Suddenly we must get rid of Billionaires

[Red Front]

To run for office costs at least a few hundred thousand dollars and contributors want favors in return.
If you take away the contributors only people with that type of money to throw away can run for office.

Politicians are always being pressured by special interest groups, both Conservative and Liberal, to spend tax dollars on their preferred projects.

Under this current capitalist system, there aren't that many options for making government serve the public good, other than taking money out of politics completely. So politicians wouldn't decide to support a particular piece of legislation on the basis of how much money is being donated to their campaign. There was a time in this country when campaigns were funded by the government. Each candidate received a certain amount of money and airtime, and that was the extent of the money candidates would receive. I admit however, it's very difficult to have a government under capitalism that actually serves the public good and not big money interests at the expense of the public.

 

[Red Front]

Will you also control MNCs being able to fire their employees when their investors pull out?
Will you stop investors from investing as they so choose?

Controlling an economy that you want to thrive is not quite so simple.

I would force large fortune 500 corporations that are attempting to move abroad or close their businesses to sell to the government and then the government would hand the company to the employees. They would receive funding until they're back on their feet and running the company as a worker-owned cooperative. All large companies would have an obligation first to their employees, who do the work. Labor comes first.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The limits can stop large corporate donations, it would be across the board. The federal government is the exclusive issuer of the USD and the Fed is simply a government-chartered financial institution acting as our nation's central bank, so your statement about the Fed is incoherent. The United States has a sovereign, fiat currency issued exclusively by its federal government through its central bank i.e. The Fed.

The limits can stop large corporate donations, it would be across the board.

Wouldn't work.

The federal government is the exclusive issuer of the USD and the Fed is simply a government-chartered financial institution acting as our nation's central bank,

Sure is. But that's not why people want to influence government.
The federal government collected $4 trillion in revenue in 2021 and spent $6.8 trillion.
Their regulations cost and direct trillions more.
That's why people are willing to spend billions to influence politicians.

so your statement about the Fed is incoherent.

If the Fed was eliminated tomorrow, people would have the same reasons to influence
politicians that they do today. Your point about the Fed is superfluous.

 

[Indeependent]

I would force large fortune 500 corporations that are attempting to move abroad or close their businesses to sell to the government and then the government would hand the company to the employees. They would receive funding until they're back on their feet and running the company as a worker-owned cooperative. All large companies would have an obligation first to their employees, who do the work. Labor comes first.

You actually believe large corporations can just be handed to employees?
The sad reality is not so simple.
The employees still need investors to expand current operations or to expand their variety of goods and services and getting investors is not that easy.

 

[Red Front]

The limits can stop large corporate donations, it would be across the board.

Wouldn't work.

The federal government is the exclusive issuer of the USD and the Fed is simply a government-chartered financial institution acting as our nation's central bank,

Sure is. But that's not why people want to influence government.
The federal government collected $4 trillion in revenue in 2021 and spent $6.8 trillion.
Their regulations cost and direct trillions more.
That's why people are willing to spend billions to influence politicians.

so your statement about the Fed is incoherent.

If the Fed was eliminated tomorrow, people would have the same reasons to influence
politicians that they do today. Your point about the Fed is superfluous.

The money that the federal government receives in taxes isn't for the purpose of funding itself but rather to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation. It takes money out of the economy and essentially destroys it. In the same way, that the kings of Britain used to burn their tally sticks i.e. taxes. You obviously don't know how our monetary system works. Our federal government creates dollars from thin air on a keyboard and its budgetary constraints are set by our GDP i.e. our nation's production capacity.

If the amount of money an individual can donate is reduced to a few hundred dollars, that would greatly limit a billionaire's or large corporation's ability to bribe politicians to do their bidding. The way to influence the government we have now, will not be through money but through votes and grassroots organizing, and campaigning. That can be done even under capitalism, but the people must remain vigilant and active, or sooner or later (likely sooner than later), the wealthy will try to restore the previous system of legal bribery.

 

[Indeependent]

The money that the federal government receives in taxes isn't for the purpose of funding itself but rather to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation. It takes money out of the economy and essentially destroys it. In the same way, that the kings of Britain used to burn their tally sticks i.e. taxes. You obviously don't know how our monetary system works. Our federal government creates dollars from thin air on a keyboard and its budgetary constraints are set by our GDP i.e. our nation's production capacity.

If the amount of money an individual can donate is reduced to a few hundred dollars, that would greatly limit a billionaire's or large corporation's ability to bribe politicians to do their bidding. The way to influence the government we have now, will not be through money but through votes and grassroots organizing, and campaigning. That can be done even under capitalism, but the people must remain vigilant and active, or sooner or later (likely sooner than later), the wealthy will try to restore the previous system of legal bribery.

I have noticed a voting pattern...if you have no money to advertise, you lose.
The fact is that 99% of people vote for the letter (D or R).

 

[BothWings]

It's about the rich buying the government to serve their vested interests at the great expense of the public. The American people should take money out of politics.

And that is what I meant by "we should control what billionaires can do with their money". But how is it American to tell an American "nope you earn enough money and you can't earn anymore"? I don't agree with that either.

It's interesting to see what happened in Russia back in the '90s, when Putin made economic changes that led to the rise of the post-Soviet Russian middle class and an average $600/mo increase in the average salary. But the problem was that the new middle class wanted to become the new upper class and Putin also made some things happen that made that more of a challenge for them. Those were the first people to oppose Putin in Russia: The Russian yuppies of the 90's.

I don't take government regulation lightly...but I also despise "entitled" yuppies. It seems that they and their polar opposite, the welfare monkeys, are the two sides of the American coin with little in between.

 

[Red Front]

You actually believe large corporations can just be handed to employees?
The sad reality is not so simple.
The employees still need investors to expand current operations or to expand their variety of goods and services and getting investors is not that easy.

It would be quite easy for the government to take that company and create the conditions for the employees to own and run it successfully. Once all of the investors have been paid by the government, the worker-owned cooperative would be working with a vast surplus, due to the fact that worker-cooperatives don't really need to make a large profit to stay in business. The worker-owned company is oriented towards job security and serving its customers, not turning a huge profit for investors above the overhead. If you own a private company, the salaries of your employees are a significant expense, comprising a large % of your overhead i.e. cost of doing business. You need to make more money than simply enough to pay your bills as a private owner. A worker-owned company sees its salaries as profits or gain, rather than loss. Everything above that is a huge surplus. Worker-owned corporations are very robust and competitive. So I would force these large fortune 500 companies to sell their assets to the government for a good price and then the government would return the company to its employees, turning the enterprise into a worker-owned cooperative.

Labor doesn't need capitalists. We can get rid of them gradually until all we have are worker-owned companies. The people who work for the company and run it, own it together.

 

[Red Front]

I have noticed a voting pattern...if you have no money to advertise, you lose.
The fact is that 99% of people vote for the letter (D or R).

The government could provide candidates with airtime, in all major mainstream media outlets, including a government channel. I believe the US federal government should have its own television network, where all sides are represented. Republicans, Democrats. etc, everyone gets a voice and airtime. Debates are aired regularly on this channel. I believe it would be a very popular channel. Every day it would air debates and different interviews, discussions on different policies.

 

[Red Front]

And that is what I meant by "we should control what billionaires can do with their money". But how is it American to tell an American "nope you earn enough money and you can't earn anymore"? I don't agree with that either.

It's interesting to see what happened in Russia back in the '90s, when Putin made economic changes that led to the rise of the post-Soviet Russian middle class and an average $600/mo increase in the average salary. But the problem was that the new middle class wanted to become the new upper class and Putin also made some things happen that made that more of a challenge for them. Those were the first people to oppose Putin in Russia: The Russian yuppies of the 90's.

I don't take government regulation lightly...but I also despise "entitled" yuppies. It seems that they and their polar opposite, the welfare monkeys, are the two sides of the American coin with little in between.

The welfare monkeys are more victims than malicious, nefarious villains. I believe the government should provide everyone with a job guarantee. If you can't find a job in the private sector, due to whatever reason (maybe you've been out of the workforce for a few years and now you have a big ugly gap in your resume under your work history, so no one in the private sector wants to take a chance with you), the government will hire you through one of its local employment branches, and you will have a decent income, allowing you to get back on your feet. You work a few years in the public sector and then you transition to the private sector if that's what you want to do. Welfare monkeys get stuck in a rut, where if they try to become productive they immediately lose their guaranteed monetary assistance from the government and their food stamps, Medicaid. etc. There should be a transitional process, allowing people to get out of welfare gradually, not being forced out of it the moment they find work.

Billionaires are dangerous for democracy and there's no benefit for society having individuals with so much power. Having so many resources in the hands of one individual or family only creates problems for everyone.

 

[BothWings]

The welfare monkeys are more victims than malicious, nefarious villains. I believe the government should provide everyone with a job guarantee. If you can't find a job in the private sector, due to whatever reason (maybe you've been out of the workforce for a few years and now you have a big ugly gap in your resume under your work history, so no one in the private sector wants to take a chance with you), the government will hire you through one of its local employment branches, and you will have a decent income, allowing you to get back on your feet. You work a few years in the public sector and then you transition to the private sector if that's what you want to do. Welfare monkeys get stuck in a rut, where if they try to become productive they immediately lose their guaranteed monetary assistance from the government and their food stamps, Medicaid. etc. There should be a transitional process, allowing people to get out of welfare gradually, not being forced out of it the moment they find work.

Billionaires are dangerous for democracy and there's no benefit for society having individuals with so much power. Having so many resources in the hands of one individual or family only creates problems for everyone.

What if the government hires you and it is found you are just a really shitty worker who wants guarantees in life without having to give anything in return?

What if you start a business and it goes viral making YOU the billionaire? Have you already empowered the government to say "nope, you had enough when you had 5 million - so we're taking over your business....or tax anything you make beyond that 5 million into oblivion"...?

Seriously, many welfare monkeys don't really HAVE to be on welfare as long as they have been. In fact many of them have gov't food accounts with more dinero than many honest workers have in their checking accounts. They find ways to keep it coming in and they eat like THEY are millionaires. It's a game. I know because I'm a meat cutter in a grocery store (32 years and counting) and I see it all the time. It's obvious that it's a chosen way of life.

And when I say that there should be a limit on what billionaires can do with their money, I mean for instance perhaps a billionaire shouldn't be allowed to own more than a certain small percentage of the total privately owned land in a given state! That doesn't limit their wealth, that just limits what they can do with it. It forces them to spread themselves out and prevents them from making monopolistic investments which stand in the way of others' lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The money that the federal government receives in taxes isn't for the purpose of funding itself but rather to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation. It takes money out of the economy and essentially destroys it. In the same way, that the kings of Britain used to burn their tally sticks i.e. taxes. You obviously don't know how our monetary system works. Our federal government creates dollars from thin air on a keyboard and its budgetary constraints are set by our GDP i.e. our nation's production capacity.

If the amount of money an individual can donate is reduced to a few hundred dollars, that would greatly limit a billionaire's or large corporation's ability to bribe politicians to do their bidding. The way to influence the government we have now, will not be through money but through votes and grassroots organizing, and campaigning. That can be done even under capitalism, but the people must remain vigilant and active, or sooner or later (likely sooner than later), the wealthy will try to restore the previous system of legal bribery.

The money that the federal government receives in taxes isn't for the purpose of funding itself

Sure it is.

but rather to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation. It takes money out of the economy and essentially destroys it.

So instead of taking $1 billion in taxes to fund government, they print $1 billion and then
burn the $1 billion in taxes. Well, that's completely different.

DURR

If the amount of money an individual can donate is reduced to a few hundred dollars, that would greatly limit a billionaire's or large corporation's ability to bribe politicians to do their bidding.

I can think of a couple of ways to help a favored politician if I could only donate a few hundred dollars. Can't you? Or are you also going to limit free speech?

The way to influence the government we have now, will not be through money but through votes and grassroots organizing, and campaigning.

No way for a billionaire or large corporation to influence grassroots organizing, and campaigning?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would be quite easy for the government to take that company and create the conditions for the employees to own and run it successfully. Once all of the investors have been paid by the government, the worker-owned cooperative would be working with a vast surplus, due to the fact that worker-cooperatives don't really need to make a large profit to stay in business. The worker-owned company is oriented towards job security and serving its customers, not turning a huge profit for investors above the overhead. If you own a private company, the salaries of your employees are a significant expense, comprising a large % of your overhead i.e. cost of doing business. You need to make more money than simply enough to pay your bills as a private owner. A worker-owned company sees its salaries as profits or gain, rather than loss. Everything above that is a huge surplus. Worker-owned corporations are very robust and competitive. So I would force these large fortune 500 companies to sell their assets to the government for a good price and then the government would return the company to its employees, turning the enterprise into a worker-owned cooperative.

Labor doesn't need capitalists. We can get rid of them gradually until all we have are worker-owned companies. The people who work for the company and run it, own it together.

Worker-owned corporations are very robust and competitive.

They sound awesome!
Post a list of your 10 favorite ones.

 

[Red Front]

Worker-owned corporations are very robust and competitive.

They sound awesome!
Post a list of your 10 favorite ones.

Mondragon:

https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/

​

Find a Worker Co-op – U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives

www.usworker.coop

List of worker cooperatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Most of the modern worker-owned cooperatives are in Western Europe. There are a few here in the US, and that's mainly because most Americans don't know about worker-owned cooperatives, and the SBA (Small Business Administration) and private banks don't finance labor cooperatives. Why doesn't the government or banks lend startup capital to workers who want to start a worker-owned cooperative? Because the wealthy capitalist class doesn't want to compete with them for market share, nor give American labor the option to work for a worker-owned cooperative, out of the labor market that the ruling employer class controls. If the only game in town to get a job is with privately owned companies, i.e. with the wealthy capitalist employer class, then they have a lot of leverage in negotiating their terms of employment as an employer with their employees. If workers have more options than working for a little dictator capitalist, by joining a labor-cooperative, well now they don't have as much power and sway over the labor market as they did before.

 

[Red Front]

The money that the federal government receives in taxes isn't for the purpose of funding itself

Sure it is.

but rather to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation. It takes money out of the economy and essentially destroys it.

So instead of taking $1 billion in taxes to fund government, they print $1 billion and then
burn the $1 billion in taxes. Well, that's completely different.

DURR

If the amount of money an individual can donate is reduced to a few hundred dollars, that would greatly limit a billionaire's or large corporation's ability to bribe politicians to do their bidding.

I can think of a couple of ways to help a favored politician if I could only donate a few hundred dollars. Can't you? Or are you also going to limit free speech?

The way to influence the government we have now, will not be through money but through votes and grassroots organizing, and campaigning.

No way for a billionaire or large corporation to influence grassroots organizing, and campaigning?

How do you figure that the federal government that is the exclusive issuer of the dollar i.e. a sovereign fiat currency, needs you to have dollars?

Under this capitalist system, the best we can do is take money out of politics, in the way that I explained in my previous posts. Limit monetary donations to a few hundred dollars per person. If people are allowed to be billionaires in our society then there will be billionaires trying to co-op, take-over grassroots movements, without a doubt. If the people participating in a grassroots political movement, are committed to the cause and the billionaires are trying to undermine or disrupt their efforts, by steering the movement in a different direction, that would have to be identified and dealt with, by the people who are in that movement. At least the billionaires won't be directly, legally bribing politicians as they do today. It would be a lot more complicated for them to do that. That's the best we can do under a capitalist system where individuals are permitted to be billionaires or even multi-millionaires.

 

[Red Front]

What if the government hires you and it is found you are just a really shitty worker who wants guarantees in life without having to give anything in return?

What if you start a business and it goes viral making YOU the billionaire? Have you already empowered the government to say "nope, you had enough when you had 5 million - so we're taking over your business....or tax anything you make beyond that 5 million into oblivion"...?

Seriously, many welfare monkeys don't really HAVE to be on welfare as long as they have been. In fact many of them have gov't food accounts with more dinero than many honest workers have in their checking accounts. They find ways to keep it coming in and they eat like THEY are millionaires. It's a game. I know because I'm a meat cutter in a grocery store (32 years and counting) and I see it all the time. It's obvious that it's a chosen way of life.

And when I say that there should be a limit on what billionaires can do with their money, I mean for instance perhaps a billionaire shouldn't be allowed to own more than a certain small percentage of the total privately owned land in a given state! That doesn't limit their wealth, that just limits what they can do with it. It forces them to spread themselves out and prevents them from making monopolistic investments which stand in the way of others' lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

Limiting what billionaires can do with their money is essentially the same as limiting how much money they can have. You can't become a billionaire without society, and that society can determine whether it's in its best interest to allow its members to have that much power. Money = Power, and it may not be in anyone's best interests to have billions of dollars in an individual's bank account. I would limit assets at $100 million and yearly net income after taxes at $12 million. So at the current tax rate, if the person's gross yearly income is $16.5 million, they would net $12 million. Heck if anyone isn't satisfied with $12 million yearly and $100 million in assets, they're the one with the problem. They're suffering from mammon gluttony.

You're a working-class person, you shouldn't be so critical of those who are at the bottom. Not everyone who is on welfare is there due to a lack of character or some nefarious reason. If the government guaranteed employment for everyone we would eliminate welfare. An employment guarantee isn't a free handout, since the person would have to work, so if they want to go to work and earn money, while not working, then their managers would have to address that problem. The point is that employment should be a human right for every member of our society. Every person born into our society should be guaranteed the basics upon which they can build their lives.

 

[Ringo]

Capitalism needs socialism to survive. Without it, it would collapse in less than a decade. Government intervention with public funds is the norm for keeping capitalism afloat.

Marx, in the end of XIX c. already saw the phenomenon of transformed forms in the economy of capitalism -the strengthening of fictitious capital, unrelated to material production.

By the end of the 1980s, fictitious capital had crushed everything under itself, it began to consist of 99% empty wrappers. Financial alchemists have learned to carve pseudo-wealth out of the "void".

Financial capitalism has made the planet believe that his increasingly sophisticated exploitation of future labor is a great boon. In fact, the most grandiose financial pyramid in the world was created when the work of many future generations was eaten up in the present. The slag of $300 trillion in debt does not allow you to live on. Look at the wild acceleration of the "feast during the plague" in recent years. It's a premonition of the end.
A vivid illustration - global debts have reached $ 250 trillion, this is more than three of the planet's GDP (which is already found by fin.cap with all sorts of mirage shit and in 10 years debts have increased by $80 trillion.

 

[Ringo]

Imagine a person receiving $100,000 a day, his standard of living compared to most is somewhere in the orbit of Jupiter at a distance from earthlings. His consciousness is arranged accordingly. By all subjective indicators, for most, he is practically an alien.
Thus, it turns out that the metaphor about two worlds, the world of the rich and the world of the poor, is not such a metaphor. These are naturally two completely different worlds on the same planet.
If in the twentieth century the development of scientific and technological progress went along with the social and cultural development of society, then the XXI took the opposite course with regard to social and culture. A robot vacuum cleaner and a smart speaker are certainly cool, but not when instead of affordable treatment, education and retirement.

Wherever you look, at every step you meet tasks that humanity is quite able to solve immediately.
Civilization, freedom and wealth under capitalism evoke the idea of a rich man who has eaten too much, who rots alive and does not let live what is young
V.I. Lenin

 

[BothWings]

Limiting what billionaires can do with their money is essentially the same as limiting how much money they can have. You can't become a billionaire without society, and that society can determine whether it's in its best interest to allow its members to have that much power. Money = Power, and it may not be in anyone's best interests to have billions of dollars in an individual's bank account. I would limit assets at $100 million and yearly net income after taxes at $12 million. So at the current tax rate, if the person's gross yearly income is $16.5 million, they would net $12 million. Heck if anyone isn't satisfied with $12 million yearly and $100 million in assets, they're the one with the problem. They're suffering from mammon gluttony.

You're a working-class person, you shouldn't be so critical of those who are at the bottom. Not everyone who is on welfare is there due to a lack of character or some nefarious reason. If the government guaranteed employment for everyone we would eliminate welfare. An employment guarantee isn't a free handout, since the person would have to work, so if they want to go to work and earn money, while not working, then their managers would have to address that problem. The point is that employment should be a human right for every member of our society. Every person born into our society should be guaranteed the basics upon which they can build their lives.

It's really not the same,.though. They'd still have their money and can own as many Alfo Romeos as they can fit into their mandated land-cap, or take as many vacations as they wish. They should also not be allowed to furnish their own armies which do not serve a democratically elected government. That's not limiting your money. That's limiting the types of things you can do with it. That would prevent them from building their own regimes but not prevent them from enjoying and using their money for personal pursuits.

It almost as simple as the "shotgun only" rule for hunting in my county. You are allowed to own rifles, you just can't hunt with them because of the danger of bullets travelling too far in a populated area. The law doesn't limit what's yours, it limits what you can do with yours in the interest of public safety in a specific area. And it's effective and most everybody here hunts with a bow or shotgun and has no problem with it. Those who wish to use a rifle can simply drive to game lands in another county, just like a billionaire can go buy land in some other state if he has reached his cap in his own state. Likewise laws regulating billionaires would also be in the interest of public safety...protecting the public from their power but not literally stealing what is theirs.

 

[Red Front]

It's really not the same,.though. They'd still have their money and can own as many Alfo Romeos as they can fit into their mandated land-cap, or take as many vacations as they wish. They should also not be allowed to furnish their own armies which do not serve a democratically elected government. That's not limiting your money. That's limiting the types of things you can do with it. That would prevent them from building their own regimes but not prevent them from enjoying and using their money for personal pursuits.

It almost as simple as the "shotgun only" rule for hunting in my county. You are allowed to own rifles, you just can't hunt with them because of the danger of bullets travelling too far in a populated area. The law doesn't limit what's yours, it limits what you can do with yours in the interest of public safety in a specific area. And it's effective and most everybody here hunts with a bow or shotgun and has no problem with it. Those who wish to use a rifle can simply drive to game lands in another county, just like a billionaire can go buy land in some other state if he has reached his cap in his own state. Likewise laws regulating billionaires would also be in the interest of public safety...protecting the public from their power but not literally stealing what is theirs.

What we can own is determined by society. In the not-too-distant future when advanced automation technology replaces most jobs, we're going to have to adopt a non-profit system of production. We're going to radically reorganize and overhaul our economic system and it's not going to be based on money or markets. Money, profits, markets, all of that is going to go the way of the dodo within the next few decades as robots and artificial intelligence begins to significantly replace human labor.