Political Spergatory or How I Learned To Love /pol

[Gizmojunk]

How do Billionairs work for their fortune?

I speculate that first it matters how they got it. In any case... in the beginning someone worked for it, even if they won the lottery—they probably bought the ticket.

Once they have the money, they can use it; they can also lend it. Banks use the deposits for their own purposes, and commonly pay for that use. As such, a millionaire could probably live off of the annual interest without eveer touching the money—but that still qualifies as work. They are being paid for service; the use of the funds.

Then they may leave their fortune to their offspring if they choose. Some would seethe at a child being given a fortune, but should the parent not be allowed to provide for their family? If they leave them the mansion, what good if they leave them unable to pay for its maintenence (and its property taxes)?

*Simplify this to three families, each with several kids. One (only one) has managed to own a gun —in a setting where they are rare and costly. Should the parent not be allowed to pass down the gun to their young adult children, to ease providing for their family? Should opposition (sour grapes) of the kids from the other families be taken seriously? That it's unfair for the one kid to be given the gun—"What did they do to deserve it?"; nothing actually, it was the parent's pleasure to gift it. That should not be illegal.

I am aware that there are laws in some places meant to interfere with passing on a fortune, and have always been opposed to it... It's their money they earned it. IMO they should be able to convert it to gold and disolve the gold if they wished; pour it down the sewer if they wished.

 

[TJQKA]

Take me for instance I would not know as much as I do now, whether it does me any good or not or actually helps me in my life as a person, if it were not for someone in my family having previous experience with the business. As well as if I did not have access to a family member who had experience with the business I would have been choosing a mentor to groom me.


That's usually how these things work in the business world.

 

[Jogre]

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, of which he is CEO and CTO. In 2004, he joined electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.) as chairman and product architect, becoming its CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy services company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit research company that promotes friendly artificial intelligence. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and founded The Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. Musk has proposed the Hyperloop, a high-speed vactrain transportation system.

Lots of "Founded", "Joined" and "Co-Founded" here

Is he one of the scientists doing research? Is he on the factory floor making things by hand? Is he drawing up the plans himself? Is he doing the accounts himself?

Because the arguement Crni is making, whether you buy it or not, is quite straightforward:

That there are people who want to work on rockets or do scientific experiments, or what have you, but they can't just start building a rocket out of nothing. They need vast amounts of resources that they don't have the power to gain access to.

And then you have guys like Musk, their role in society isn't to work. Their role in society is simply to have access to power, either through vast amounts of wealth or through financial contacts. They have the means to acquire the vast amount of resources. So they end up in a position where they are able to organise these workers, not because their unique geniuses who work harder than everyone else, but because they're the people who have the material power to get the resources necessary to design and build the rockets.

So what happens is that people who want to make rockets have no other choice but to go to guys like Musk, not because he's helpful, but because people like him control the wealth. And because of this dynamic where they're reliant on resources from him, he gets 100% control over how the company operates, who gets hired and who gets fired, what the company's goals are and how to operate.

Regardless of whether you approve of or dissaprove of this sort of arrangement, this is the point Crni is making: Elon Musk's role in this scenario is as someone who people have to obey because he has power over the resources neccesary to perform labour. He's not doing all the labour himself.

 

[SquidWard]

The irony is that hyper fans of capitalism say you should have to work for your money but it's simultaneously fine to inherit more money and assets than you'd ever need in your life.

I don't have a problem with people providing for their children's future whatsoever, I encourage it. The less they have to suffer the better. I just don't get why people think that people should live off starvation wages while the person paying them is providing for the next two generations in their lineage without even looking at growth and reinvestment.

If hard work is the path to success then every donkey would be a billionaire.

EDIT: Inb4 a donkey isn't a human, bad joke. Yeah but we treat humans just like we treat work animals. Work harder for me and harder than I do and get substantially less benefit than I do. I know it's still not an actual best comparison but no one who works a full work week for a multimillion corp should have any worries about making rent.

 

[TJQKA]

He's rich and successful is because he's a goddamn m************ machine and he ain't taking any f****** prisoners.

It's hard work all right. It's breaking eggs to make omelets.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I speculate that first it matters how they got it. In any case... in the beginning someone worked for it, even if they won the lottery—they probably bought the ticket.

I never argued against the fact that some billionairs are very hard working people.

Once they have the money, they can use it; they can also lend it

Exactly. And that's the point where I say that this is not the actual work anymore we're talking about but where you let others work for you. There is, realistically speaking, no other way to actually earn billions. There simply isn't. If you do not capitalise on the work of others it's simply not possible. Because when you talk about millions for example then you can actaully provide a sort of service or work that's really very highly sought or valued for. There are people making millions out there simply due to their own labour. But the moment you talk about billions you can not get them trough your own labour alone. There is a point at where the amount of wealth that's generated and your own contribution to it is dimnishing.

Some would seethe at a child being given a fortune, but should the parent not be allowed to provide for their family?

That's a whole different question. I never said inheriting wealth to be a bad thing. But you can not say that a child worked for it merely on the fact that it happend to be born in the right family.

I am aware that there are laws in some places meant to interfere with passing on a fortune, and have always been opposed to it... It's their money they earned it. IMO they should be able to convert it to gold and disolve the gold if they wished; pour it down the sewer if they wished.

Would you also agree to it if the effect of this decision would also mean that you personaly suffer very negative effects from it (a tanking economy for example)?

Absolute freedom is nice and dandy till you realise that it's actually a nightmare (for most people).

 

[TJQKA]

If you are not a specialist you are supposed to make others work for you. If you're not doing either of these things then you're a menial laborer.

Why do you think they called them generals.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes and now imagine a world where everyone was a general.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Exactly. And that's the point where I say that this is not the actual work anymore...

What is actual work? How can one compare thoeretical—work to manual labor?
Can you evaluate Stephen Hawking's work against William H. “Burro” Schmidt's work?
(or against a landlord's work?)

Work is being paid for a service. The pay is what what that service is worth to the customer. There is someone out there who would pay a stranger on the bus to fix a trivial issue with their phone, same as to jack up their car to change a flat; who can know which pays most?

 

[TorontoReign]

Lots of "Founded", "Joined" and "Co-Founded" here

Is he one of the scientists doing research? Is he on the factory floor making things by hand? Is he drawing up the plans himself? Is he doing the accounts himself?

Because the arguement Crni is making, whether you buy it or not, is quite straightforward:

That there are people who want to work on rockets or do scientific experiments, or what have you, but they can't just start building a rocket out of nothing. They need vast amounts of resources that they don't have the power to gain access to.

And then you have guys like Musk, their role in society isn't to work. Their role in society is simply to have access to power, either through vast amounts of wealth or through financial contacts. They have the means to acquire the vast amount of resources. So they end up in a position where they are able to organise these workers, not because their unique geniuses who work harder than everyone else, but because they're the people who have the material power to get the resources necessary to design and build the rockets.

So what happens is that people who want to make rockets have no other choice but to go to guys like Musk, not because he's helpful, but because people like him control the wealth. And because of this dynamic where they're reliant on resources from him, he gets 100% control over how the company operates, who gets hired and who gets fired, what the company's goals are and how to operate.

Regardless of whether you approve of or dissaprove of this sort of arrangement, this is the point Crni is making: Elon Musk's role in this scenario is as someone who people have to obey because he has power over the resources neccesary to perform labour. He's not doing all the labour himself.

LIKE THE OWNER/BOSS/CO FOUNDER OF A MAJOR COMPANY!? What you guys are saying is daft obvious bullshit.

 

[Morgan_]

Setting aside the issues I have with the hypothetical I would still like to entertain it cause it’s fun. I’ll save feedback on it for the end.

Question: On a hypothetical island of 300 people... if one of them started the blacksmith forge, the fishery, the fletcher, the bowyer, and the wheelwright——owned them all, and hired craftsmen & mariners to run them.....

And if 280 of the inhabitants were food vendors, artists, 'beach-bums', or made grass hats, and macaroni art as crafts....

Does it make sense that the 1 pay more in taxes than the others? And if so... why exactly?

Because you would want taxes to be capable of getting various things done and especially maintain them. Not to mention that there is no billionaire or business to make him this way without workers and customers. Two way street, not one way ubermensch street.You’ll need tax that will have to be put to use on things that either don’t have profit incentive, have very high risk of failure/expense or the benefits of which are distant enough that investors will not be interested in funding it due to the time it will take to see return on investment. A cliche, but interesting saying is that great societies are built by men who plant trees who’s shade they will never sit.

You could take the more individualist approach tho and not do that and have a type of autocrat/monarchy. Maybe for a time it will even be good as there were periods of calm and flourish for monarchies. IF your superman is a good ruler. Big gamble. One that has always fallen in favor of more egalitarian society with progressive tax systems as they have a high tendency to out compete those that do not use tax systems or simply have inferior tax systems.

See the history of any developed nation for this. Also, you can compare where government, tax ran programs and infrastructure are better than private sector counterparts and the same vice versa.

I would say that arguing against the billionaire or even the the gentry/middleclass not paying more in tax via progressive taxes is individualism taken to a self destructive extreme (if we take the hypothetical as is) There must be a balance and taxes are a good way to do so. Our founding fathers knew it and now both us and our system dominate the planet in part due to this.

If the answer is because they were able and resourcefull enough to earn more... then what incentive is there for them to further innovate and to start other businesses?

(When with every success, they are penalized further. Could they not just chuck it all, and be a beach bum themselves; ignore their inspired inovations, and let the rest manage for themselves——and then need only pay a 1000th of their previous tax bill.)

It's just hypothetical, but I have always wondered how anyone could consider it fair; because many would seem to do just that.

This doesn’t seem to be an issue considering the tax rate has plummeted from around 60% on the very wealthy around the middle of the 20th century. The time when we we’re building and growing the most and ahead of basically everyone in pretty much everything. The effects of which we are still enjoying to this day, capitalist ventures included.

Tax are very good, but they can be misused like anything sure.

My main issue with the hypothetical is that the billionaire is not capable of doing any of this without a society of some sort being in place like what we have. With infrastructure maintaned by the state with tax. Or workers and customers. Entrepeneurs are not gods that can create something from nothing on their own.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Because you would want taxes to be capable of getting various things done and especially maintain them.

This implies that they [the business owners] are a resource for others to forcibly exploit. That they should be forced to the betterment of their neighbors; this is the ultimate root of animal (and human) slavery.

 

[TorontoReign]

OH MY GOD YOU MEAN ELON MUSK HAD WORKERS DO WORK FOR HIM!?

 

[Jogre]

LIKE THE OWNER/BOSS/CO FOUNDER OF A MAJOR COMPANY!? What you guys are saying is daft obvious bullshit.

No offence Toronto, but you have a tendency to have people try and explain to you the basic premises of what's being debated, only for you to just reassert what you already believe to be common sense without taking in to account what's being said.

This implies that they are a resource for ohers to forcibly exploit. That they should be forced to better their neighbors; this is the ultimate root of animal (and human) slavery.

Only if you reduce slavery to an abstract powerless sentiment, and not to the real conditions imposed by slavery.

 

[TJQKA]

Let's live in a world where everybody does everything themselves. First off I want you to log in to oversight.gov and start taking a census. Now I want you to do all of your taxes. Now I want you to find out how to disperse all of those taxes. Now I want you to get a committee to agree to the dispersal of those taxes. Now I want you to get a lawyer to to oversee the agreement of the committee. Now I want you to do your due diligence and look back and make sure that the current rates of inflation are hedged correctly against the current interest rate. Now after doing all of this I want you to go out to the freeway and start filling in some pot holes. Now I want you to go to the hospital and volunteer. Now I need you to cook dinner for your family. Now I need you as a birthing person to raise a child. I want you to give me all of your stuff now.

 

[TJQKA]

What's funny is this almost sounds like what I do.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Only if you reduce slavery to an abstract powerless sentiment, and not to the real conditions imposed by slavery.

Please elaborate... but first consider that the root point is exploitation of the other guy.

Hiring someone is not exploiting them; they take the job. If they are in a bind, and MUST take that specific (and specifically bad) job, that's not the employer's fault.

*Also this is different from a company town, using company scrips at the company store, and having no way to move elsewhere.

**If an employer needs someone to sweep the floor, and will pay $5 an hour—or do it themseves, then that's the job, and it's not supposed to BE a living wage. There are lots of jobs that are not meant to offer a living wage. —And nobody is inherantly entitled to such, simply for existing.

 

[TorontoReign]

I have the tendency to see people spouting rhetoric from their handlers (not their actual thoughts) so I reduce their argument down to what the issue is really about. It is about people not liking rich people having more money than them so they dislike them on general principal. It's about people being upset due to the nature of big corporations involving lesser known people that do not get the credit. Maybe they should start their own company so you can tax it to death before it gets off the ground.

 

[Jogre]

I have the tendency to see people spouting rhetoric from their handlers (not their actual thoughts) so I reduce their argument down to what the issue is really about. It is about people not liking rich people having more money than them so they dislike them on general principal. It's about people being upset due to the nature of big corporations involving lesser known people that do not get the credit. Maybe they should start their own company so you can tax it to death before it gets off the ground.

I would argue that rather what's happening is people are making points that come from theoretical frameworks they like, or ideas they like, but you're not at all interested in engaging with those ideas, so you reduce it to your own ideology and demand people speak exclusively in your terms.

Problem is you don't see it as everyone having an ideological framework, you see it as other people having an ideological framework and you having common sense, and therefore your reductionist interpretations of what others are saying are just "telling it like it is"

Let's live in a world where everybody does everything themselves. First off I want you to log in to oversight.gov and start taking a census. Now I want you to do all of your taxes. Now I want you to find out how to disperse all of those taxes. Now I want you to get a committee to agree to the dispersal of those taxes. Now I want you to get a lawyer to to oversee the agreement of the committee. Now I want you to do your due diligence and look back and make sure that the current rates of inflation are hedged correctly against the current interest rate. Now after doing all of this I want you to go out to the freeway and start filling in some pot holes. Now I want you to go to the hospital and volunteer. Now I need you to cook dinner for your family. Now I need you as a birthing person to raise a child. I want you to give me all of your stuff now.

The point isn't everyone should do literally everything themself.

The point is power dynamics. That society is organised around both Ownership and Labour, but is arranged in such a way that Ownership has 100% of the power.

Hiring someone is not exploiting them; they take the job. If they are in a bind, and MUST take that specific (and specifically bad) job, that's not the employer's fault.

Except we're not dealing with individual blame or praise, we're not saying that any individuals in this situation are acting wrongfully.

We're talking about wider power dynamics, and social systems that favour specific roles over others. Individuals hiring in those rules, and individuals looking for work in those rules are simply operating within a system of power.

 

[Morgan_]

This implies that they [the business owners] are a resource for others to forcibly exploit. That they should be forced to the betterment of their neighbors; this is the ultimate root of animal (and human) slavery.

What is the solution then?


———————————————-
Also, why is my response so buggy? not quoting parts and then quoting other tried editing but its still bugged. The quote end is there but just doesn’t register?!?!?!? ANNOYING