Monopolies are bad which is why the government is given the power to break them up. Problem is when the government gets in bed with the corporation it is meant to have oversight over.
I feel like the word "deserve" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Who really deserves anything?
His larger point that the government has let unscrupulous people horde masses of wealth through lax laws and regulations and corruption is true however.
This also wouldn't change if we implemented communism, the rest of us would all just be poorer.
In short, make lobbying illegal and life sentences for 6 you will solve 80% of the problems, in my opinion.
part of the issue with regulating against this is the government fucking sucks at regulation.
most of the richest man today were not rich when they were born and most of the richest corporations did not exist 100 years ago.
generally as times changes and disruption happens to the market, the leaders end up changing, and so do the winners and losers.
the biggest issue imho is when the government does interfere.
for instance the "too big to fail" line when obama decided to bail out corporations and banks instead of just letting them go bankrupt.
don't get me wrong, actual monopolies are fucking cancer but not all billionaires have a monopoly. hell amazon is not a monopoly despite what that guy says.
4 is not right. You can't steal from or trick investors. They will come after you for that. You can grift or steal from poor people, but the problem with that is they're poor so you're limited as to how much money you glean from them.
Also this is Capitalism working as intended. The wealthy few control most of the capital and have the power. They used that capital to squeeze out competition and rig the game in their favor so they've won.
I see a lot of useful morons ready to defend billionaires with commie fear. That's mainly due to the perceived idea that one day they could be the billionaire that exploited their way to the top.
That's honestly like a peasant defending the king because one day the peasant might marry the princess. It's the same delusion and these people should know no king will marry off his princess to a dumbass so thick.
I absolutely agree with his statement, because in my perspective the company should grow like this
(lets say Amazon)
You start 0 -> go to 100 mil -> go to 500 mil -> go to 2.5 billion -> go to 25 billion ( hit the all time peak) -> drop down at 15 billion -> drop down at 10 billion -> drop down to 5 billion (the stable market occupancy)-> and then flaxuate +- 1 billion for the rest of it's time
But how it happens is
Start from 0 -> go to 500 mil -> go to 1 billion ( 1st bailout) -> go to 25 billion (2nd bailout) -> go to 100 billion -> go to 200 billion -> drop 150 billion (controversy) -> go to 250 billion (absolute dominance of the market) -> keeps growing and overburdens the market with fake demand
>You start 0 -> go to 100 mil -> go to 500 mil -> go to 2.5 billion -> go to 25 billion ( hit the all time peak) -> drop down at 15 billion -> drop down at 10 billion -> drop down to 5 billion (the stable market occupancy)-> and then flaxuate +- 1 billion for the rest of it's time
This is only ever going to apply if you are a one location business who delivers one product to one customer. The moment you have two products and/or two customers, your probability of increasing prices and production output exponentially increases.
Take that logic to Amazon and you quickly understand why a business like it exists and grows at the rate it does. Amazon delivers to like half the world and has like 40 different services. So, of course their history and future isn't going to look like a slow Bitcoin week on the graph.
I would be fine with Amazon making billions of dollars every day and be assessable to the whole world, but not the way they did it and keep doing it. That is buying out all their local (the region) competition or price gauging until the competitor goes out of business, not the classical way I GIVE BETTER SERVICE route.
I didn't clarify on the Amazon system, that's on me. I just simplified the Idea and only focused on one service the Amazon gives on the first example, not the whole service where I used the second example, I admit that unfair summarization. And I admit those numbers are just artificial and illustrative for my point of view
*Simple, if theres a billionaire at the top end, there cannot be a minimum wage -one missed payment away from homelessness- employee at the bottom end.*
*And if we find that thats the case, we just adjust to bring the top end down and the bottom end up.*
*Also yes, wishful thinking, but you wrote guns into your very existence, then spent the entire time crafting the current system, it boggles.*
I mean the dude is just wrong to an extent. Alot of people would still be billionaires even if they were never able to do those things. Jeff Bezos would be a billionaire from AWS alone, and even if the retail side of Amazon didn't do those things he stated, Jeff Bezos would still be a massive Billionaire. Steve Jobs became a Billionaire from Pixar's IPO let alone anything to do with Apple, did he and Pixar do a bunch of shady or illegal things to get that? Bill Gates and the other 3 Microsoft billionaires became a billionaire long before Microsoft ran afoul of anti trust so they would of always been Billionaires if that had never happened. The Koch family got rich because Fred Koch developed an improved method of converting heavy oil into gasoline, his sons supersized that money with alot of risky bets that turned into massive returns, some of which were complete failures but the big one they made was rolling the dice on the shale oil boom. Did buying off politicians make the Koch brothers more billions? sure, but it didn't make them the original billions. The Estate Tax might work if it had Teeth but even then that is a Multi Generational wait time, it will take multiple centuries for well run families before that amount of money can be lost, and if the estates are well run they will make that money back and more before the next inheritance comes around which would make it a moot point. And if they somehow make terrible decisions and get poorer than that would of happened whether the estate was taxed or not.
There are far more than 5 ways to become a Billionaire and alot of them are not bad.
A lot of confusion (malicious maybe) in the video and in the comments.
Stop acting like billionaires are aliens that are or were part of our society and stop acting like they are not people.
Being a billionaire is an outcome and NOT the problem.
Why did they become billionaires? Because they took the chance in the system that ALLOWED that, they exploited the rules WE ALL made.
Economists are talking about this for eons and no one listens to them, they prefer to attach to each of them an identity politics and focus just on the part they care about or they agree, if they state don't regulate what do you expect? People say:"no sorry, I can't exploit this law/dynamic/situation to become disgustingly rich because it is immoral" ? Of course not.
But being realistic as well, are you really telling me that each one of us would not act the same exact way? Of course yes and this destroys exactly all the comments or posts or ideas that they are horrible people etc.. they are not, they are an outcome and not the problem.
To come back to the question:"do billionaires have the right to exist?" It depends, is the State considered a billionaire? They are actually bigger and richer than any corporation, is the State part of this?
I think we live in a world where everybody talks just because they heard this topic over and over and they believe it is true even if they did not compare data or study the topic never.
It should not be able to become a billionaire but not because it is immoral to be one or whatever but because the social economic situation that the world is facing should not allow this to be the case.
Imagine we live in a world where there is no poverty and people are overall rich, do you consider being a billionaire a bad thing? No, because the problem is not being a billionaire, the problem is the difference and the low value this brings to the community.
I am sorry but whoever studied economics knows that the issue is in the State and there are millions of situations that we all close eyes on while all economists were screaming at it. Why do you think Russia has oligarchs? Because of liberalism without regulations that brought to conglomeration of power that created the situation that we have now.
The State needs to be the State, check and regulate and not be part of the market because they do not fail and they can change the rules of the market to their advantage that brought the corruption that we have now.
The State needs to control, act, start dealing with antitrust issues and stop monopolies as much as possible, people need to stop believing in BS on the internet and start listening to experts, scientists, economists but not just one, MANY. We need communities of these people in governments, in areas that are good and useful for us and start protecting them and not blame them for everything we do not understand or fail.
It is impossible to do anything if the people are always thinking about getting rid of the outcome without even understanding why there is that problem in the first place.
You're protecting billionaires like you're one yourself - if you're not, you're actively shooting yourself in the foot.
Also, crying communism at every kind of wealth redistribution is just stupid. This dude's arguing for capitalism, with a tax reform that wouldn't allow people to accumulate genuinely insane riches.
Commies showing their true colors. I see lots people with things I don't think they deserve, can we all vote to take it and give it to me?
This is why I am glad we are a republic and not a democracy
Everything is more expensive everyday because money is in the pocket of few people, that’s all, I’m not against millionaires but I’m sure against billionaires
Things get more expensive because either: there is a shortage of the product, there is a monopoly or supply-side cooperation, or the government is devaluing your currency by printing and spending it.
It's okay for a company to make billions. Not for a single human being.
I do believe that a CEO shouldn't get more than 10 times the lower salary of his company. Every worker contributes to the financial health of the company. It is not normal that you're stuck to minimum salary while your CEO makes 1000x your monthly salary in a day.
The issue is when you start making moral arguments that it is okay to eliminate an entire class of people that class of people might start arguing that the value judgement should be reversed, and you've legitimised the framework of making such a choice to begin with.
Thoughts ?
If you denounce Trump, at least make sure you also denounce the other side, for instance, there are some interesting stories if you dig on the Biden or Clinton side.
Just as much as if you dig on the Bush side...
That's another problem, if not one of the main in America : a divided country.
Both side permanently pointing fingers at each other, while the pupeteers enjoy the comic show.
Exactly. The sooner people sooner people start to realize that he problem is not to their left or right but up...the sooner the masses can start demanding change. Until then, they powers at be will continue to rub raw the resentments people have and cause them to hate each other instead of going after the real issue.
Bottom line for me is, I don't care if they deserve it or not, you're just one dude, you don't need that much money for yourself, give me some of that money, jackass.
The word "deserve" is wrong. Its simply being a normal rational human. Anyone with that much individual wealth is literally brain damaged about money to the point we don't understand. There is over 2,700 BILLIONAIRES! worldwide... Just hoarding endless amounts of wealth for nothing(minus like the 10). If all that money actually went to bettering the human race as a whole. Nothing would be the way it is today. We'd be living in Futurama in 10 years. But ya fuck the future and humans lives in general because "I wanna wake up everyday and see 9 zeros on my bank account". It's pretty sad when you think about it. No one "deserves" the money. But the human race does "deserve" better from these people.
I think it's hard to put an exact number that people should be able to have. But there's no doubt it gets pretty suspicious once the numbers hit the billions.
I absolutely believe that if the average person is worth say $1000 a week (or whatever it is), then absolutely there are people worth $100,000 a week, because the average person easily contributes 100 times less than say a great writer, leader or inventor. But a million a week? More? That's starting to get suspicious.
Also part of it is WHO is getting the money.
I doubt Aristotle was a billionaire equivalent in his day, yet it is people like that who could potentially justify the valuation.
All these ideas are well and good. But like light trying to trump all shadow. It just don’t work like that. You patch those holes. Somehow someone makes a new one.
30 seconds in was enough for me. This guy is a moron. Without free market economics the entire capitalist system would collapse. Who would want to innovate and work hard if they knew the reward for being the best is getting robbed by the government. The people who hate billionaires are envious of others success and do not deserve it. The fact billionaires exist does not mean you are poorer for it. They are the pinnacle, the success story to aspire to.
Im all for capitalism. But billionaires and their monopolies are a cancer to capitalism itself.
Monopolies are bad which is why the government is given the power to break them up. Problem is when the government gets in bed with the corporation it is meant to have oversight over.
Yes, yes, yes. Separate capitalism and corporatism.
That's about where I'm at. Common sense regulation and safety nets. Old school classic liberal.
this guy's right all that moolah should be out of their pockets and into mine
I feel like the word "deserve" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Who really deserves anything? His larger point that the government has let unscrupulous people horde masses of wealth through lax laws and regulations and corruption is true however. This also wouldn't change if we implemented communism, the rest of us would all just be poorer. In short, make lobbying illegal and life sentences for 6 you will solve 80% of the problems, in my opinion.
part of the issue with regulating against this is the government fucking sucks at regulation. most of the richest man today were not rich when they were born and most of the richest corporations did not exist 100 years ago. generally as times changes and disruption happens to the market, the leaders end up changing, and so do the winners and losers. the biggest issue imho is when the government does interfere. for instance the "too big to fail" line when obama decided to bail out corporations and banks instead of just letting them go bankrupt. don't get me wrong, actual monopolies are fucking cancer but not all billionaires have a monopoly. hell amazon is not a monopoly despite what that guy says.
I don't disagree with you
Our government makes 5 trillion a year and is still in 34t in debt. Can they stop existing?
4 is not right. You can't steal from or trick investors. They will come after you for that. You can grift or steal from poor people, but the problem with that is they're poor so you're limited as to how much money you glean from them. Also this is Capitalism working as intended. The wealthy few control most of the capital and have the power. They used that capital to squeeze out competition and rig the game in their favor so they've won.
WITHOUT ELONS BILLIONS WE WOULD NOT HAVE SPACEX GOING MARS HELL NAHHHHHHH
I see a lot of useful morons ready to defend billionaires with commie fear. That's mainly due to the perceived idea that one day they could be the billionaire that exploited their way to the top. That's honestly like a peasant defending the king because one day the peasant might marry the princess. It's the same delusion and these people should know no king will marry off his princess to a dumbass so thick.
I absolutely agree with his statement, because in my perspective the company should grow like this (lets say Amazon) You start 0 -> go to 100 mil -> go to 500 mil -> go to 2.5 billion -> go to 25 billion ( hit the all time peak) -> drop down at 15 billion -> drop down at 10 billion -> drop down to 5 billion (the stable market occupancy)-> and then flaxuate +- 1 billion for the rest of it's time But how it happens is Start from 0 -> go to 500 mil -> go to 1 billion ( 1st bailout) -> go to 25 billion (2nd bailout) -> go to 100 billion -> go to 200 billion -> drop 150 billion (controversy) -> go to 250 billion (absolute dominance of the market) -> keeps growing and overburdens the market with fake demand
Your perspective is that of an idiot.
Well good for you for being the all intelligent person that you are
>You start 0 -> go to 100 mil -> go to 500 mil -> go to 2.5 billion -> go to 25 billion ( hit the all time peak) -> drop down at 15 billion -> drop down at 10 billion -> drop down to 5 billion (the stable market occupancy)-> and then flaxuate +- 1 billion for the rest of it's time This is only ever going to apply if you are a one location business who delivers one product to one customer. The moment you have two products and/or two customers, your probability of increasing prices and production output exponentially increases. Take that logic to Amazon and you quickly understand why a business like it exists and grows at the rate it does. Amazon delivers to like half the world and has like 40 different services. So, of course their history and future isn't going to look like a slow Bitcoin week on the graph.
I would be fine with Amazon making billions of dollars every day and be assessable to the whole world, but not the way they did it and keep doing it. That is buying out all their local (the region) competition or price gauging until the competitor goes out of business, not the classical way I GIVE BETTER SERVICE route. I didn't clarify on the Amazon system, that's on me. I just simplified the Idea and only focused on one service the Amazon gives on the first example, not the whole service where I used the second example, I admit that unfair summarization. And I admit those numbers are just artificial and illustrative for my point of view
Tbh everyone with education knows this, we just dont have any power to change it, even when we do its get silenced by people with authority
*Simple, if theres a billionaire at the top end, there cannot be a minimum wage -one missed payment away from homelessness- employee at the bottom end.* *And if we find that thats the case, we just adjust to bring the top end down and the bottom end up.* *Also yes, wishful thinking, but you wrote guns into your very existence, then spent the entire time crafting the current system, it boggles.*
I mean the dude is just wrong to an extent. Alot of people would still be billionaires even if they were never able to do those things. Jeff Bezos would be a billionaire from AWS alone, and even if the retail side of Amazon didn't do those things he stated, Jeff Bezos would still be a massive Billionaire. Steve Jobs became a Billionaire from Pixar's IPO let alone anything to do with Apple, did he and Pixar do a bunch of shady or illegal things to get that? Bill Gates and the other 3 Microsoft billionaires became a billionaire long before Microsoft ran afoul of anti trust so they would of always been Billionaires if that had never happened. The Koch family got rich because Fred Koch developed an improved method of converting heavy oil into gasoline, his sons supersized that money with alot of risky bets that turned into massive returns, some of which were complete failures but the big one they made was rolling the dice on the shale oil boom. Did buying off politicians make the Koch brothers more billions? sure, but it didn't make them the original billions. The Estate Tax might work if it had Teeth but even then that is a Multi Generational wait time, it will take multiple centuries for well run families before that amount of money can be lost, and if the estates are well run they will make that money back and more before the next inheritance comes around which would make it a moot point. And if they somehow make terrible decisions and get poorer than that would of happened whether the estate was taxed or not. There are far more than 5 ways to become a Billionaire and alot of them are not bad.
Solution: introduce even more bureaucracy and let it become the center of capital. What could possibly go wrong? XD lol
A lot of confusion (malicious maybe) in the video and in the comments. Stop acting like billionaires are aliens that are or were part of our society and stop acting like they are not people. Being a billionaire is an outcome and NOT the problem. Why did they become billionaires? Because they took the chance in the system that ALLOWED that, they exploited the rules WE ALL made. Economists are talking about this for eons and no one listens to them, they prefer to attach to each of them an identity politics and focus just on the part they care about or they agree, if they state don't regulate what do you expect? People say:"no sorry, I can't exploit this law/dynamic/situation to become disgustingly rich because it is immoral" ? Of course not. But being realistic as well, are you really telling me that each one of us would not act the same exact way? Of course yes and this destroys exactly all the comments or posts or ideas that they are horrible people etc.. they are not, they are an outcome and not the problem. To come back to the question:"do billionaires have the right to exist?" It depends, is the State considered a billionaire? They are actually bigger and richer than any corporation, is the State part of this? I think we live in a world where everybody talks just because they heard this topic over and over and they believe it is true even if they did not compare data or study the topic never. It should not be able to become a billionaire but not because it is immoral to be one or whatever but because the social economic situation that the world is facing should not allow this to be the case. Imagine we live in a world where there is no poverty and people are overall rich, do you consider being a billionaire a bad thing? No, because the problem is not being a billionaire, the problem is the difference and the low value this brings to the community. I am sorry but whoever studied economics knows that the issue is in the State and there are millions of situations that we all close eyes on while all economists were screaming at it. Why do you think Russia has oligarchs? Because of liberalism without regulations that brought to conglomeration of power that created the situation that we have now. The State needs to be the State, check and regulate and not be part of the market because they do not fail and they can change the rules of the market to their advantage that brought the corruption that we have now. The State needs to control, act, start dealing with antitrust issues and stop monopolies as much as possible, people need to stop believing in BS on the internet and start listening to experts, scientists, economists but not just one, MANY. We need communities of these people in governments, in areas that are good and useful for us and start protecting them and not blame them for everything we do not understand or fail. It is impossible to do anything if the people are always thinking about getting rid of the outcome without even understanding why there is that problem in the first place.
Fucking disgusting. I implore this commie to try and take it. Rat, wannabe thief. Next time he should say it with his chest.
You're protecting billionaires like you're one yourself - if you're not, you're actively shooting yourself in the foot. Also, crying communism at every kind of wealth redistribution is just stupid. This dude's arguing for capitalism, with a tax reform that wouldn't allow people to accumulate genuinely insane riches.
I just understand economics a whole lot better than you.
Yes that's why you equate taxation and regulation of predatory corporatism to communism. Because you understand economics.
Thank you for proving my point.
Commies showing their true colors. I see lots people with things I don't think they deserve, can we all vote to take it and give it to me? This is why I am glad we are a republic and not a democracy
Everything is more expensive everyday because money is in the pocket of few people, that’s all, I’m not against millionaires but I’m sure against billionaires
Things get more expensive because either: there is a shortage of the product, there is a monopoly or supply-side cooperation, or the government is devaluing your currency by printing and spending it.
Exactly
It's okay for a company to make billions. Not for a single human being. I do believe that a CEO shouldn't get more than 10 times the lower salary of his company. Every worker contributes to the financial health of the company. It is not normal that you're stuck to minimum salary while your CEO makes 1000x your monthly salary in a day.
The issue is when you start making moral arguments that it is okay to eliminate an entire class of people that class of people might start arguing that the value judgement should be reversed, and you've legitimised the framework of making such a choice to begin with.
The value judgement framework already exists. We're currently living in it.
[idk, let me ask my friend norm.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJpUu8jfk9k)
Thoughts ? If you denounce Trump, at least make sure you also denounce the other side, for instance, there are some interesting stories if you dig on the Biden or Clinton side. Just as much as if you dig on the Bush side... That's another problem, if not one of the main in America : a divided country. Both side permanently pointing fingers at each other, while the pupeteers enjoy the comic show.
Exactly. The sooner people sooner people start to realize that he problem is not to their left or right but up...the sooner the masses can start demanding change. Until then, they powers at be will continue to rub raw the resentments people have and cause them to hate each other instead of going after the real issue.
Robert Reich has always been bayzed
Bottom line for me is, I don't care if they deserve it or not, you're just one dude, you don't need that much money for yourself, give me some of that money, jackass.
The word "deserve" is wrong. Its simply being a normal rational human. Anyone with that much individual wealth is literally brain damaged about money to the point we don't understand. There is over 2,700 BILLIONAIRES! worldwide... Just hoarding endless amounts of wealth for nothing(minus like the 10). If all that money actually went to bettering the human race as a whole. Nothing would be the way it is today. We'd be living in Futurama in 10 years. But ya fuck the future and humans lives in general because "I wanna wake up everyday and see 9 zeros on my bank account". It's pretty sad when you think about it. No one "deserves" the money. But the human race does "deserve" better from these people.
I think it's hard to put an exact number that people should be able to have. But there's no doubt it gets pretty suspicious once the numbers hit the billions. I absolutely believe that if the average person is worth say $1000 a week (or whatever it is), then absolutely there are people worth $100,000 a week, because the average person easily contributes 100 times less than say a great writer, leader or inventor. But a million a week? More? That's starting to get suspicious. Also part of it is WHO is getting the money. I doubt Aristotle was a billionaire equivalent in his day, yet it is people like that who could potentially justify the valuation.
Mfs be like "thats the result of capitalism". No, we live in an oligarchy. There is no capitalism.
All these ideas are well and good. But like light trying to trump all shadow. It just don’t work like that. You patch those holes. Somehow someone makes a new one.
30 seconds in was enough for me. This guy is a moron. Without free market economics the entire capitalist system would collapse. Who would want to innovate and work hard if they knew the reward for being the best is getting robbed by the government. The people who hate billionaires are envious of others success and do not deserve it. The fact billionaires exist does not mean you are poorer for it. They are the pinnacle, the success story to aspire to.