Kansas Crimson

I think the mistake many make is thinking that having an extraordinary excess is a good thing. Andrew Carnegie had it right. Did a lot of good giving it all away as he checked out. Louis XVI not as fun. Leona Helmsley, Trump--there are reckonings for true greed.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:51 am

Grandma wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:46 am
I am having a difficult time understanding why people on here have such an issue with people who have a lot of money. Of course nobody "needs" a billion dollars.

If you can acknowledge that of course nobody needs a billion dollars, then why are you having a difficult time understanding why some people have such an issue with it?

No one really needs anything other than food, clothing, shelter, and perhaps companionship.
But someone is supposed to feel guilty and/or "immoral" because they are highly successful?

That’s the thing! How can a very few folks have SO much material wealth and power while so many others struggle with things like food, clothing, and shelter?

I don’t wanna discount anyone’s success. But where do we draw that line between individual success, and individual excess?


“Hunger exists not because we can’t care for the poor, but because we can’t satisfy the rich.”

Answer to your first question - People are free to take issue/s with whatever they please. I'm just trying to understand why some on here seem to want to paint billionaires as horrible people - simply because they have a billion dollars.

Answer to your second question - It's a great and unfortunate question.
I am 100% for EVERYONE living in a manner in which they don't have to worry about their next meal, where they will sleep at night, etc. I don't blame billionaires for those people's plights. If I felt it was the billionaire's "fault", then by all means I would take issue with them for it.

As far as where we draw the line - Good question but why does a line need to be drawn?
I make a decent living. I piss away a lot of my money. Many people benefit from my NOT being frugal.
Many people benefit in much bigger ways from billionaires being billionaires.

I think just generally speaking, if the human species is gonna be able to sustain on this planet, we gotta get away from short-sighted profiteering and this winner take all mindset, and accept that we’re all in this together.

Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:02 am Andrew Carnegie had it right. Did a lot of good giving it all away as he checked out.

Exactly, and this is what Ousdahl doesn't undersatand. It's not having a billion dollars that's the problem. It all depends on what you do with it. (And in many cases how you got it).

You could become a billionaire because you started a small business or invented a product that was successful and then sold it. You don't have to be some self-absorbed hoarder only obsessed with accumulating money the way Ousdahl seems to think every wealthy person is.

The Gates foundation has done wonderful things. Chuck Feeney has done all kinds of philanthropic work.

I don't understand why it needs to be said, but just like there are good and bad poor people, there are good and bad rich people too.

Name one other thing that would be appropriate to have a billion of that would be viewed as not a problem.

(Come on phd just make like a cell biology joke...)

And how often is a billionaire really being that philanthropic?

Heck, if Zuck and Musk and Bezos got together, they could just the three of them pretty much wipe out world hunger, and still have a ridiculous fortune to spare.

So why don’t they?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:50 am Name one other thing that would be appropriate to have a billion of that would be viewed as not a problem.

(Come on phd just make like a cell biology joke...)

And how often is a billionaire really being that philanthropic?

Heck, if Zuck and Musk and Bezos got together, they could just the three of them pretty much wipe out world hunger, and still have a ridiculous fortune to spare.

So why don’t they?

Bacterial cells in your colon.

It only has to happen once to prove that simply being a billionaire isn't an immoral act.

I'm with you on a lot of this.

I have posted here that I think inheriting a fortune is the most unAmerican thing there is. I proposed that we should lower income tax by having a 100% inheritence tax on anything above say a couple million bucks. That's why I think it's great that Gates is ONLY gonna leave his kids each some number in the low millions.

But, I also get the impression that you think these guys have money bins filled with cash a la Srooge McDuck and they swim in it. Their wealth is tied up in property, businesses, stocks, and other stuff.

I can look at Bezos and think about what I would do, but I don't know that it's right for me to say, that he is morally obligated to sell all his shares of Amazon, completely liquidate all his assets, and start giving his money away. I'm also not sure that solves any real problems long term other than you'd be happy that there is one less person who is richer than you are.

Shit yeah!

And ok, even if billionaires themselves aren’t the problem, I still think they should be regarded with a certain...caution?

It’s a power grab. How much power do we wanna give one individual?

Cuz if we approach it as, yeah that guy is stupid rich nbd, next thing you know he’s lobbying lawmakers and stinking up politics with money and buying media companies to not mention a quarter billion workers are striking in India, but do mention how burdened those poor little job creators will be if they have to pay more than minimum wage.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:04 am And ok, even if billionaires themselves aren’t the problem, I still think they should be regarded with a certain...caution?

ok

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:04 amIt’s a power grab. How much power do we wanna give one individual?

I don't think this is always the case. Sometimes someone starts an app that becomes successful, or a business, or like Buffett just really enjoys the game of stocks the same way other nerds like D&D or video games.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:04 amCuz if we approach it as, yeah that guy is stupid rich nbd, next thing you know he’s lobbying lawmakers and stinking up politics with money and buying media companies to not mention a quarter billion workers are striking in India, but do mention how burdened those poor little job creators will be if they have to pay more than minimum wage.

Again, I'll concede that money gives power, and money can be awfully tempting to do bad selfish things...but it doesn't have to be either.

Money is amoral. How you earn it and how you spend it can be moral or immoral.

kubowler99 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:13 am To an extend, Trad, I agree. A disrupter or innovator that brings a brilliant idea successfully to market and makes billions because of it doesn't necessarily mean they, themselves are immoral.

But...

There's a point (and I don't think we've defined exactly what that 'point' is) where the continued accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth while millions of people in this country are homeless, living in poverty, unable to feed their kids, etc...feels wrong.

i totally agree

and that’s where the behavior (or lack thereof) comes into play

having the money isn’t immoral...it’s the failure to do something “worthwhile” with it that is

I wonder how much money ends up in anonymous offshore accounts.

By its very design, that’s not exactly something we can keep track of.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:37 am I think just generally speaking, if the human species is gonna be able to sustain on this planet, we gotta get away from short-sighted profiteering and this winner take all mindset, and accept that we’re all in this together.

but, humans aren’t going to sustain on this planet

virtually nobody lives in a manner that will accomplish such a thing

those that do generally have no desire to accumulate wealth - their concerns are much more basic and rooted in subsistence

Speaking of doing something worthwhile:

If a million dollars would allow you to do 2 chicks at the same time, I wonder how many chicks at the same time you could do with a billion?

2,000

The math is really easy.

Whoa, 2000, jeez!

At some point imma need a fresh beer...

And keep in mind, if 2000 chicks at the same time sounds excessive, it’s not.

It all just depends on what I do with them.

Ous should focus more on what hes doing and less on what others should be doing.

Ok bro.

In that case I’m gonna come break into your house and steal all your coors.

If you got a problem with that, don’t. No need to focus on what I’m doing.

In the context of OP, how would workers react if they went on strike and the bidness owners simply responded, “just focus less on what I should be doing.” You think that would fly?

Asking again: in the history of capitalism, do you think it’s been the workers or the capitalists who have been more vulnerable to exploitation?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:47 am Ok bro.

In that case I’m gonna come break into your house and steal all your coors.

If you got a problem with that, don’t. No need to focus on what I’m doing.

Which, isn't relevant at all. If you want to make beer that i pay for.....go for it.