in the relationship, they could say 'Nah, fuck you Bezos, I want to work somewhere else.' And stop providing him with their time and labor, and then he'll stop giving them money and both will go their separate ways.

It wouldn't be a mutual exchange if someone put a gun to my head and robbed me, and it's similar with capitalism. The alternative is starvation.

[The Emerald Legion]

How is it parasitism? It's mutual exchange. He exchanges his money, for their time and labor. At any point in the relationship, they could say 'Nah, fuck you Bezos, I want to work somewhere else.' And stop providing him with their time and labor, and then he'll stop giving them money and both will go their separate ways.

It wouldn't be a mutual exchange if someone put a gun to my head and robbed me, and it's similar with capitalism. The alternative is starvation.

No, no. I'm pretty sure I can choose to work for someone else.

[Kowani]

It wouldn't be a mutual exchange if someone put a gun to my head and robbed me, and it's similar with capitalism. The alternative is starvation.

No, no. I'm pretty sure I can choose to work for someone else.

if you are stopped in an alleyway, and the mugger asks you which knife you want to be robbed with, that does not make it voluntary

[Fahran]

It wouldn't be a mutual exchange if someone put a gun to my head and robbed me, and it's similar with capitalism. The alternative is starvation.

The alternative under socialism for not working is probably starvation too when fellow proletarians finally get annoyed with the person spouting theory instead of building cars alongside them. You have to work to eat in most cases. People are more compassionate towards those who physically can't work or who shouldn't work.

The difference resides more in the level of compensation, the ownership of capital, and more personal investment in the operation of syndicates or communes.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It wouldn't be a mutual exchange if someone put a gun to my head and robbed me, and it's similar with capitalism. The alternative is starvation.

No, no. I'm pretty sure I can choose to work for someone else.

It's not that easy for many people, and the alternatives are also parasites.

[Sanghyeok]

It wouldn't be a mutual exchange if someone put a gun to my head and robbed me, and it's similar with capitalism. The alternative is starvation.

No, no. I'm pretty sure I can choose to work for someone else.

And you would still suffer under a terrible workplace and be taken advantage of.

[Fahran]

It's not that easy for many people, and the alternatives are also parasites.

I don't think the elderly couple who own the cafe I work at are parasites and I feel like this is a very anti-social attitude to adopt in general.

[Odreria]

It wouldn't be a mutual exchange if someone put a gun to my head and robbed me, and it's similar with capitalism. The alternative is starvation.

The alternative under socialism for not working is probably starvation too when fellow proletarians finally get annoyed with the person spouting theory instead of building cars alongside them. You have to work to eat in most cases. People are more compassionate towards those who physically can't work or who shouldn't work.

The difference resides more in the level of compensation, the ownership of capital, and more personal investment in the operation of syndicates or communes.

Socialism: you work for the good of your country and the benefit of your countrymen. Capitalism: you work for the profit of a capitalist.

[Sanghyeok]

As for now? I don't see Bezos's standards (which have become the norm) falling away anytime soon.

It's part of the general cultural attitude we've adopted. Social liberalism is largely rooted in the same sorts of sentiments, namely that you have no social or moral responsibilities to anyone except yourself. If no one is perceived to have duties in society, it's not really surprising when this extends to elites and society begins to have problems.

I would hesitate to blame any single factor for this, but I would agree with you somewhat that excessive individualism seems to be a problem.

[Forlania]

Fuck no.
If we can prevent world hunger and manage to prevent destroying what's left of the environment, MAYBE I'll cede on millionaires.
MAYBE

[New haven america]

Because billionaires hoard money and don't put it back into the system, thus causing the consumer based economy to stagnate because the actual consumers who drive the economy can't afford anything because there's no money to buy things with circulating around. It's a positive feedback loop. (Course the government could just starting printing more money, but that would lead to things like the Weimar Republic's unbelievable inflation)

You know, for a supposed capitalist, how do you not know shit that's in Econ 101?

1. It's almost like you don't actually understand what Billionaires do at all.

I see you don't know how labor works. Do you have a job?

Oh, and I like how you ignore the fact that Bezos makes money off of government assistance, as do the majority of rich people. How is it taxes is legalized theft when a city wants to pave roads, but hard earned cash when the Feds throw your money at billionaires?

2. Of course I have a job.

3. I ignore it because I frankly don't particularly like that either.

1. Lay around all day, hoarding money, and not putting it back into the system. Most rich people have the same mental disorder that causes hoarding, with money being their chosen option to hoard because society for some stupid reason deems it acceptable as to do so.
2. Then why are you so eager to support billionaires?
3. Or maybe you do it because you don't want to admit that you're getting conned by the system and will never be as wealthy as billionaires are? I know from past interactions you have this problem with thinking other users are out to get you but we're not, we're trying to help you.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It's not that easy for many people, and the alternatives are also parasites.

I don't think the elderly couple who own the cafe I work at are parasites and I feel like this is a very anti-social attitude to adopt in general.

Most people don't have the privilege of working for good people.

[The Emerald Legion]

The alternative under socialism for not working is probably starvation too when fellow proletarians finally get annoyed with the person spouting theory instead of building cars alongside them. You have to work to eat in most cases. People are more compassionate towards those who physically can't work or who shouldn't work.

The difference resides more in the level of compensation, the ownership of capital, and more personal investment in the operation of syndicates or communes.

Socialism: you work for the good of your country and the benefit of your countrymen. Capitalism: you work for the profit of a capitalist.

Correction.

Socialism: You work for the good of the party and whoever runs the show. Capitalism: You work for the profit of yourself.