Where Do Billionaires Come From?

[AzogtheDefiler]

I like the inequality. Poor people like you make me feel better about myself. Thanks.

Then you'll be in heaven when the dollar crashes.....

~S~

Doubt it. I am a grown up and don’t believe in fairy tales.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I like the inequality. Poor people like you make me feel better about myself. Thanks.

Then you'll be in heaven when the dollar crashes.....

~S~

39 year-old punk thinks he's in The Big Club or something, LMAO

Big Club? Is that a sandwich? Yum yum.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You’re a jealous little piggy aren’t you? Asshole.

The Rising Costs of U.S. Income Inequality | HuffPost

I like the inequality. Poor people like you make me feel better about myself. Thanks.

A lot of people that suck at things look to those worse than them to help make themselves feel better. It saves them from needing to put forth the effort to actually better themselves.

A lot of people are happy with what they have and don’t vilify others for being wealthy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

unless the billionaire in question gained their money by theft or fraud, "we the people" gave it to them voluntarily.

It's not that simple. Legal monopolies, for example, are not generally considered thieves or frauds, but where your only choice is between Comcast and Verizon for high speed internet, phone, and/or TV for example, you know you're likely getting ripped off either way. WalMart or Costco. Home Depot or Lowes. Exxon or BP. Facebook or Twitter. I for one don't recall "We the People" ever being asked if we wanted to allow a couple or a few giant venders to displace the perhaps thousands of smaller, previous or potential competitors. The trend is always going to approach one wherever the sky's the limit in terms of how much "market" any can capture.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A lot of people are happy with what they have and don’t vilify others for being wealthy.

Seems worse to vilify others for being poor just so you can feel better about yourself.

But hey, if it makes you happy then I am happy for you!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

A lot of people are happy with what they have and don’t vilify others for being wealthy.

Seems worse to vilify others for being poor just so you can feel better about yourself.

But hey, if it makes you happy then I am happy for you!

Only vilify those who are angry at others for being more successful than them. Thanks for being happy for me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A lot of people are happy with what they have and don’t vilify others for being wealthy.

Seems worse to vilify others for being poor just so you can feel better about yourself.

But hey, if it makes you happy then I am happy for you!

Only vilify those who are angry at others for being more successful than them. Thanks for being happy for me.

That is not what you first post said.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

A lot of people are happy with what they have and don’t vilify others for being wealthy.

Seems worse to vilify others for being poor just so you can feel better about yourself.

But hey, if it makes you happy then I am happy for you!

Only vilify those who are angry at others for being more successful than them. Thanks for being happy for me.

That is not what you first post said.

I was poking at Georgie the Communist Jew hater.

 

[dblack]

unless the billionaire in question gained their money by theft or fraud, "we the people" gave it to them voluntarily.

It's not that simple. Legal monopolies, for example, are not generally considered thieves or frauds, but where your only choice is between Comcast and Verizon for high speed internet, phone, and/or TV for example, you know you're likely getting ripped off either way. WalMart or Costco. Home Depot or Lowes. Exxon or BP. Facebook or Twitter. I for one don't recall "We the People" ever being asked if we wanted to allow a couple or a few giant venders to displace the perhaps thousands of smaller, previous or potential competitors. The trend is always going to approach one wherever the sky's the limit in terms of how much "market" any can capture.

”WalMart or Costco. Home Depot or Lowes. Exxon or BP. Facebook or Twitter."

Looks like you're using an "alternative" definition of monopoly.

"I for one don't recall "We the People" ever being asked if we wanted to allow a couple or a few giant venders to displace the perhaps thousands of smaller, previous or potential competitors.”

You're asked every time you're asked to buy their products.

 

[Grumblenuts]

unless the billionaire in question gained their money by theft or fraud, "we the people" gave it to them voluntarily.

It's not that simple. Legal monopolies, for example, are not generally considered thieves or frauds, but where your only choice is between Comcast and Verizon for high speed internet, phone, and/or TV for example, you know you're likely getting ripped off either way. WalMart or Costco. Home Depot or Lowes. Exxon or BP. Facebook or Twitter. I for one don't recall "We the People" ever being asked if we wanted to allow a couple or a few giant venders to displace the perhaps thousands of smaller, previous or potential competitors. The trend is always going to approach one wherever the sky's the limit in terms of how much "market" any can capture.

”WalMart or Costco. Home Depot or Lowes. Exxon or BP. Facebook or Twitter."

Looks like you're using an "alternative" definition of monopoly.

"I for one don't recall "We the People" ever being asked if we wanted to allow a couple or a few giant venders to displace the perhaps thousands of smaller, previous or potential competitors.”

You're asked every time you're asked to buy their products.

Looks like you're thinkin' none too good today.

mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
noun

1. 1.
   the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
   "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"

ex·clu·sive
/ikˈsklo͞osiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   excluding or not admitting other things.
   "my exclusive focus is on San Antonio issues"
2. restricted or limited to the person, group, or area concerned.
   "the couple had exclusive possession of the condo"

Recent Examples on the Web //The friendly guy who professed his love of Kazuo Ishiguro novels and had created a cool new way to buy books was now seen in some quarters as an enemy of literary culture and a successor to the monopolist Rockefeller.— Franklin Foer, The Atlantic, "Jeff Bezos’s Master Plan," 10 Oct. 2019

Or think "oligopoly" if you're such a determined pedant.

'Well hello, sir. Would you like us "to allow a couple or a few giant venders" like us "to displace the perhaps thousands of smaller, previous or potential competitors.”?'

Nope. Sorry. Has never happened.

 

[Questioner]

I don't think that we "have" billionaires so much as we "make" billionaires.

Even then, we have "faith" in the worth of currency, when on its own it is merely paper and metal.

 

[georgephillip]

People might become billionaires for any number of reasons. But in general it's because people gave them a lot of money.

If people get a lot of money from markets, did they get rich from making great contributions to society or did they prosper because society structured the markets in ways that allowed them to get super rich?

Depends on who you're talking about. The only commonality is that, unless the billionaire in question gained their money by theft or fraud, "we the people" gave it to them voluntarily. Who are you to second-guess our decisions? More importantly, why should government take on this role?

Depends on who you're talking about. The only commonality is that, unless the billionaire in question gained their money by theft or fraud, "we the people" gave it to them voluntarily. Who are you to second-guess our decisions? More importantly, why should government take on this role?

How much money are "we the people" voluntarily giving to private equity funds?

If rich individuals bribe government to obtain legalized theft, do you want to inhibit government's lawmaking abilities or prosecute rich people?

"Other financial industry billionaires got their money through private equity (PE) funds, whose main advantage seems to be carrying through activities that publicly traded companies would be too embarrassed to do.

"Their latest cash cow is surprise medical billing, where a variety of businesses owned by PE funds interject themselves into the medical process and hand patients huge bills.

"It is not hard to envision structuring the financial industry in a way that didn’t provide much room for PE.

"It’s not obvious that we would risk much, if any, loss of efficiency from having a considerably smaller PE industry."

Should We Have Billionaires?

 

[georgephillip]

I don't think that we "have" billionaires so much as we "make" billionaires.

Even then, we have "faith" in the worth of currency, when on its own it is merely paper and metal.

Is a billion dollars far more than anyone can reasonably claim to deserve based on their contribution to society?

If it's true at some level of extreme wealth money inevitably corrupts, society is better off without billionaires.

 

[Questioner]

I don't think that we "have" billionaires so much as we "make" billionaires.

Even then, we have "faith" in the worth of currency, when on its own it is merely paper and metal.

Is a billion dollars far more than anyone can reasonably claim to deserve based on their contribution to society?

If it's true at some level of extreme wealth money inevitably corrupts, society is better off without billionaires.

I don't buy into that logic, no.

 

[whitehall]

Does a (small but militant) faction of American society really believe that patents and copyrights are some sort of "government monopoly"? Here's a thought, force millionaire Hollywood actors to accept the same wage as electricians or gaffers (whatever that is) and let us know how you make out.

 

[Questioner]

Does a (small but militant) faction of American society really believe that patents and copyrights are some sort of "government monopoly"? Try it sometime.

I've been wanting to read the history of copyright law in the US.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't think that we "have" billionaires so much as we "make" billionaires.

Even then, we have "faith" in the worth of currency, when on its own it is merely paper and metal.

Is a billion dollars far more than anyone can reasonably claim to deserve based on their contribution to society?

If it's true at some level of extreme wealth money inevitably corrupts, society is better off without billionaires.

I don't buy into that logic, no.

I don't buy into that logic, no.

Abolishing billionaires seems like an idea worth debating:

Opinion | Abolish Billionaires

"But it is an illustration of the political precariousness of billionaires that the idea has since become something like mainline thought on the progressive left.

"Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are floating new taxes aimed at the superrich, including special rates for billionaires.

"Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also favors higher taxes on the wealthy, has been making a moral case against the existence of billionaires.

"Dan Riffle, her policy adviser, recently changed his Twitter name to 'Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure.'

"Last week, HuffPost asked, 'Should Billionaires Even Exist?'"

 

[Questioner]

I don't think that we "have" billionaires so much as we "make" billionaires.

Even then, we have "faith" in the worth of currency, when on its own it is merely paper and metal.

Is a billion dollars far more than anyone can reasonably claim to deserve based on their contribution to society?

If it's true at some level of extreme wealth money inevitably corrupts, society is better off without billionaires.

I don't buy into that logic, no.

I don't buy into that logic, no.

Abolishing billionaires seems like an idea worth debating:

Opinion | Abolish Billionaires

"But it is an illustration of the political precariousness of billionaires that the idea has since become something like mainline thought on the progressive left.

"Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are floating new taxes aimed at the superrich, including special rates for billionaires.

"Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also favors higher taxes on the wealthy, has been making a moral case against the existence of billionaires.

"Dan Riffle, her policy adviser, recently changed his Twitter name to 'Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure.'

"Last week, HuffPost asked, 'Should Billionaires Even Exist?'"

How are you going to do it, with a guillotine?

 

[sparky]

Does a (small but militant) faction of American society really believe that patents and copyrights are some sort of "government monopoly"?

One really has to live it to believe it Whitey

Here's a thought, force millionaire Hollywood actors to accept the same wage as electricians or gaffers (whatever that is) and let us know how you make out.

Sure, i'll give any famous actor my job, if i can have theirs

~S~

 

[sparky]

I don't think that we "have" billionaires so much as we "make" billionaires.

Even then, we have "faith" in the worth of currency, when on its own it is merely paper and metal.

Is a billion dollars far more than anyone can reasonably claim to deserve based on their contribution to society?

If it's true at some level of extreme wealth money inevitably corrupts, society is better off without billionaires.

I don't buy into that logic, no.

I don't buy into that logic, no.

Abolishing billionaires seems like an idea worth debating:

Opinion | Abolish Billionaires

"But it is an illustration of the political precariousness of billionaires that the idea has since become something like mainline thought on the progressive left.

"Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are floating new taxes aimed at the superrich, including special rates for billionaires.

"Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also favors higher taxes on the wealthy, has been making a moral case against the existence of billionaires.

"Dan Riffle, her policy adviser, recently changed his Twitter name to 'Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure.'

"Last week, HuffPost asked, 'Should Billionaires Even Exist?'"

How are you going to do it, with a guillotine?

I was thinking a dull circumciser.....and cheap whiskey......~S~