Billionaires

[evolution]

If you REALLY believe that the 'problem' with the super wealthy does not come from how they achieve their money, then WHY would there be ANY issue with the power that wealth creates?

I believe that it is uncontroversial that bad things can come out of good things.

Okay. But some see this as being controversial, and thus some thing to be communicated.

But each to their own.

I believe that this is one such scenario, in which this wealth creation has lead to people having power that private citizens should not enjoy.

Find out how and why 'you' have given "them" power, then 'you' could prevent "them" from having power, and thus there would not be anything to 'check'.

They have gained power through capitalism.

This is a typical adult human response. That is; Blame some thing else.

And, if it has not yet been noticed, blaming a system, which is created by 'you', adult human beings, then we go back to and end up again at;
Find out how and why 'you' have given "them" power, then 'you' could prevent "them" from having power, and thus there would not be anything to 'check'. That is; other than 'checking' one's own 'self'.

I do not believe in destroying capitalism.

Okay. You are ABSOLUTELY FREE to believe, or disbelieve, absolutely ANY thing.

By the way, I NEVER mentioned ANY thing about "destroying" ANY thing, including "capitalism". I talked about, Finding out about HOW and WHY 'you' do what 'you' do, and cause and create the "wealthy", and then you could keep that in 'check', which WOULD PREVENT 'that' what you have an issue with.

Not trying to entirely prevent them from having power related to their wealth, just want to be able to quantify and limit.

Why do 'you' only want to quantify and limit "them". Why do 'you' not want to quantify and/or limit 'you', as well?

What is the actual 'problem', which you are proposing a 'solution' to and for here?

If people are not using their power to take money from you, then what other 'power' could they have over you?

If the 'problem' does not come from wealthier human beings using their power to achieve more money, then power of 'what' exactly do you have an issue/problem with?

The actual problem is as stated above, money has been accumulated to the point that I feel unfair power is being given to unelected officials.

But that power has been given to some people for hundreds and for thousands of years PRIOR to some 'point', where you began to feel was 'unfair'.

These people only have, so called, "power" because it is people like 'you' who has, and is giving, "them", so called, "power".

These people only have, so called, "power" if 'you', people, give it to "them". They do NOT have any, ACTUAL, real 'power' over 'you' nor "others".

There are many ways power can be exerted over me in ways other than taking my fairly earned pay.

LOL Now this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just one of the many excuses and "justifications" that the 'super wealthy' use. That is; "My fairly earned pay".

Just how 'FAIR' 'it' is, is EXTREMELY RELATIVE.

Consider political campaign donations. Consider control of media outlets. The list goes on and on. I believe that there is nothing wrong with private citizens having control over things like these, but rather my issue occurs when a select few private citizens are able to consolidate their control and gain too much power.

Okay. But this EXACT SAME 'issue' has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. It is NOT a new issue.

Although the SOLUTION is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EXTREMELY EASY, the VERY REASON WHY the SOLUTION has NOT YET been implemented can be CLEARLY SEEN here, in the responses given.

[evolution]

Who is "we"?

"We" is the citizens of any society in which the ultra wealthy are allowed to accumulate the aforementioned mass of wealth.

How do you differentiate between the 'ultra wealthy' and the 'citizens'?

Relative to the citizens of planet earth, where would you class/rate 'you' in the 'wealth scale'?

The wealthy are powerful enough to minimize any effect that those with less power could have on the power of the wealthy. So who exactly is going to stand up against the wealthy? Who can do so successfully?

The governmental institutions that we already have in place, I believe, are the best method for remedying this situaiton.

Do they not contain some of the most, so called, "powerful people"?

Would these ones really be the best ones to rely on to keep a 'check on', or to relieve themselves, of that "power"?

Why should the rich be moral (in an ordinary sense of the word, meaning that they wouldn't lie, steal, etc.)?
I think if you can answer this, the rest should be easy to figure out.

The "rich" should be moral for the EXACT SAME reason the "poor", and EVERY one else, should be moral.

Quite simply, BECAUSE it is the RIGHT thing to do.

The rich have no obligation to be moral, their only obligation I believe is to follow the laws.

Okay. But this partly explains WHY you are still LOOKING FOR 'solutions'.

The aim is to find methods to legally and efficiently limit their power.

Why ONLY "their" power?

Why NOT 'your' power, as well?

But how do you propose to accomplish that?

That is precisely why I started this thread, to find a solution.

Thee SOLUTION to ALL of human beings 'problems', is found in the formula HOW. This is; Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want (or Willingness) to change, for the better.

Using HOW is HOW solutions are discovered and HOW what EVERY one Truly wants and desires is accomplished, and reached.

[baker]

The wealthy are powerful enough to minimize any effect that those with less power could have on the power of the wealthy. So who exactly is going to stand up against the wealthy? Who can do so successfully?

The governmental institutions that we already have in place, I believe, are the best method for remedying this situaiton.

It's not clear how this can be done.
I mean, I live in what is officially a first-world country, but which usually scores pretty high on corruption scales. Our prime minister is a man who was found guilty by a court of law and sentenced to prison, but instead, he holds the most powerful position in the country. So, I'm not so hopeful about the power of governmental institutions.

[baker]

Maybe if 'the way' the, so called, "super wealthy" obtained their excessive amount of money was seen as a 'problem', then we could, and thus would, solve the 'problem', and STOP the power being given to a few individuals.

Sure, and I think it does matter how the superwealthy obtained their wealth. In many, if not most cases, it seems they obtained it through illegal means, or in some other shady way.

And, if it has not yet been noticed, blaming a system, which is created by 'you', adult human beings, then we go back to and end up again at;
Find out how and why 'you' have given "them" power, then 'you' could prevent "them" from having power, and thus there would not be anything to 'check'. That is; other than 'checking' one's own 'self'.

It seems that the basic principle is: As long as people indulge in consumerism, capitalism flourishes. It's because people want things such as relatively cheap mobile phone technology and an abundance of foods to choose from in grocery stores, etc. etc. that makes capitalism flourish. It's through indulgence in consumerism that people give away their power to those who provide those consumerist products and services.
In contrast, if enough people would sufficiently limit their consumerist appetites, the economic system as we know it would collapse.

But that power has been given to some people for hundreds and for thousands of years PRIOR to some 'point', where you began to feel was 'unfair'.

It seems that the feeling of unfairness sets in around the time of the French Revolution. Prior to that, ideas like liberty, equality, and brotherhood weren't prominent, and it seems that up until then, it was perfectly normal for people not to view eachother as equals (nor as brothers, nor as free), and the hiearchical order and the machinations of power seemed something normal, ordinary, not something to be upset about.

Okay. But this EXACT SAME 'issue' has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. It is NOT a new issue.

Yes. It seems that it's only with the popularization of the idea that "all men are created equal" power disparity has become seen as a problem by those with less power, but not prior to that.

These people only have, so called, "power" because it is people like 'you' who has, and is giving, "them", so called, "power".
These people only have, so called, "power" if 'you', people, give it to "them". They do NOT have any, ACTUAL, real 'power' over 'you' nor "others".

This seems like a psychological solution. But in my experience, it does not pass the reality test. Once one actually is in a real life situation where one is in a situation with another person where there is significant power disparity, and one's health and livelihood are at stake, such a psychological solution shows its flaw.

A psychological solution like yours absolves those with more power from respecting the social contract, and instates living by homo homini lupus and bellum omnium contra omnes.

Those with less power are at the mercy of those with more power. This is always so, and it doesn't depend on "giving one's power away" (although "givng one's power away" can exacerbate the problem).

[HJCarden]

The big question to ask of any billionaire is this: are they growing the pie, or have they just found a way to get themself a bigger slice? If they are growing the pie then no problem. If they are getting a bigger slice then how? The laws allow it? Change the laws. By exploiting others (eg in other countries)? Guillotine

Personally I have very little expertise in present day economics, and I think its hard to reasonably decide on one of these options. However, the "pie" metaphor leads to part of what confuses me about the current political discourse regarding the super wealthy. Many people directly assume that since someone is ultra wealthy, it must have come to the detriment of others. But look at Amazon. In America, where the left wing has been clamoring for the minimum wage to be raised, warehouse workers start at 15$ with health/retirement benefits, which is nearly double the minimum wage in some states. No laws changed, but Amazon made that strategic decision to be able to hire from a larger pool of workers and raised their starting wage.

But back more towards the point, I think the NBA/WNBA wage gap is a good comparison to make here. NBA players make massively larger salaries than WNBA players, and their salaries also constitute a larger percentage of their league's revenue (I think its something like 40% vs 25%). Looking at just this, it seems unfair, correct? However, when you look at what drives the revenue of the leagues, the NBA really emphasizes their star power, and NBA stars are cultural icons. WNBA stars...........just don't have the same pull. So I believe it's not fair to ask simply if these billionaires are growing the pie or not, but if the growth they create makes them worthy of a larger portion of the pie.

Further on this subject, I think lots of laws aimed at the super wealthy are easily sidestepped. Offshore accounts are one of many ways that wealth can be hidden and not subject to new laws. I think there has to be some sort of multi-national cooperation aimed at making sure these type of people only become wealthy, and not unfairly powerful, or something that makes these ultra-powerful more accountable to elected officials.

[Jack D Ripper]

The governmental institutions that we already have in place, I believe, are the best method for remedying this situaiton.

It's not clear how this can be done.
I mean, I live in what is officially a first-world country, but which usually scores pretty high on corruption scales. Our prime minister is a man who was found guilty by a court of law and sentenced to prison, but instead, he holds the most powerful position in the country. So, I'm not so hopeful about the power of governmental institutions.

Romania had a problem with their leader from the 1960's to the late 1980's that was solved on December 25, Christmas Day, 1989. They had a Merry Christmas that year:

[evolution]

Maybe if 'the way' the, so called, "super wealthy" obtained their excessive amount of money was seen as a 'problem', then we could, and thus would, solve the 'problem', and STOP the power being given to a few individuals.

Sure, and I think it does matter how the superwealthy obtained their wealth. In many, if not most cases, it seems they obtained it through illegal means, or in some other shady way.

And, if it has not yet been noticed, blaming a system, which is created by 'you', adult human beings, then we go back to and end up again at;
Find out how and why 'you' have given "them" power, then 'you' could prevent "them" from having power, and thus there would not be anything to 'check'. That is; other than 'checking' one's own 'self'.

It seems that the basic principle is: As long as people indulge in consumerism, capitalism flourishes. It's because people want things such as relatively cheap mobile phone technology and an abundance of foods to choose from in grocery stores, etc. etc. that makes capitalism flourish. It's through indulgence in consumerism that people give away their power to those who provide those consumerist products and services.
In contrast, if enough people would sufficiently limit their consumerist appetites, the economic system as we know it would collapse.

But that power has been given to some people for hundreds and for thousands of years PRIOR to some 'point', where you began to feel was 'unfair'.

It seems that the feeling of unfairness sets in around the time of the French Revolution. Prior to that, ideas like liberty, equality, and brotherhood weren't prominent, and it seems that up until then, it was perfectly normal for people not to view eachother as equals (nor as brothers, nor as free), and the hiearchical order and the machinations of power seemed something normal, ordinary, not something to be upset about.

Okay. But this EXACT SAME 'issue' has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. It is NOT a new issue.

Yes. It seems that it's only with the popularization of the idea that "all men are created equal" power disparity has become seen as a problem by those with less power, but not prior to that.

These people only have, so called, "power" because it is people like 'you' who has, and is giving, "them", so called, "power".
These people only have, so called, "power" if 'you', people, give it to "them". They do NOT have any, ACTUAL, real 'power' over 'you' nor "others".

This seems like a psychological solution. But in my experience, it does not pass the reality test.

What exactly is the 'it', which you propose does not "pass the reality test"?

Once one actually is in a real life situation where one is in a situation with another person where there is significant power disparity, and one's health and livelihood are at stake, such a psychological solution shows its flaw.

Was the third word to the eleventh word in your sentence really necessary here?

How can there be, so called, "significant power disparity" if as I claimed NO person has any, ACTUAL, real 'power' over 'you' nor "others"?

And, what exactly is the 'psychological solution', which you mention here?

To understand FULLY what I am saying here we would have to delve much deeper into what I am actually talking about, and meaning exactly.

See, to me there is NO real actual 'power disparity' among you adult human beings, other than the 'power disparity', which you give to, and take from, each other.

A psychological solution like yours absolves those with more power from respecting the social contract, and instates living by homo homini lupus and bellum omnium contra omnes.

i only know english.

Also, what do you propose, exactly, is a 'psychological solution', like "mine"?

Those with less power are at the mercy of those with more power.

You appear to just disagree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with what I said here, which is perfectly okay.

Now, who do you propose are "those", with 'less power', and, who do you propose are "those", with 'more power'?

This is always so, and it doesn't depend on "giving one's power away" (although "givng one's power away" can exacerbate the problem).

This may be thee ACTUAL Truth, from one perspective. But until you can propose, properly and correctly, who "those" are EXACTLY, then maybe what you are imagining here is NOT as true as you would like to believe it is.

[Steve3007]

I have little to no knowledge of law, so I'm unsure of the ramifications of this, but it does get at the idea of removing a level of power from these people.

Well, I suppose one objection to the idea of making privately funded lawyers illegal (and making all lawyers court-appointed) would be the same as objections to other things, such as News organizations, being government funded. It could be argued that it opens the way for tyranny.

Like I said, I do not believe taxation is the route, so other ways to keep this group of people in check are where I think we should look.

I only suggested using taxation to fund the lawyers because lawyers, like everyone else, have to eat, and in our society the conventional way to enable people to do that is using the medium of money. But some people (notably Terrapin Station here) propose doing away with the concept of money altogether. I'm sceptical of that idea myself. I think money is too useful a concept not to simply re-emerge in broadly the same form.

[baker]

Well, I suppose one objection to the idea of making privately funded lawyers illegal (and making all lawyers court-appointed) would be the same as objections to other things, such as News organizations, being government funded. It could be argued that it opens the way for tyranny.

Or to the extinction of the lawyer profession, and to the extinction of the legal system as we know it.

If lawyers would have no choice in whom they represent and how much they get payed, who'd still want to be a lawyer?

[baker]

Romania had a problem with their leader from the 1960's to the late 1980's that was solved on December 25, Christmas Day, 1989.

Our situation is different. The country (Slovenia) is in a state of perpetual political gridlock. Many of the main political players remain the same, indeed, but we don't have an actual dictatorship. The people are highly polarized, the parliamentary elections are won by a very narrow margin, and it's been a long time since an elected government lasted its full term. So we have rightwingers at the helm for a couple of years, then leftwingers for the next few, until a few parliamentary representatives defect from one party to another, this changes who has majority in the parliament, a new coalition emerges. And not much can get done.
It's a permanent whiplash effect.

[HJCarden]

I have little to no knowledge of law, so I'm unsure of the ramifications of this, but it does get at the idea of removing a level of power from these people.

Well, I suppose one objection to the idea of making privately funded lawyers illegal (and making all lawyers court-appointed) would be the same as objections to other things, such as News organizations, being government funded. It could be argued that it opens the way for tyranny.

Like I said, I do not believe taxation is the route, so other ways to keep this group of people in check are where I think we should look.

I only suggested using taxation to fund the lawyers because lawyers, like everyone else, have to eat, and in our society the conventional way to enable people to do that is using the medium of money. But some people (notably Terrapin Station here) propose doing away with the concept of money altogether. I'm sceptical of that idea myself. I think money is too useful a concept not to simply re-emerge in broadly the same form.

Totally agree with you, I think money is such a useful concept that many things about our economic systems would need to change drastically in order for some sort of bartering system (which money facilitates greatly) to not be used. I also agree with you that there is a possibility that these government funded legal firms could become politicized. I like the idea, but am generally not a fan of giving more power to the government, but for situations like this it might prove necessary.

[Jack D Ripper]

Romania had a problem with their leader from the 1960's to the late 1980's that was solved on December 25, Christmas Day, 1989.

Our situation is different. The country (Slovenia) is in a state of perpetual political gridlock. Many of the main political players remain the same, indeed, but we don't have an actual dictatorship. The people are highly polarized, the parliamentary elections are won by a very narrow margin, and it's been a long time since an elected government lasted its full term. So we have rightwingers at the helm for a couple of years, then leftwingers for the next few, until a few parliamentary representatives defect from one party to another, this changes who has majority in the parliament, a new coalition emerges. And not much can get done.
It's a permanent whiplash effect.

Okay. Ordinarily, the solutions I have presented only happen when things are really bad. The reason being, people are reluctant to take strong actions and only do so when things are truly horrible.

In your case, you have a relatively easy solution. (Note that "relatively easy" need not be extremely easy.) Since your country is a member of the European Union, move to Germany or any other well-run country in the EU that strikes your fancy. If you are young and have not yet gone to college, go to college in your chosen destination. If you choose Germany, work hard and participate in the local celebrations (like drink plenty of beer for Oktoberfest). If you choose some other country, work hard and participate in the local celebrations. The point is, you are wanting to be there, so embrace your new home.

I am aware that there are language and cultural issues and expenses associated with moving. But most people not only face all of that, but also have to be accepted into the country where they want to live, which is often a very difficult thing, particularly if it is a country that is a good place to live. With the EU, you have that part pretty well taken care of, which makes this change for you relatively easy.


Now, before you type a complaint about my response, did you expect a possible answer to be really easy and effortless? Do you think I can wave a magic wand and fix the problems of your country?

You are in a much better position than many are in. But whether you avail yourself of the opportunities afforded you by being in the EU or not is up to you.

[Robert66]

The big question to ask of any billionaire is this: are they growing the pie, or have they just found a way to get themself a bigger slice? If they are growing the pie then no problem. If they are getting a bigger slice then how? The laws allow it? Change the laws. By exploiting others (eg in other countries)? Guillotine

Personally I have very little expertise in present day economics, and I think its hard to reasonably decide on one of these options. However, the "pie" metaphor leads to part of what confuses me about the current political discourse regarding the super wealthy. Many people directly assume that since someone is ultra wealthy, it must have come to the detriment of others. But look at Amazon. In America, where the left wing has been clamoring for the minimum wage to be raised, warehouse workers start at 15$ with health/retirement benefits, which is nearly double the minimum wage in some states. No laws changed, but Amazon made that strategic decision to be able to hire from a larger pool of workers and raised their starting wage.

But back more towards the point, I think the NBA/WNBA wage gap is a good comparison to make here. NBA players make massively larger salaries than WNBA players, and their salaries also constitute a larger percentage of their league's revenue (I think its something like 40% vs 25%). Looking at just this, it seems unfair, correct? However, when you look at what drives the revenue of the leagues, the NBA really emphasizes their star power, and NBA stars are cultural icons. WNBA stars...........just don't have the same pull. So I believe it's not fair to ask simply if these billionaires are growing the pie or not, but if the growth they create makes them worthy of a larger portion of the pie.

Further on this subject, I think lots of laws aimed at the super wealthy are easily sidestepped. Offshore accounts are one of many ways that wealth can be hidden and not subject to new laws. I think there has to be some sort of multi-national cooperation aimed at making sure these type of people only become wealthy, and not unfairly powerful, or something that makes these ultra-powerful more accountable to elected officials.

You are right - it is hard to decide reasonably. We are aiming for the same outcome, though, which is to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving. There are certain "low-hanging fruit", or at least it seems reasonable to me, that measures such as denying tax-evaders the offshore "accounting" option, could be achieved - with a little of that much longed for international cooperation.

Thinking about "the pie" leads me to suggest that the heuristic approach to determining whether a billionaire is deserving or not would be to examine their relationship with taxation. I say relationship, because it will be no simple matter in most cases, yet it is only reasonable that a billionaire be given the opportunity to show, for example, that while they may pay little in the way of tax, their actions - which create jobs - have led to an overall increase in state taxation revenue (growing the pie). If, for example, they are buying businesses so as to reduce staffing levels, move production offshore, and hide their wealth offshore as well, then they will not be able to avoid the guillotine (or substitute your preferred punishment). Remember what is being examined is whether that billionaire is STEALING from his own people. The people of a nation have a right to know what is happening with money which should be used for their benefit.

With regard to the NBA/WNBA wage gap, equal pay legislation, in accordance with anti-discrimination law, would be a good place to start. The NBA stars will have a chance to argue their case for more, and the debate can become more public. If you look at what drives the revenue of the leagues, and you are female, you might argue that increasing WNBA salaries, and promoting the WNBA more, would lead to more female attendance and participation, which would grow the pie.

Of course the real problem, as ever, is the lack of political will to achieve possible reform. Banning or limiting political donations would help in that regard, but I see no way of preventing the private acts of hypocrisy which occur at the ballot box, where moderate, liberal, planet-lovers vote into office the very worst offenders against the planet and their people.

[baker]

/.../
This may be thee ACTUAL Truth, from one perspective. But until you can propose, properly and correctly, who "those" are EXACTLY, then maybe what you are imagining here is NOT as true as you would like to believe it is.

I'll try to make this more concise.

Would it be correct to summarize your stance as follows:
It is not possible for others to take away one's power.
One's power is always one's own.
One may give others one's power, but others cannot take it away from one.

Is this your stance?

[baker]

The rich have no obligation to be moral, their only obligation I believe is to follow the laws. The aim is to find methods to legally and efficiently limit their power.

But they are the ones who make the laws (even if often indirectly). Why would they push for laws that would be to their disadvantage?