You're viewing a single thread.
Billionaires. No one needs this much money and it's not helpful to have this much hoarded.
We get it, you won at capitalism, now actually contribute to the world around you
Nobody earns a billion dollars. It can only be stolen and exploited from other peoples' labor.
Out of curiosity, let's say I'm a video game developer and I make games by myself (no team). I have a hit success and sell 300 milion copies worldwide for an average of $20 a piece and am now a billionaire.
Was that money stolen or exploited? If so, how? If not, how does that jive with your stated position?
You're right that the claim that "being a billionaire requires exploitation" is massively oversimplified. But the situation you've described is essentially winning the lottery. Yeah, you put the time into think of, and execute on an idea, but everything else, from having the time to work on a possible flop, to it being a hit with 300 million people is ultra luck-based. 1000 people could do the exact same thing, and 1 might hit it big. It's gambling.
A more accurate phrasing of the original statement is: the only way to reliably amass billions of dollars in wealth is to exploit a supply/demand gap to the point of unsustainability.
A small business that operates with integrity, prioritizes the wellbeing of their society over their profits, doesn't price gouge, and doesn't discourage healthy competition will never become worth billions. They will always lose to competition that is willing and allowed to forego ethics for profits.
So 100 people could try your strategy of making a game that goes viral, and none of them are going to do it, most probably won't even make a profit. But then 100 people could try the strategy of exploitation, and they're going to reliably turn a profit. We allow a society where exploitation is a good investment.
Regardless of what people think of Peter Thiel he says out loud exactly what is wrong with late-stage capitalism: competition is for losers.
Firstly, it's no more luck based than any other method. There are less than 3000 billionaires in the world. If there was an even pseudo-reliable system to become a billionaire, there would be more than 0.00004% of the population who've managed it.
And selling a popular video game is just as much "exploiting a supply/demand gap" as any other method. You have an effective monopoly on an asset that people want.
All that to say, I'm pushing back on the "massively oversimplified," because it's not, it's just counterfactual.
I wouldn't have minded if the OP had said "the overwhelming majority of billionaires got there by exploiting the working class." That's just as "massively oversimplified" as what they did say, but isn't objectively false.You're not describing a situation where your made a series of investments with a high ROI, you're describing a "one-hit-wonder" scenario. Ask any successful game developer and they'll all (sorry, the overwhelming majority will) tell you that making a viral game as you've described is hugely luck-based.
Similarly, all (sorry, the overwhelming majority) of those 3000 billionaires would agree that you don't amass their amount of wealth via a one-hit-wonder. Yes, it involves the fortune of having the opportunity to exploit others (usually born to already wealthy families), but then also requires a pattern of exploitation (I think they'll be less willing to admit that one. Maybe Theil would.)
If you'd like to adjust your hypothetical scenario to not be based off of a one-hit-wonder, and instead model a sustainable pattern of good investments, go for it. But I believe I've already addressed that possibility with my "small business" example in the previous post. It simply doesn't happen.
Yes, anything that turns a profit is based on a supply/demand gap, the key word I used was "unsustainablely". I'm not talking about selling a video game for $100 when players want to pay $20, I'm talking about selling the cure for a disease for $10000 when it costs $1 to make. Price gouging. Exploitation.
So, I just looked at the list of the top ten billionaires. It includes: Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook (one hit wonder) Jeff Bezos: Amazon (one hit wonder) Bill Gates: Microsoft (one hit wonder) Larry Page: Google (one hit wonder)
There are several other examples in the top ten list that are lesser known but also one hit wonders, but even if there weren't, that's 40% right there.
I suppose you could argue that those companies do more than one thing, especially Google, but the vast majority of the cash flow for each is behind one product or line of products.
The only differentiator between any of them and Notch is that Notch was a one man team, and therefore wasn't "exploiting the capital generated by his employees."
And let's be real here. You say that a small business can't grow to be a multi-billion dollar business? Tell that to literally any of the above. Microsoft started in Gates garage. Facebook was a college project. Almost all businesses start as small mom-and-pop shops. Some do in fact become multi-billion dollar businesses. Just not the vast majority because, again, it's based on luck.
And look, you keep circling back to try and paint what I'm saying as "it's fine for billionaires to price gouge medicine and stomp homeless people to death" or something. That's not what I'm saying no matter how many times you circle back to it.
To repeat ad nauseum, the only point I'm making is that it's in fact possible to become a billionaire without exploiting other people's labor. Full stop. No other point beside that. If we agree on that point, then we are fully in agreement. That is, again, the only point I'm arguing.I just looked at the list of the top ten billionaires. It includes: Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook (one hit wonder) Jeff Bezos: Amazon (one hit wonder) Bill Gates: Microsoft (one hit wonder) Larry Page: Google (one hit wonder)
Not a single one of these hit billionaire status via a one-hit-wonder. Every single one of them did so via a pattern of exploitation.
Sure, some of them might have had a one-hit-wonder that resulted in their first few million. But to keep climbing past a billion required steady, consistent, methodical, unethical exploitation and anti-competative practices. These are the poster-children for exploitative billionaires in our society.
You say that a small business can't grow to be a multi-billion dollar business? Tell that to literally any of the above.
I didn't say that. I said that (the overwhelming majority of) small businesses cannot become a billionaire company without a pattern of exploitation.
the only point I'm making is that it's in fact possible to become a billionaire without exploiting other people's labor...If we agree on that point, then we are fully in agreement.
Sure, it's theoretically possible. But that might account for less than 1% of currently living billionaires, if any at all. Do we agree?
Absolutely I'm willing to agree to that.
I am only pushing back on the statement, "it is impossible to amass a billion dollars without exploiting the labor of the working class."I certainly don't think that's the majority of billionaires. If your definition of exploiting the labor of the working class includes "having any employees that aren't part owners of the business," then of course the number of billionaires who can say that is vanishingly small.
But they do in fact exist, and I think the majority of people are aware of that. Therefore, making statements like "all billionaires exploited labor" makes the average person think your position is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst.
I think there is a slightly different claim we're each making, and it's confused by the term "billion". I think we both agree that it's an arbitrary value that was used in the interest of an oversimplified claim above, but I think we can disambiguate the points we're making if we generalize it.
Your statement that "it is possible to be an X-aire without exploitation of the working class" is technically correct for the value of X=billion.
But I think the claim I'm making (and the oversimplified claim that was originally made) is that: for any given point in time, in any given capitalist society, there is a value X beyond which you cannot reliably amass and retain wealth without unethical exploitation.
The post above set X at a billion, maybe it's not a billion, maybe it's 100 billion. 100 years ago maybe it was 100 million, and in 100 years it'll be 100 trillion. But the point is that there exists a value beyond which ONLY exploitative practices can get you; or in other words, you will never be the richest man in our late-stage capitalist society by winning the lottery or through steady, ethical investments.
Man, I feel like we reached an agreement and now you're trying to walk it back. :P
And while I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're making, it feels like a setup to goal shift. Like, any example that gets brought up to counter the narrative can now just be dismissed as, "oh, but he's not enough of a billionaire."
And let's be real, a billion dollars, right now, is almost certainly beyond that arbitrary dollar amount X you speak of. There's only 3000 of them in the world! The *world! There's 8 trillion of us. How much more selective do we need to be??
Sure, it’s theoretically possible. But that might account for less than 1% of currently living billionaires, if any at all.
Tempting to agree on the less than 1%.
Regarding millionaires, not billionaires, I can only think of one who sold a business and then started a Linux distribution : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth
Heh Canonical is a funny example, considering most Linux users steer clear of it because of it's arguably exploitative practices in an effort to remain profitable.
I do think most, if not all billionaires have convinced themselves the ends justify their means. Zuck thinks he's "connecting the world". Bezos probably thinks the same thing Sam Walton did. Musk thinks he's ushering in the next stage of humanity. On some level I'm sympathetic to Ubuntu's cause; all tech companies harvest your data for profit, why not leverage that technique in order to bootstrap the prevalence of a FOSS platform.
But the point is, that's just what has to happen to amass that level of wealth in the society we live in. You can be as noble as you want, you can get lucky and find yourself in a pile of cash, but to steadily climb that ladder to the billion+ territory will require you to exploit or be exploited.
You are talking about Minecraft level success and even that took many years of success and being bought by one of the largest companies in the world to reach that many sells.
I am talking about that level of success, yes. I in fact was using it's numbers and exact case information, lol.
Notch is a billionaire. The original claim was that no one becomes a billionaire without stealing or exploiting the value of the work of the laborers. My question then is, the value of whose labor did Notch steal or exploit to become a billionaire?
Note: He is also an awful person, so setting that aside for the moment. He's not awful in a way that directly relates to the question at hand.
So really he made his money from selling his company, not just from the game sales itself. And I would argue that he more or less got lucky more than he "earned" it, which I think he has said as much in interviews before.
I can't really speak to if he directly exploited labor, but I think we can pretty safely state that Microsoft has in fact done so repeatedly, and so indirectly at least, Notch benefited from that as well.
Now does that make him morally corrupt for taking that offer? Maybe. But I think any one of us would take the same offer if given the chance. But the reality of the situation is that getting rich from this kind of success is very slim, and even then the labor and effort involved is very much disproportionate to what others are earning for much more effort. And if he was taxed at a rate where is was no longer a billionaire, but just a millionaire, then his quality of life very likely won't change too much while many other people would benefit, assuming that tax money is actually going to public services, that is.
The issue I'd take with that is that it's hardly any more or less "luck" than any other billionaire.
There's less than 3000 billionaires in the world. It's not like the other 2999 were wildly more qualified and had the perfect strategy that inevitably and directly led to their billionaire status.
And while he did become a billionaire by selling to Microsoft, he would have even without that most likely. The game has sold enough copies that it would have made him a billionaire, even without the sale to Microsoft.
And I think it's unfair, even if that wasn't the case, to lay the sins of the buyer at the feet of the seller, when the seller isn't otherwise doing anything wrong. It's basically the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" thing. There is no one he could sell to that wouldn't be "unethical", and therefore he'd be morally obligated to never sell it to anyone. He's as "morally corrupt" for that as any of us are when we shop at a grocery store or buy/rent housing.
And I said it elsewhere, I am in no way arguing against him being appropriately taxed on this income (or potentially standing wealth). I simply push back on the idea that billionaires can only become such by being morally bankrupt exploiters who stomp on the heads of millions of the proletariat to get where they are.
Are there some like that? Absolutely. Is it the vast majority? Depends on how you define "stomping on the heads of the proletariat," but it's probably a good chunk at minimum. But the only requirement is luck. Not cruelty or exploitation.I'm all for progression tax structures. I'm all for taxing the rich. But statements like "all billionaires got their money by exploiting the poor" makes one look, at best, uncritical of your own positions. It's counterfactual name calling of the out-tribe, the same as calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi.
Every billionaire are where they are at by being at least somewhat lucky. In a lot of cases they are simply lucky enough to be born to the right family. Some have worked to get where they are, but its not just hard work or effort that got them there.
And I would argue that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and I would also argue that that is the case for just about any other societal system as well. After all, none of us can live without being a burden or hurting others at some point. That's life. Its also more or less the concept of "original sin" that Christians go on about. Its fine to acknowledge that and only by doing so can society at large takes steps to reduce systematic harm where we can.
That being said, billionaires, by having more capital, have more power and influence under capitalism, so it can be argued that they get a larger part of the blame for systematic issues, especially as many of them do utilize their power to maintain the status quo or push for more harmful systematic policies. And the ones that aren't actively pushing such policies are still benefiting from such policies. And they could donate their fortunes to charitable causes, but in my opinion that's not something that we should have to rely on them doing and does nothing to solve the systematic issues at play.
At the end of the day, it's its not as if its a black and white issue, but the statement that no one "earned" a billion dollars is largely true in the sense that if you work hard or put in the effort, you can make it. Even in Notch's case, if he didn't decide to sale to Microsoft, maybe he might still be a billionaire today, but would he have earned it himself? Its not like he was the only one working on the game even when he sold the company. I'm not sure what the compensation the others working at Mojang got, but if he continued to independently develop Minecraft, getting to 300 million sales requires significant development effort between porting the game to various platforms and ongoing content updates. If he ended up getting the majority of the payout, then he would have very likely did it at the disproportionately at the expense of other's effort.
A billion dollars is a lot of money. Like a lot of money. I don't necessary think its wrong to have the opinion that billionaires shouldn't exist. At least in the system we have today. Now, I'd say that its the system that's the problem, not necessary any individual billionaire, but if they get to wieild the power that comes with their fortune, then its fair to have more blame for it as well.
I don't disagree with a single thing you have just said, nor have I. But then, based on all that, would you agree then that the sentence "[A billion dollars] can only be stolen and exploited from other peoples' labor" is counterfactual?
Because that's the only point I'm making. I'm with you on the additional social responsibility that should be encumbant upon billionaires. I'm with you on fixing systematic issues that allow them to exist.
My one and only point for this whole thread is that you can be a billionaire without "stealing and exploiting other people's labor."
I think what we are getting to is the semantics of it. Theoretically, it should be possible to be a billionaire without stealing and exploitation. I think that in reality though, a billion dollars is so much money that's its hard to see how a single person can amass that much wealth without being exploitative, intentionally or not. Even if you were given that much money, holding onto it would require investing into a system that is rife with exploitation.
I'll admit that I'm by no means an expert on billionaires and there might exist some that made their fortune without exploitation. And I'm including indirect exploitation here. Maybe that's another point of semantics, but its one that I feel very much matters in this context.
I don't think this is semantic though. The initial post said that "Nobody earns a billion dollars. It can only be stolen and exploited from other peoples' labor."
That statement does not read as "they were at least involved indirectly in some behavior at some point in their life that was in some way unethical." It is purporting a direct relationship between their achieving a billion dollars and an active exploitation of others direct labor. That is why I pushed back against it.
And here is my issue with including indirect exploitation in the consideration. It vastly waters down culpability. A billionaire is just as guilty of indirect exploitation as you or me or the Pope. There is literally no action at all that one can take that I couldn't make some argument for being a form of indirect exploitation. So when you say that billionaires are exploitative for indirect exploitation reasons, it seems churlish. It loses all meaning because it's basically tautologically true. Why should I care about it if the person telling me that the billionaire is exploiting people is actively and continuously engaging in the exact same type of exploitation?
Not all of that money goes to the developer, but also to the seller places and other places. You'd also still have to pay income tax.
Ideally, there'd just be a 100% income and wealth tax after having say, 1/10,000,000th of the world's total GDP. Without any loopholes.
With a world GDP of approx. $ 102 trillion, or 102 billion if you use the long scale, that is about $ 10.2 million you would have at max.
I think it fair up until then, exploited after that. With that money, you can practically buy anything to your heart's content anyways.
How about more brackets?
-- Practical scenario --
Suppose you had a wealth of 10 billion. The lowest bracket is a 3 billionth of the world's income, so say 34k. That's taxed 0%.
The lower middle is from there til 1.6 billionth of that income, around 64k. Taxed 35%.
Upper middle, around 1.6 billionth til 1 billionth (around 100k), taxed 65%.
Upper, around 1 billionth til 1 millionth (10 million) of world's GDP, has about 99%.
Highest has 1 millionth and beyond. Let's assume the world's GDP is 100 trillion for ease of calculation.
So, you have 10 billion. 10 bil - 10 mil. 9.99 bil, all removed, used for public works.
10 mil - 100k, 9.9 mil. Taxing 99% of that 9.9 mil gets 99k.
And so on, until you have a smaller but respectable amount to play with.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't strictly disagree with anything you've said. I'm not sure that I'm on the 100% tax above a certain threshold idea, but I'm not terrible interested in debating it one way or another.
The point I was interested in was what makes it inherently exploitative to earn that much money? You repeat the claim (and clarify) that making anything above 10mil is exploitative, but what I'm curious about is the justification.
Typically, my understanding of when people say billionaires exploited the working class, it's because they are pocketing the excess value of those that they employ. But we have real world cases of billionaires who employ no one.
In those cases, what have they done that is exploitative?
And to further clarify. I'm not asking why it's unjust from an equity standpoint. I'm not asking why it would be better if that wealth was taxed. I'm specifically asking after the word exploitative.
Yeah we really need an upper limit for wealth. In video games you would eventually cap the score, and billionaires are far in excess of that. Reminds me of that episode of Ducktales where Scrooge celebrates that he has become so rich he no longer has to pay taxes because they cannot be calculated any more.