To show the ridiculousness of the post's title "Nobody should have that much money" --- Because that's all the same idea.. Sorry, you made too much of X based on other people w/o regard to anything other than the count of money.. So, we're going to take it from you and give it to others that don't have as much.
"You have more money than me! You shouldn't be allowed to have more money than me!" is pretty much the only argument I ever hear from people who are salty that someone has a lot of money. It's friggin juvenile.
You should listen more closely, because there are a number of reasons why vast wealth is bad for everyone but the wealthy person.
If you create a better Amazon, Jeff Bezos 90 billion will make its way to you.
That's not even close to true. History is littered with the bodies of better ideas that failed anyway. Ever hear of Tucker Automobiles?
There may be finite money, but it never stays in one place forever. The only thing that lets it stagnate is the same type of thinking that assholes like you who think because the fat kid HAS 10 pieces of cake that regardless of how he got them, he should be forced to give 9 of them away. What if he had 10 birthday parties to go to that day and got a piece of cake at each one? And what if he's taking them home to his 9 siblings who weren't invited? Would you force him to give up the 9 pieces then? You're butthurt that you didn't make Amazon and also you're clearly a moron.
No one is butthurt, so calm your tits. I know it makes it easier for you to dismiss people by saying they are just jealous, but it doesn't make it true. Concentrated wealth is a threat to the republic and social stability. Again, I don't have a problem with some people being rich, but it is a matter of degree. I don't envy Bezos' or Gates' wealth. I make plenty of money and have a comfortable lifestyle. However, the fact that they have that much money means other people, like the people who cook their food, don't have enough. Wealth of that magnitude is a drain on society and the economy. I'm not saying it should be taken away, but I am saying it probably shouldn't have been accumulated to begin with. Such wealth accumulation should be discouraged. How, I don't know. Reasonable people can disagree.
Opportunity is God here. Take it or leave it, that's up to you. Some people try and fail, some people try and succeed, that is opportunity. You could make the next Amazon if you weren't too busy worrying about stopping other people from trying because of your butthurt.
Ah, so some people have God and some do not? Does everyone have an equal opportunity? I think not. Can everyone have 90 billion dollars if they just work hard enough and succeed? Or does the system require that we have a few winners and many losers? Further, what if Jeff Bezos had 90 trillion dollars and everyone else had one dollar? I guess he would have just earned it, right?
Look, I don't have a problem with some people having more than others. But it's a matter of degree and proportion. I don't see how Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates could have added so much value that they are due 90 billion dollars. And I'm typing this on a Windows PC on a keyboard I bought from Amazon. As my absurd hypothetical above illustrates, it is a matter of degree. Nobody, by themselves, can add 90 billion dollars worth of value. They may have had a great idea and the drive to see it through, and they deserve to be rewarded for that. But really, when one accumulates $90 billion they are taking more than they deserve.
Well, there's the problem right there. They're being paid by the contracting company, not FB, so their real beef is with their actual employer. FB doesn't employ them, FB employs the contracting company. FB is using the cheapest bid for food service they could get.
So how are actual FB employees faring at the company?
Exactly. As long as there is a middle-man involved, Facebook doesn't have to give a fuck. It's like when I hired that contract company to have t-shirts made in Bangladesh for $0.10 an hour. I'm not the one exploiting those workers, the contracting company is. So I was completely blameless in that situation. I mean, sure I got the cost savings from paying those people so little, but I don't see how that enters into the equation at all.
Having an average of 2 kids or more each is vital to our economy. If itâ(TM)s unaffordable to have children, we have a big big problem on our hands.
Of course we have a big problem on our hands. That's been the case for at least 30 years. The owners of capital are taking a larger and larger share of the economic pie. The population has largely been propagandized to think that forming unions leads to corruption and constraint, thus blunting the only power they have; their numbers. Our economic system is set up to serve business. If your boss wanted you to have kids, they would have made them part of the benefits package. Hell, we have had to pass laws to keep pregnant women from being fired!
Hardly anyone with any power is looking at the long term. There is little sense of shared destiny. Those kids won't be needed to replace the workforce for 20 years. But there are profit target bonuses to be had now! So employers pay as little as possible. If people can't afford to have children on that pay (if people are even making that calculation) then too bad. The people running things now sure don't give a shit.
Central and South American left-wing governments self-destruct without any aid from capitalism, thank you very much. Without capitalism, they probably would implode faster.
Oh, but they have help from the CIA, which is the enforcement arm of global Capitalism.
There are 15 million food insecure households in this country because a lot of people insist on making bad choices. Sometimes, hell most of the time, they make those choices in ignorance, but they made the choice. The real problem is that for every adult who decided to make bad choices they've dragged a couple of kids, who had not choice in the matter, into their consequence.
Or maybe there are 15 million food insecure households in this country because labor is not fairly compensated for the value it creates. As you say, wealth is nothing more than the accumulation of the results of labor. Very wealthy people have accumulated the results of other people's labor. Sure, sometimes people make poor decisions. However, when a rich person makes a poor decision, they are insulated from the consequences by their wealth. A poor person might be out on the street for the same poor decision.
I know an anecdote isn't data. But as an example, I know a guy who has been married twice, divorced twice, and has three children, two from his first marriage and one from his second. He has no job because he quit, and cannot pay his child support. You'd think he would be out on the street, or collecting SNAP, because of his poor decisions, right? No, he lives in a brand new condo and drives a new car, and has spent tens of thousands on lawyers fighting his ex-wives, because he comes from a rich family. His assets are in his parent's name, so his ex-wives can't touch it. He's an unemployed, deadbeat dad with multiple baby mamas, but you won't be holding him up as some example of bad choices because he's rich and insulated from the consequences of his actions. But you'll carry on thinking poor people are poor because of their bad choices.
No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.
It's a reason to keep business interests relatively small and weak. The government has to be the biggest kid on the block because it has to be able to enforce its laws and regulations.
As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.
Capitalism has also moved against any system that looks like it might be threatening to Capitalism's supremacy. So it's not like there has been fair competition among various economic systems. See the history of Central and South American left-wing governments for more info. I wonder how Jacobo Árbenz feels about the United Fruit Company, or Mohammad Mossddegh about British Petroleum.
What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy? What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content. Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.
If wealthy people just did that, they wouldn't be wealthy now would they? So maybe there's something else at play.
Taking issue with concentrated wealth is not about jealousy; though many rich people like to think that because it makes the issue easy to dismiss. No, it's about out-sized power. With economic power comes political power. The very wealthy have access to government that regular people don't. They are able to have their voice heard and influence policy for their own ends; sometimes to the detriment of the overall population. They are also able to buy media companies that broadcast or feature viewpoints that are pleasing to the owners. In this way they are able to shape the culture and societal attitudes.
In short, if you have enough money you can have a strong influence on business, culture, and government, without much constraint or accountability. As such the concentration of wealth becomes a threat to democracy itself, because one-man-one-vote is distorted when a few of those men have a billion dollars and the rest do not.
It's not about jealousy. It's about power and who wields it and to what ends. In a democracy the government's power is legitimized by the will of the people. That legitimacy is undermined when a handful of billionaires can call the shots without the consent of the people.
I've spent time in a bunch of jails and a few prisons too. Rape is _extremely_ rare. I never once witnessed anyone being threatened with rape. Nor did I ever meet anyone who had been a victim of such things, nor did I ever hear anyone else talk about how it had happened.
I'm actually quite glad to read this. Not that you were in jail, but that rape is not common there. Sexual assault is not okay, regardless of where it happens or who it happens to.
In a court of law, that is called speculation. SUSTAINED!
It is speculation, but it is informed speculation. When the Magnitsky Act was implemented, it put sanctions on certain Russian individuals. Russia retaliated by doing the same thing to certain Americans as well as barring Americans from adopting Russian children. Donald Trump, Jr. has said the meeting with the Russian lawyer had to do with adoption. So their looking for some relief around the Magnitsky Act isn't far fetched, as it is related to adoption.
I've been on corporate computer security teams for large companies, so I know why it would work, unlike you who can't seem to imagine how...
Should I assume your suggestion in that role was to establish a network security alliance with the hackers hammering your firewalls? Because that seems to be what you're advocating here.
Given how frequent stories like this are in America, it always baffles me that Americans are so vehemently opposed to the kind of social healthcare enjoyed by Europe. When even the rich can be stung badly by medical bills and uncooperative insurers, it seems odd that they would reject the idea of getting rid of the insurers, paying a similar amount in tax instead, and getting healthcare for everyone without the risk of people missing out or being shafted by their insurers.
I know it's all about that dreaded T-word. Americans hate the idea of being taxed. But really, the way things are set up now, you're effectively paying the same money to a private company. It may just as well be a tax.
The American mind is trapped by ideology and propaganda. We have a strong myth of the self-made man who pulls himself up by his bootstraps, without help from others. The very wealthy perpetuate that myth because it serves to insulate them from judgement about the degree of their wealth. The money a person has "earned" is theirs to do with as they please, regardless of how disproportionate it might be or whatever else might be true. You see this in the irrational anti-tax attitudes you mentioned as well.
The lower classes have also been conditioned to fight each other rather than band together. This is again by design. The owners have historically pitted groups against each other to keep them from uniting against a common enemy. So when people see public sector union workers (for example) getting benefits, they want to take those benefits away rather than ask why they also are not receiving those benefits.
What this means is that many people vote for values rather than policies. They vote for the person who will maintain or implement the proper order of things, as they see it. Basically, they are more concerned with making sure the next guy is as miserable as they are, than they are with creating a shared prosperity.
And let me guess: They're all billionaires anyway.
Noah Glass got pushed out early even though Twitter was his idea. Biz Stone who was in the right place at the right time is a multimillionaire. Jack Dorsey (first and current CEO) and Evan Williams (second CEO) are billionaires.
Is that what happens when you take a company that makes no money and dump it on the stock market?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting idea.. So, lets apply that everywhere
Why would you apply it everywhere?
To show the ridiculousness of the post's title "Nobody should have that much money" --- Because that's all the same idea.. Sorry, you made too much of X based on other people w/o regard to anything other than the count of money.. So, we're going to take it from you and give it to others that don't have as much.
Oh, okay, so not any real-world reason then.
"You have more money than me! You shouldn't be allowed to have more money than me!" is pretty much the only argument I ever hear from people who are salty that someone has a lot of money. It's friggin juvenile.
You should listen more closely, because there are a number of reasons why vast wealth is bad for everyone but the wealthy person.
Interesting idea.. So, lets apply that everywhere
Why would you apply it everywhere?
If you create a better Amazon, Jeff Bezos 90 billion will make its way to you.
That's not even close to true. History is littered with the bodies of better ideas that failed anyway. Ever hear of Tucker Automobiles?
There may be finite money, but it never stays in one place forever. The only thing that lets it stagnate is the same type of thinking that assholes like you who think because the fat kid HAS 10 pieces of cake that regardless of how he got them, he should be forced to give 9 of them away. What if he had 10 birthday parties to go to that day and got a piece of cake at each one? And what if he's taking them home to his 9 siblings who weren't invited? Would you force him to give up the 9 pieces then? You're butthurt that you didn't make Amazon and also you're clearly a moron.
No one is butthurt, so calm your tits. I know it makes it easier for you to dismiss people by saying they are just jealous, but it doesn't make it true. Concentrated wealth is a threat to the republic and social stability. Again, I don't have a problem with some people being rich, but it is a matter of degree. I don't envy Bezos' or Gates' wealth. I make plenty of money and have a comfortable lifestyle. However, the fact that they have that much money means other people, like the people who cook their food, don't have enough. Wealth of that magnitude is a drain on society and the economy. I'm not saying it should be taken away, but I am saying it probably shouldn't have been accumulated to begin with. Such wealth accumulation should be discouraged. How, I don't know. Reasonable people can disagree.
Opportunity is God here. Take it or leave it, that's up to you. Some people try and fail, some people try and succeed, that is opportunity. You could make the next Amazon if you weren't too busy worrying about stopping other people from trying because of your butthurt.
Ah, so some people have God and some do not? Does everyone have an equal opportunity? I think not. Can everyone have 90 billion dollars if they just work hard enough and succeed? Or does the system require that we have a few winners and many losers? Further, what if Jeff Bezos had 90 trillion dollars and everyone else had one dollar? I guess he would have just earned it, right?
Look, I don't have a problem with some people having more than others. But it's a matter of degree and proportion. I don't see how Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates could have added so much value that they are due 90 billion dollars. And I'm typing this on a Windows PC on a keyboard I bought from Amazon. As my absurd hypothetical above illustrates, it is a matter of degree. Nobody, by themselves, can add 90 billion dollars worth of value. They may have had a great idea and the drive to see it through, and they deserve to be rewarded for that. But really, when one accumulates $90 billion they are taking more than they deserve.
We have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Why not laws that break up the estate of people that accumulate more than say 1000x the median net worth?
Because Capitalism is America's religion and the dollar its God.
Well, there's the problem right there. They're being paid by the contracting company, not FB, so their real beef is with their actual employer. FB doesn't employ them, FB employs the contracting company. FB is using the cheapest bid for food service they could get.
So how are actual FB employees faring at the company?
Exactly. As long as there is a middle-man involved, Facebook doesn't have to give a fuck. It's like when I hired that contract company to have t-shirts made in Bangladesh for $0.10 an hour. I'm not the one exploiting those workers, the contracting company is. So I was completely blameless in that situation. I mean, sure I got the cost savings from paying those people so little, but I don't see how that enters into the equation at all.
The more progressive policies play out in the Silicon Valley, the more squeezed out the middle class becomes.
And which policies are those?
Relocate and prosper.
Why do you assume that people who can't make ends meet on a monthly basis have the thousands of dollars it costs to move a family?
If you decide to have three kids while on a cafeteria worker's income, you deserve some reproach.
Money buys you everything in this society; including the ability to have a family. Is there anything Capitalism won't put a price on?
Having an average of 2 kids or more each is vital to our economy. If itâ(TM)s unaffordable to have children, we have a big big problem on our hands.
Of course we have a big problem on our hands. That's been the case for at least 30 years. The owners of capital are taking a larger and larger share of the economic pie. The population has largely been propagandized to think that forming unions leads to corruption and constraint, thus blunting the only power they have; their numbers. Our economic system is set up to serve business. If your boss wanted you to have kids, they would have made them part of the benefits package. Hell, we have had to pass laws to keep pregnant women from being fired!
Hardly anyone with any power is looking at the long term. There is little sense of shared destiny. Those kids won't be needed to replace the workforce for 20 years. But there are profit target bonuses to be had now! So employers pay as little as possible. If people can't afford to have children on that pay (if people are even making that calculation) then too bad. The people running things now sure don't give a shit.
Central and South American left-wing governments self-destruct without any aid from capitalism, thank you very much. Without capitalism, they probably would implode faster.
Oh, but they have help from the CIA, which is the enforcement arm of global Capitalism.
There are 15 million food insecure households in this country because a lot of people insist on making bad choices. Sometimes, hell most of the time, they make those choices in ignorance, but they made the choice. The real problem is that for every adult who decided to make bad choices they've dragged a couple of kids, who had not choice in the matter, into their consequence.
Or maybe there are 15 million food insecure households in this country because labor is not fairly compensated for the value it creates. As you say, wealth is nothing more than the accumulation of the results of labor. Very wealthy people have accumulated the results of other people's labor. Sure, sometimes people make poor decisions. However, when a rich person makes a poor decision, they are insulated from the consequences by their wealth. A poor person might be out on the street for the same poor decision.
I know an anecdote isn't data. But as an example, I know a guy who has been married twice, divorced twice, and has three children, two from his first marriage and one from his second. He has no job because he quit, and cannot pay his child support. You'd think he would be out on the street, or collecting SNAP, because of his poor decisions, right? No, he lives in a brand new condo and drives a new car, and has spent tens of thousands on lawyers fighting his ex-wives, because he comes from a rich family. His assets are in his parent's name, so his ex-wives can't touch it. He's an unemployed, deadbeat dad with multiple baby mamas, but you won't be holding him up as some example of bad choices because he's rich and insulated from the consequences of his actions. But you'll carry on thinking poor people are poor because of their bad choices.
Also a small goverment aint powerfull enough to stopp big corp to controll Everything
Yes, this is the part Libertarians leave out.
No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.
It's a reason to keep business interests relatively small and weak. The government has to be the biggest kid on the block because it has to be able to enforce its laws and regulations.
As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.
Capitalism has also moved against any system that looks like it might be threatening to Capitalism's supremacy. So it's not like there has been fair competition among various economic systems. See the history of Central and South American left-wing governments for more info. I wonder how Jacobo Árbenz feels about the United Fruit Company, or Mohammad Mossddegh about British Petroleum.
What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy? What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content. Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.
If wealthy people just did that, they wouldn't be wealthy now would they? So maybe there's something else at play.
Taking issue with concentrated wealth is not about jealousy; though many rich people like to think that because it makes the issue easy to dismiss. No, it's about out-sized power. With economic power comes political power. The very wealthy have access to government that regular people don't. They are able to have their voice heard and influence policy for their own ends; sometimes to the detriment of the overall population. They are also able to buy media companies that broadcast or feature viewpoints that are pleasing to the owners. In this way they are able to shape the culture and societal attitudes.
In short, if you have enough money you can have a strong influence on business, culture, and government, without much constraint or accountability. As such the concentration of wealth becomes a threat to democracy itself, because one-man-one-vote is distorted when a few of those men have a billion dollars and the rest do not.
It's not about jealousy. It's about power and who wields it and to what ends. In a democracy the government's power is legitimized by the will of the people. That legitimacy is undermined when a handful of billionaires can call the shots without the consent of the people.
Fuck you, APK, wharrgarble, LMAO, apk
You have crossed into self parody. Or maybe that's the point. Just out of curiosity, does APK stand for Alex P. Keaton?
Have been harassed in real life.
And it's all done by leftists.
This is pathetic and hilarious all at the same time. And people think Liberals are the snowflakes...
I've spent time in a bunch of jails and a few prisons too. Rape is _extremely_ rare. I never once witnessed anyone being threatened with rape. Nor did I ever meet anyone who had been a victim of such things, nor did I ever hear anyone else talk about how it had happened.
I'm actually quite glad to read this. Not that you were in jail, but that rape is not common there. Sexual assault is not okay, regardless of where it happens or who it happens to.
Blah, blah, blah, apk, blah, blah, FAKE, snarf, sockpuppet, yadda yadda, apk
Dude, nobody cares about your ranting. You can't even look up any responses because you post AC. What are you getting out of this?
In a court of law, that is called speculation. SUSTAINED!
It is speculation, but it is informed speculation. When the Magnitsky Act was implemented, it put sanctions on certain Russian individuals. Russia retaliated by doing the same thing to certain Americans as well as barring Americans from adopting Russian children. Donald Trump, Jr. has said the meeting with the Russian lawyer had to do with adoption. So their looking for some relief around the Magnitsky Act isn't far fetched, as it is related to adoption.
I've been on corporate computer security teams for large companies, so I know why it would work, unlike you who can't seem to imagine how...
Should I assume your suggestion in that role was to establish a network security alliance with the hackers hammering your firewalls? Because that seems to be what you're advocating here.
Given how frequent stories like this are in America, it always baffles me that Americans are so vehemently opposed to the kind of social healthcare enjoyed by Europe. When even the rich can be stung badly by medical bills and uncooperative insurers, it seems odd that they would reject the idea of getting rid of the insurers, paying a similar amount in tax instead, and getting healthcare for everyone without the risk of people missing out or being shafted by their insurers.
I know it's all about that dreaded T-word. Americans hate the idea of being taxed. But really, the way things are set up now, you're effectively paying the same money to a private company. It may just as well be a tax.
The American mind is trapped by ideology and propaganda. We have a strong myth of the self-made man who pulls himself up by his bootstraps, without help from others. The very wealthy perpetuate that myth because it serves to insulate them from judgement about the degree of their wealth. The money a person has "earned" is theirs to do with as they please, regardless of how disproportionate it might be or whatever else might be true. You see this in the irrational anti-tax attitudes you mentioned as well.
The lower classes have also been conditioned to fight each other rather than band together. This is again by design. The owners have historically pitted groups against each other to keep them from uniting against a common enemy. So when people see public sector union workers (for example) getting benefits, they want to take those benefits away rather than ask why they also are not receiving those benefits.
What this means is that many people vote for values rather than policies. They vote for the person who will maintain or implement the proper order of things, as they see it. Basically, they are more concerned with making sure the next guy is as miserable as they are, than they are with creating a shared prosperity.
And let me guess: They're all billionaires anyway.
Noah Glass got pushed out early even though Twitter was his idea. Biz Stone who was in the right place at the right time is a multimillionaire. Jack Dorsey (first and current CEO) and Evan Williams (second CEO) are billionaires.
Is that what happens when you take a company that makes no money and dump it on the stock market?