Democrats want us to believe that there is some cohort of “good billionaires” who can be relied upon to fight for political progress. But as the right-wing turn of tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk suggests, this is nonsense.
There is no need for billionaires. They have more money than they know what to do with and could solve a lot of world issues and still have enough money left over to not know what to do with it. There’s literally no reason in hoarding all that money if you’re not going to spend it. It’s a necessity for literally everyone else while they hold onto it to make themselves more powerful. If all the billionaires were hoarding all the food and we had to deal with the scrapes, people would be going absolutely crazy. Even though that’s pretty much exactly what they are doing when people can’t make enough money to buy food. Throw everything else like medical care and housing into the mix and what you end up with is a few people living a life of luxury while they are literally keeping your life away from you.
One single billion at any one time is more than any one person should have. There really should just be a cap. Like, 999,999,999 is the highest your bank account can get, anything after that just flows into public programs.
The game Zelda: A link to the past had a max capacity of 999 rupees (money). If you picked up more, nothing happened. That’s how life should be.
What happens when something already owned grows in value past the arbitrary maximum? Net worth is, after all, a function of how valuable everyone else thinks the stuff you own is. It’s a price tag.
If you buy a rookie baseball card for $5, and the player has a great year and now your card is worth $100, did you deprive anyone of $95 by continuing to own it?
I’m not super concerned with “things” and their value. If a person makes $1b a year and wants to buy a $1b yacht every year then they have a bunch of yachts. The point is that money went back into the economy. Now, if they have 2 and want to sell 2 for $2b all at once… sorry, no. There is a wealth cap.
The issue with Billionaires now is that money isn’t in the economy. The more they hold, the harder it is to get enough.
The issue with Billionaires now is that money isn’t in the economy.
Again, the baseball card growing in value by $95 took $95 away from no one. No one is deprived of cash in their wallet as a result of another person’s purchase appreciating in value.
Also, their net worth is not cash sitting in a vault, it’s investing into businesses that are running within the economy. It literally all is actively in the economy. You literally can’t become a billionaire without doing that. Saying/implying that billionaires “hoard” wealth is deeply ignorant.
I think you have exactly the opposite impression of wealth than how it is in reality, then. Billionaires typically have only a tiny amount of their wealth in liquid funds (what you call “holding” money) - most of their wealth is in investments, and hence “in the economy”. So the thing you’re proposing already holds.
Maybe they could use 32-bit twos complement arithmetic so if you have $2147483647 and you add one more dollar, suddenly you have NEGATIVE $2147483648. When you call customer service, they tell you that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Heh heh.
could solve a lot of world issues and still have enough money left over to not know what to do with it.
There is no world issue that can be solved by just throwing money at it. Those issues have had MUCH more money thrown at them than all of the net worth of all billionaires on Earth combined, without being solved.
There is no world issue that can be solved by just throwing money at it. Those issues have had MUCH more money thrown at them than all of the net worth of all billionaires on Earth combined, without being solved.
That seems obviously false, unless you’re proposing that all the charities in the world are scams and don’t actually do anything. I guess you could argue that as you throw money into saving lives, the low-hanging fruits get picked and the cost rises, so you can never saturate all the charities - but this is a very weak argument, since saving 99.99% of all the people in the world from hunger or poverty would be about as good as 100%. Just because there’s diminishing returns doesn’t mean it’s a doomed cause.
That seems obviously false, unless you’re proposing that all the charities in the world are scams and don’t actually do anything.
Charities do more than throw money at problems. This doesn’t contradict my point at all, which is that money alone is not the answer–if it was, all of these problems would have been solved by now.
As a small example, you can’t truly solve world hunger until you achieve world peace, and you can’t buy peace.
I’m not entirely disagreeing with you on your point, I just want to add that we have a system of cronyism. The taxpayers of a country (more specifically, the US) spend, say, $60 billion to feed an underdeveloped African country or area. The trick is, the politicians have made sure that the money goes to specific contractors. Who have no investment in using the money to solve the problem. Their business model is now not to fix something, it’s to make sure the program stays funded so they can keep getting $60b to do $3b worth of work with $2b worth of materials and make a profit and donate to more political campaigns to keep doing this on a greater scale. That $60b directly applied with government labor and government supervision would have worked. But cronyism prevented it at every step.
There is no need for billionaires. They have more money than they know what to do with and could solve a lot of world issues and still have enough money left over to not know what to do with it. There’s literally no reason in hoarding all that money if you’re not going to spend it. It’s a necessity for literally everyone else while they hold onto it to make themselves more powerful. If all the billionaires were hoarding all the food and we had to deal with the scrapes, people would be going absolutely crazy. Even though that’s pretty much exactly what they are doing when people can’t make enough money to buy food. Throw everything else like medical care and housing into the mix and what you end up with is a few people living a life of luxury while they are literally keeping your life away from you.
One single billion at any one time is more than any one person should have. There really should just be a cap. Like, 999,999,999 is the highest your bank account can get, anything after that just flows into public programs.
The game Zelda: A link to the past had a max capacity of 999 rupees (money). If you picked up more, nothing happened. That’s how life should be.
Billionaires don’t have 1 billion in their bank account
What happens when something already owned grows in value past the arbitrary maximum? Net worth is, after all, a function of how valuable everyone else thinks the stuff you own is. It’s a price tag.
If you buy a rookie baseball card for $5, and the player has a great year and now your card is worth $100, did you deprive anyone of $95 by continuing to own it?
I’m not super concerned with “things” and their value. If a person makes $1b a year and wants to buy a $1b yacht every year then they have a bunch of yachts. The point is that money went back into the economy. Now, if they have 2 and want to sell 2 for $2b all at once… sorry, no. There is a wealth cap.
The issue with Billionaires now is that money isn’t in the economy. The more they hold, the harder it is to get enough.
Greed is a horrible thing.
Again, the baseball card growing in value by $95 took $95 away from no one. No one is deprived of cash in their wallet as a result of another person’s purchase appreciating in value.
Also, their net worth is not cash sitting in a vault, it’s investing into businesses that are running within the economy. It literally all is actively in the economy. You literally can’t become a billionaire without doing that. Saying/implying that billionaires “hoard” wealth is deeply ignorant.
I think you have exactly the opposite impression of wealth than how it is in reality, then. Billionaires typically have only a tiny amount of their wealth in liquid funds (what you call “holding” money) - most of their wealth is in investments, and hence “in the economy”. So the thing you’re proposing already holds.
Maybe they could use 32-bit twos complement arithmetic so if you have $2147483647 and you add one more dollar, suddenly you have NEGATIVE $2147483648. When you call customer service, they tell you that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Heh heh.
There is no world issue that can be solved by just throwing money at it. Those issues have had MUCH more money thrown at them than all of the net worth of all billionaires on Earth combined, without being solved.
It’s just not that simple.
That seems obviously false, unless you’re proposing that all the charities in the world are scams and don’t actually do anything. I guess you could argue that as you throw money into saving lives, the low-hanging fruits get picked and the cost rises, so you can never saturate all the charities - but this is a very weak argument, since saving 99.99% of all the people in the world from hunger or poverty would be about as good as 100%. Just because there’s diminishing returns doesn’t mean it’s a doomed cause.
Charities do more than throw money at problems. This doesn’t contradict my point at all, which is that money alone is not the answer–if it was, all of these problems would have been solved by now.
As a small example, you can’t truly solve world hunger until you achieve world peace, and you can’t buy peace.
I’m not entirely disagreeing with you on your point, I just want to add that we have a system of cronyism. The taxpayers of a country (more specifically, the US) spend, say, $60 billion to feed an underdeveloped African country or area. The trick is, the politicians have made sure that the money goes to specific contractors. Who have no investment in using the money to solve the problem. Their business model is now not to fix something, it’s to make sure the program stays funded so they can keep getting $60b to do $3b worth of work with $2b worth of materials and make a profit and donate to more political campaigns to keep doing this on a greater scale. That $60b directly applied with government labor and government supervision would have worked. But cronyism prevented it at every step.