The only good billionaire
The only good billionaire
You're viewing a single thread.
It still would have been better if workers got the money in the first place. There are no good billionaires.
yeah this is like saying Elon Musk is a "good billionaire" because all his money is just stock and he doesn't own any lavish mansions or whatever.
Your real thoughts are leaking there. "No, don't give the money to the starving and homeless that need it most! You are supposed to give it to us!"
people become billionaires through wage theft. that money should not be his to give in the first place. Plus, the starving are unemployed because the unemployment rate is artificially controlled economically in order to pressure the working class into accepting bad work conditions.
people become billionaires through wage theft.>
Ok Karl Marx.
people become billionaires through wage theft.
Quite the
assumptionassertion. Can I also justassumeassert bad things you did with no evidence? PS: I mean that he specifically became billionaires through wage theft. I am sure many others did.Plus, the starving are unemployed because the unemployment rate is artificially controlled economically in order to pressure the working class into accepting bad work conditions.
Which, even if it was true, he would be unable to change, just as the two of us are.
That's established economic science. Billionaires cannot possibly create added value to account for their wealth, just as you or I cannot become billionaires at the sweat of our brow. These people end up billionaires for being at the giving end of an oppressive labor system, and often, of untaxed inheritance.
Maybe look up definition of wage theft first. The one most people use.
In addition:
Billionaires cannot possibly create added value to account for their wealth, just as you or I cannot become billionaires at the sweat of our brow.
- Value and create in this context is mostly subjective.
- Ever since internet and software became a thing, they can. It is absolutely possible for one person to create sw worth billions.
- Ever since internet and software became a thing, they can. It is absolutely possible for one person to create sw worth billions.
Name one thing that one person created that became worth billions. Something that is rightly credited to a single person.
Google is rightly credited to two people and valuable enough to make both billionaires.
World wide web is credited to a single person, idk if rightly. It is probably the most valuable piece of sw in history, despite being given away for free. Even if it was really made by a decently sized team, would be billions in value per person.
well, i simply dont agree that googles worth comes down to the work of those two people. what they did may have been necessary for the success of google, but so was the work of a lot of their employees.
again, the www is founded on the work of uncountably many people. the person credited is usually the one at the end of the chain of production. the end of the chain is necessary for there to be a product at all, but each of the other nodes of the chain is equally as important.
each of the other nodes of the chain is equally as important.
So do you believe that if I have two quality assurance people doing exactly the same procedure, if first checks Nokias and the second checks iPhones, the exact same work of the second one is 10 times as valuable, just because he works on iPhones?
What about a baseball player signing a ball and changing its value from few $ to 10s of thousands. Is he stealing the wages of the people that made the ball if he doesn't trace back the people who made the ball and share portion of the money?
In case of google, if it is not the founders who made the valuable part, the same marketing and other support people doing the exact same thing generated 10x the value than their colleagues at Bing? What about the janitor? Is his floor cleaning producing 10x the value if the building has Google logo on it instead of Bing?
What about people making parts like screws? Does the value of a screw retroactively change based on whether you put it into a Nokia or an iPhone, or an Alibaba alarm clock?
again, the www is founded on the work of uncountably many people. the person credited is usually the one at the end of the chain of production.
Ok, so how does this work? Group of people makes a computer, that is used for accounting at CERN. They take equal part of the Value created by the accounting, split with the actual accountants. But then a researcher creates www. The computer was suddenly worth much more and they should retroactively get more money? What about the accounting Value? Do they have to return money to accountants because their computer was used for www and since it was used for multiple things, the share of accounting Value they took originally was too high?
Google was started by two people who became billionaires. The very valuable company isn't run by just those two people. That's the point. No one has ever made anything or worked so hard they made a billion dollars by their effort and their effort alone.
If you really think otherwise, Would you hire me at a loss? Usually people hire someone and they make the company more money than what they are paid, because, you know, business, but if you want to hire me and pay me more money than what I make you, I'm down.
The very valuable company isn't run by just those two people. That's the point. No one has ever made anything or worked so hard they made a billion dollars by their effort and their effort alone.
So you think that the same people doing the exact same work (marketing, sales, etc.) produce 10x more value if you put google logo on them vs Bing? Because the companies can be run in the exact same way with the core sw being the only differentiator.
What about a janitor. Is his cleaning the floors 10x more valuable if the building has Google logo on it compared to Bing?
this is not established economics. It's labor theory of value derived by Marx that was never fully accepted, and was thoroughly debunked like 80 years ago at the latest.
Quite the assumption.
Go learn what the term "assumption" means.
Huh, I misunderstood that word for quite a while. Fixed it now. Thanks.
My real thoughts are that we should get rid of the elites who prop up the current system so that homelessness doesn't have to exist anymore. Don't put words into my mouth.
If your goal was to end homelessness and other societal woes, you would not say that a billionaire working to do the exact same thing using different means is not good. That is why I wrote you exposed your true motivations ;)
We are talking about systemic issues here. The capitalist class as a whole benefits from homelessness being extremely widespread as a way to put pressure on everyone else. One "good" billionaire won't change anything. We have to put an end to the entire class. The world can only become a just place when former billionaires are limited to levels of economic and political power comparable to everyone else.
No, you claimed
It still would have been better if workers got the money in the first place. There are no good billionaires.
Claiming this specific billionaire is not good either. Now you are trying to switch the topic to a systemic issue when your self-serving claim was called out.
Are you really gonna be pedantic about me using the word "good" one time? With fucking quotes to denote how i'm practically spitting it out...
You are a living meme, and I mean that in the worst possible connotation. You are the personification of a Reddit argument. The president of the Ben Shapiro debate club. I am so done with this...
Are you really gonna be pedantic about me using the word "good" one time?
The title of the post is "The only good billionaire". You seriously expect anyone to believe that was a slip of the tongue and not denial of the title?
You are a living meme, and I mean that in the worst possible connotation.
What do you expect? You guys are regurgitating quotes and theories with so many holes the Marvel movies are more believable. Of course the only reason I reply is to watch you rage, struggle to come up with excuses or desperately try to change the topic when I call out your nonsense. Bonus if it ever helps some lemming not to fall to this brain rot.
Want a genuine constructive good faith discussion? How about instead of regurgitating anticapitalist quotes, you post something worth discussing seriously. For example a plan for a fair system that does not fall apart as soon as some people act greedily and selfishly, like they always do. Or at least an outline of one, that we can work on to refine. Or you know, if you can't come up with a whole new system, how to improve the current one.
Until then, you and lemmings like you are my comedic relief.
You are a dumb cunt.
You're a guy who thinks not being rich makes you morally superior to a man who anonymously donated over 99.9% of his wealth to charity, likely helping millions of people. 🤣
You gonna pack some more words into his mouth or, you done?
Yeah, kinda pathetic.
Uuu, copium is strong here 🤣
You don't meet the minimum requirements to troll me.
Starving people are the result of class divides.
Which is irrelevant when discussing the morality of a person who bridged that divide by giving his wealth away.
What makes you think the workers downstream from him are not among the starving and homeless?
What makes you think a system where workers are fairly compensated would not also be a better system for food/housing security?
I'm assuming this isn't a dumb comment and just a fun thought exercise.
Or that people remain homeless because they know a job wont solve their homelessness.
What makes you think the workers downstream from him are not among the starving and homeless?
Because RoyaltyInTraining made that statement without referring to any additional information? So I obviously assume that he made his statement based on the information in the post.
Besides, even if they were, would donating the money be less effective than paying them in wages? Charitable donations are tax exempt, wages are not. Also, you assume he was in a position where he could do anything about the worker wages, which seems unlikely given how most companies work (wiki says he was not a full owner, just co-founder).