Ending billionaire-ism: Good idea?

[Cataclysm]

http://www.nobillionaires.com/

It’s because billionaires are not job creators, they are somewhere between symbiotes and parasites. That’s not meant as a personal insult against billionaires, many of whom are decent people. But it’s meant as a statement of common sense. If vast fortunes are being hoarded in the hands of very few people who can’t possibly spend that much money in their lifetime or their kid’s lifetime or even their kid’s, kid’s, kid’s, kid’s, lifetime, then it’s essentially being wasted.

This is the point billionaire Nick Hanauer was making in his recent TED talk explaining why rich people aren’t job creators (He also said the same thing on The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann). As he said, “There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff.”

If the 400 richest billionaires in America could generate just as much economy activity alone as the rest of us can, then maybe there'd be an argument for such vast wealth. But they can’t. The typical billionaire doesn’t buy thousands of more pairs of pants, or dine out thousands of more times, or buy thousands of more cars typical working class American.

Thom Hartmann outlines his arguments, explaining there's a correlation between decreased mobility and increased wealth inequality, and that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin outlined the dangers of wealth hoarding.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNk22qwgngM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNk22qwgngM</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SZaEWwsjI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SZaEWwsjI</a>

What do you think?

[Dynamic Dragon]

I think this idea is so stupid, it needs to be taken out back and shot.   

[Yaezakura]

I think this idea is so stupid, it needs to be taken out back and shot.   

And what about it is stupid? Because as far as I can see, it's a legitimate argument.

Sums of money that vast don't actually accomplish anything. It doesn't get spent. All it really does is sit there and draw ever more money out of the system and into stasis. There's a point where a person's income reaches a sort of critical mass, creating a financial event horizon. Funds go in that can never return, because it's beyond the owner's ability to spend it all.

[dpareja]

I think this idea is so stupid, it needs to be taken out back and shot.   

And what about it is stupid? Because as far as I can see, it's a legitimate argument.

Sums of money that vast don't actually accomplish anything. It doesn't get spent. All it really does is sit there and draw ever more money out of the system and into stasis. There's a point where a person's income reaches a sort of critical mass, creating a financial event horizon. Funds go in that can never return, because it's beyond the owner's ability to spend it all.

It can still be invested, loaned by banks, put into bonds in governments and companies and such.

[mellenORL]

Once you pass a certain point in wealth, it is beyond human use to you. Unless billionaires are investing in low interest micro loans and grants, funding practical research, building schools and roads in poor countries, etc. with their unused disposable assets, they are little better than old school landed gentry who kept vast tracts of land out of needed food production...so they could hunt on it in private shooting parties. Which is what traditional investing is like, too; it just increases your wealth, and you are letting your money be used by those who don't really need it that much, anyway. Why not improve the world a little? When billionaires like Gates and Buffet can give away the vast majority of their wealth without suffering the least bit of lifestyle change, well, they made a pretty good point in favor of this idea.

[Stormwarden]

Dynamic Dragon: Okay, how is it that stupid? Be more specific, if you would.

The problem is, the billionaires aren't spending most of it. I applaud those who do so for noble ventures (such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for one example), but collectively, the billionaires hoard far more than they spend.

It sounds like a nice thought, but to me, it may well be a pipe dream at best. After all, you'll hear a bunch of Quislings and Sycophants (look them up) screaming "SOCIALISM, OMG!!!1!" at the top of their lungs.

Want to put an end to some of that nonsense? Then it's time to bust up some monopolies. If the corporations and banks are too big to fail, then I motion that they are too big to exist. But of course, the GOP, such as it is, won't stand for it.

We need zombie Teddie Roosevelt, and maybe the Continental Congress to come back from the dead and set these Quislings straight, preferably with a good hard beating.

[Lt. Fred]

Tar and feather, for old time's sake.

I kid, I kid. I think it's an interesting idea. I'm not sure whether I agree or not yet, I'll think about it some more.

This is a bit of a placeholder so this pops up in my unread posts bin.

[chitoryu12]

Sooo what's your solution?

[Joey]

When billionaires like Gates and Buffet can give away the vast majority of their wealth without suffering the least bit of lifestyle change, well, they made a pretty good point in favor of this idea.

They gave it away to causes they chose, which they should have the right to do since they earned their money. I know it's unpopular these days to point out the fact that most (although certainly not all) of the wealthy earned their wealth by creating something of value, but the fact is they did. Gates created products that have made business more efficient for billions of people, and the wealth he accrued as a result is equal to the value he added to the economy as a result of his products (actually, the value of his wealth is most likely much much less, since his products have in turn been used to create other products).

I could go into the many reasons why a system that didn't reward innovation would be unsustainable, but I would probably be talking to a brick wall.

EDIT: That said, I DO believe we need to end the plutocratic element to our society. The wealthy should NOT have more influence over public policy.

[dpareja]

Maybe the original ideas were Gates', but he couldn't possibly write all the code himself. What about all the programmers who work on Microsoft's systems? Are they getting compensated at a level equivalent to the value of their additions to the economy?

[mellenORL]

It's worth reading what Gates and Buffet themselves had to say in explanation for their actions in this. Innovation will be rewarded, obviously. But there comes a point when even a billionaire, especially an intelligent, creative one, may get a bit bored with just making more and more money. Since we live in a new era where the mechanisms of wealth creation by individuals can be exceeding fast (Zuckerberg) and even for relatively trivial products or services (facebook), you can see the reason why some people are wondering if there is a better way to handle things. For the sake of humor, I would tax Zuck, and let Gates just keep doing his malaria vaccine programs.

[nickiknack]

Dynamic Dragon: Okay, how is it that stupid? Be more specific, if you would.

The problem is, the billionaires aren't spending most of it. I applaud those who do so for noble ventures (such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for one example), but collectively, the billionaires hoard far more than they spend.

It sounds like a nice thought, but to me, it may well be a pipe dream at best. After all, you'll hear a bunch of Quislings and Sycophants (look them up) screaming "SOCIALISM, OMG!!!1!" at the top of their lungs.

Want to put an end to some of that nonsense? Then it's time to bust up some monopolies. If the corporations and banks are too big to fail, then I motion that they are too big to exist. But of course, the GOP, such as it is, won't stand for it.

We need zombie Teddie Roosevelt, and maybe the Continental Congress to come back from the dead and set these Quislings straight, preferably with a good hard beating.

I love it when people use the word Quislings, it really needs to be used more often.

[Joey]

Maybe the original ideas were Gates', but he couldn't possibly write all the code himself. What about all the programmers who work on Microsoft's systems? Are they getting compensated at a level equivalent to the value of their additions to the economy?

Well you bring up an interesting point - the concept of worker ownership has its merits in theory. But how would you implement such a system and enforce it? How would you measure exactly how much value an employee has contributed to a company? Economists would argue that the labor market does this automatically.

Workers who are only compensated via worker ownership are also taking a huge risk that they might not want to take. Waged and salaried employees enjoy the benefit of job security.

[MadCatTLX]

If these people can't find a half decent way to put their billions back into the economy then they obviously aren't trying.

I know I have a long list of expensive things I would love to buy if I had the money at my disposal. Much of it is various kinds of military hardware, because driving a tank to work is totally awesome. In particular I want to own an MI-24. Then there's the private island, some offshore platforms like the old sea forts, and one of the flak towers that are still standing. I'd also want a cargo ship to use to transport my stuff.

Then I'd put ass loads of money into research, including research into how to put a human brain in a robot body, the creation of an advanced robot body for said project, custom created dinosaurs from messing with chicken embryos, the possibility of creating nanobots that are essentially artificial cells, and the feasibility of a space elevator.

[RavynousHunter]

If I hit it big, I already know what kinda research I'm putting money into...not gonna say what, because it and the reasoning behind it are very personal.

Also, if you donate to actual charities (read, ones you don't fucking OWN that actually do something real for people), I think a tax break or somesuch is perfectly okay.  Tax breaks just for being rich?  Fuck that jank, and another promise of mine if I get THAT kinda rich, I'm not fucking taking them.  I seriously doubt the IRS would complain, they're getting more money, and I'm actually bothering to pay my dues like a decent human being.  I use the roads, I benefited from the public school system, just to name a few.  Those people need paying, and I'm not fucking their paychecks just to keep a few extra grand that, if I really -were- that damned rich, wouldn't really fucking matter in the first place.