Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yeah, the "free market" is a sham driven solely by greed. No billionaire alive actually cares about other human beings, they're all soulless monsters driven solely by greed, willing to let everyone die just to make a quick buck.
I'm not even exaggerating with the "let everyone die" part, that is literally what is happening with climate change.
@Pushover Media Critic: For what it's worth, the "Free Market" doesn't actually assume anything else-in fact, it assumes exactly that.
I don't think it's a particularly reasonable assumption though to assume every billionaire is outright evil. That wouldn't make any sense.
Edited by Protagonist506 on Jan 29th 2019 at 7:56:51 AM
Leviticus 19:34![]()
![]()
That reminds of the, I don't know if "outrage" is the right word for it but something when Bill Gates said that when he and his wife die each of his kids are only getting 10 million and the rest is going to whoever.
That rubbed some people the wrong way.
Edited by LSBK on Jan 29th 2019 at 10:34:25 AM
For reference, Bezos gives 0.0906% to charity.
So percentage wise, most of us are donating more. And Bezos didn’t “earn” those billions; he took them by cutting corners and squeezing workers and demanding corporate welfare to bring those miserable warehouse jobs to new cities.
Additionally, billionaire donations are often poorly managed, going to nonsense like university endowments (Harvard is already worth BILLIONS) rather than effective anti-poverty work. Also, the very existence of billionaires is unethical and a massive sign of how broken our economic system is.
Edited by wisewillow on Jan 29th 2019 at 11:39:20 AM
That rubbed some people the wrong way.
Someone crunched the numbers and found Bill has saved something like six million lives with his charity so far.
Warren Buffet started his charities when Bill Gates asked him what was the point of being the world's richest man if not to help people.
Generally, my view of this is a lot of people don't actually understand how being a billionaire (or even a millionaire works). You're right about charitable donations being mismanaged but the simple fact is that if a man owns Amazon or Google (or a large chunk of it) then that's fundamentally different than having a big pile of cash.
Most billionaires are owners of pieces of companies which are the wealth. Not cash rich.
Dividing up Google among investors doesn't help anyone. Indeed, it encourages companies to drive up stock prices and maintain them at the expense of long term company health.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 29th 2019 at 8:47:50 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters."Earn".
Who determines, objectively, who's earned what? The nature of capitalism, is that, given enough time, the market will ALWAYS produce billionaires. There's literally no way around it short of abolishing it Star Trek Style, and we know that's likely never going to happen.
Let's put it like this: If income inequality, were virtually non-existent, with everyone getting their fair shake, but there obviously being rich and super rich would anyone really care about the existence of billionaires?
Absolutely not. You're attacking a symptom. Not the cause.
New Survey coming this weekend!I think people would really enjoy this article.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates-buffet-charity-billionaire-philanthropy
“[Bill] Gates was worth $54 billion in 2010, the year the Giving Pledge debuted; he’s worth $97 billion today. [Warren] Buffett’s wealth has also nearly doubled, to $90 billion, despite annual transfers of Berkshire Hathaway stock to the Gates Foundation and the four foundations controlled by his three children,” Callahan wrote.
With some billionaires, there’s a simple explanation for why they don’t give away more money: They don’t really feel like it.
But that doesn’t seem like a fully satisfying explanation when it comes to Gates, Buffett, or other billionaires who’ve pledged to give away their wealth before they die. I want to speak up in their partial defense here: It’s actually shockingly challenging to effectively give away vast sums of money, especially at the rates billionaires would need to give to keep up with their recent gains on the stock market.
Philanthropy is harder than you think
It can strain credulity that it’s really that challenging to give away money. But when you look at the track record of many poorly planned, failed philanthropy projects, it gets clearer.
This year, the data came out from a $575 million multi-year project to improve schools, spearheaded by more than $200 million from the Gates Foundation — and the expensive intervention didn’t improve student outcomes at all. Mark Zuckerberg spent $100 million to improve schools and saw some modest gains — but they were small and accompanied by outrage and local backlash. (My colleague Dylan Matthews has pleaded for philanthropists to stay out of education, where their track records are particularly disappointing.)
The short version is that the economic system is designed to serve the wealthy 1% so much that people who actively are trying to give away billions find themselves stymied at every turn.
You can't also liquidate a lot of assets.
The most successful have created foundations that absorb all the gains but even this is hard.
This bluntly immunizes them to criticism from me.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 29th 2019 at 8:56:49 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Unless the value of money means that being a billionaire is no longer the prestige it sounds like it is, the system should not accommodate such a logarithmically dispropoprtionate allotment of income. I'm no economist but my intuition says the log disparity in income (not to be confused with total wealth) should max out at 3 figures rather than 6 or more.
Not in the short term; immediately confiscating the physical wealth of the rich (or eating them) like many revolutionary radicals advocate is less useful than it seems. It's more effective to alter policy so that wealth does not accumulate at the top to the degree that it does and that the majority of it remains in healthy circulation among the bottom 99%.
Edited by AlleyOop on Jan 29th 2019 at 12:19:16 PM
There's a misconception of assuming that there's a definite, fixed amount of money in any economy. A person having a lot more money than you does not intrinsically make you poorer. Actually, the opposite tends to be true.
I would even go as far as to argue wealth inequality is not necessarily a sign of something wrong in society. There's nothing morally wrong with being wealthy in and of itself.
Leviticus 19:34

Edited by AlleyOop on Jan 29th 2019 at 10:36:42 AM