╌>

Abolish Billionaires

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  bob-nelson  •  5 years ago  •  148 comments

Abolish Billionaires
A radical idea is gaining adherents on the left. It’s the perfect way to blunt tech-driven inequality.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Last fall, Tom Scocca, editor of the essential blog Hmm Daily , wrote a tiny, searing post that has been rattling around my head ever since.

512 “Some ideas about how to make the world better require careful, nuanced thinking about how best to balance competing interests,” he began . “Others don’t: Billionaires are bad. We should presumptively get rid of billionaires. All of them.”

People protesting against the World Economic Forum in Davos in January.
Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Mr. Scocca — a longtime writer at Gawker until that site was muffled by a billionaire — offered a straightforward argument for kneecapping the wealthiest among us. A billion dollars is wildly more than anyone needs, even accounting for life’s most excessive lavishes. It’s far more than anyone might reasonably claim to deserve, however much he believes he has contributed to society.

At some level of extreme wealth, money inevitably corrupts. On the left and the right, it buys political power, it silences dissent, it serves primarily to perpetuate ever-greater wealth, often unrelated to any reciprocal social good. For Mr. Scocca, that level is self-evidently somewhere around one billion dollars; beyond that, you’re irredeemable.

I cover technology, an industry that belches up a murder of new billionaires annually, and much of my career has required a deep anthropological inquiry into billionairedom. But I’m embarrassed to say I had never before considered Mr. Scocca’s idea — that if we aimed, through public and social policy, simply to discourage people from attaining and possessing more than a billion in lucre, just about everyone would be better off.

In my defense, back in October, abolishing billionaires felt way out there. It sounded radical, impossible, maybe even un-American, and even Mr. Scocca seemed to float the notion as a mere reverie.

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?

I suspect the question is getting so much attention because the answer is obvious: Nope. Billionaires should not exist — at least not in their present numbers, with their current globe-swallowing power, garnering this level of adulation, while the rest of the economy scrapes by.

I like to use this column to explore maximalist policy visions — positions we might aspire to over time rather than push through tomorrow. Abolishing billionaires might not sound like a practical idea, but if you think about it as a long-term goal in light of today’s deepest economic ills, it feels anything but radical. Instead, banishing billionaires — seeking to cut their economic power, working to reduce their political power and attempting to question their social status — is a pithy, perfectly encapsulated vision for surviving the digital future.

Billionaire abolishment could take many forms. It could mean preventing people from keeping more than a billion in booty, but more likely it would mean higher marginal taxes on income, wealth and estates for billionaires and people on the way to becoming billionaires. These policy ideas turn out to poll very well , even if they’re probably not actually redistributive enough to turn most billionaires into sub-billionaires.

More important, aiming to abolish billionaires would involve reshaping the structure of the digital economy so that it produces a more equitable ratio of superrich to the rest of us.

Inequality is the defining economic condition of the tech age. Software, by its very nature, drives concentrations of wealth. Through network effects, in which the very popularity of a service ensures that it keeps getting more popular, and unprecedented economies of scale — in which Amazon can make Alexa once and have it work everywhere, for everyone — tech instills a winner-take-all dynamic across much of the economy.

We’re already seeing these effects now. A few superstar corporations , many in tech, account for the bulk of American corporate profits, while most of the share of economic growth since the 1970s has gone to a small number of the country’s richest people .

But the problem is poised to get worse. Artificial intelligence is creating prosperous new industries that don’t employ very many workers ; left unchecked, technology is creating a world where a few billionaires control an unprecedented share of global wealth.

But abolishment does not involve only economic policy. It might also take the form of social and political opprobrium. For at least 20 years, we’ve been in a devastating national love affair with billionaires — a dalliance that the tech industry has championed more than any other.

I’ve witnessed a generation of striving entrepreneurs join the three-comma club and instantly transform into superheroes of the global order, celebrated from the Bay Area to Beijing for what’s taken to be their obvious and irrefutable wisdom about anything and everything. We put billionaires on magazine covers, speculate about their political ambitions, praise their grand visions to save the world and wink affectionately at their wacky plans to help us escape — thanks to their very huge and not-in-any-way-Freudianly-suggestive rockets — to a new one.

But the adulation we heap upon billionaires obscures the plain moral quandary at the center of their wealth: Why should anyone have a billion dollars, why should anyone be proud to brandish their billions, when there is so much suffering in the world?

As Ms. Ocasio-Cortez put it in a conversation with Ta-Nehisi Coates : “I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.” (She meant hookworm , she later corrected.)

Last week, to dig into this question of whether it was possible to be a good billionaire, I called up two experts.

The first was Peter Singer, the Princeton moral philosopher who has written extensively about the ethical duties of the rich . Mr. Singer told me that in general, he did not think it was possible to live morally as a billionaire, though he made a few exceptions: Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett, who have pledged to give away the bulk of their wealth to philanthropy, would not earn Mr. Singer’s scorn.

But most billionaires are not so generous; of the 2,200 or so billionaires in the world — about 500 of whom are American — fewer than 200 have signed the Giving Pledge created by Bill and Melinda Gates and Mr. Buffett.

“I have a moral concern with the conduct of individuals — we have many billionaires who are not living ethically, and are not doing nearly as much good as they can, by a wide margin,” Mr. Singer said.

Then there is the additional complication of whether even the ones who are “doing good” are actually doing good. As the writer Anand Giridharadas has argued , many billionaires approach philanthropy as a kind of branding exercise to maintain a system in which they get to keep their billions.

When a billionaire commits to putting money into politics — whether it’s Howard Schultz or Michael Bloomberg or Sheldon Adelson, whether it’s for your team or the other — you should see the plan for what it is: an effort to gain some leverage over the political system, a scheme to short-circuit the revolution and blunt the advancing pitchforks.

Which brings me to my second expert on the subject, Tom Steyer, the former hedge-fund investor who is devoting his billion-dollar fortune to a passel of progressive causes, like voter registration and climate change and impeaching Donald Trump.

Mr. Steyer ticks every liberal box. He favors a wealth tax , and he and his wife have signed the Giving Pledge . He doesn’t live excessively lavishly — he drives a Chevy Volt. Still, I wondered when I got on the phone with him last week: Wouldn’t we be better off if we didn’t have to worry about rich people like him trying to alter the political process?

Mr. Steyer was affable and loquacious; he spoke to me for nearly an hour about his interest in economic justice and his belief in grass-roots organizing. At one point I compared his giving with that of the Koch brothers, and he seemed genuinely pained by the comparison.

“I understand about the real issues of money in politics,” he said. “We have a system that I know is not right, but it’s the one we got, and we’re trying as hard as possible to change it.”

I admire his zeal. But if we tolerate the supposedly “good” billionaires in politics, we inevitably leave open the door for the bad ones. And the bad ones will overrun us. When American capitalism sends us its billionaires, it’s not sending its best. It’s sending us people who have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing inequality. They’re bringing injustice. They’re buying politicians.

And some, I assume, are good people.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 years ago

Property is theft.
     P J Proudhon

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    5 years ago
Property is theft.     P J Proudhon

I never suspected you held anarchist views.

Or did you just spout off some quote without understanding the source?

You must agree that taxation is theft then too.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1    5 years ago
I never suspected you held anarchist views.

I do not.

Or did you just spout off some quote without understanding the source?

I did not.

You must agree that taxation is theft then too.

No.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.1    5 years ago

Property is theft! (French: La propriété, c'est le vol!) is a slogan coined by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.2    5 years ago

Yes. I attributed the quote to Proudhon.

So?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.3    5 years ago
So?

What is the purpose of your quote Bob. 

Please explain why you feel property is theft?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.4    5 years ago
Please explain why you feel property is theft?

Ok... after you explain why it isn't. Please read .

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.5    5 years ago
Ok... after you explain why it isn't. Please read.

Why do I need to read.

What's the matter you can't defend your post bob?

Awful funny you posting that no one will engage you properly,  but here I am engaging you on your opening post and all you can do is spin, sputter and nutter butter around.

Have fun.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.6    5 years ago
Why do I need to read.

You don't. Ignorance is bliss.

Oh, and... the quoted sentence should end with a question mark.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1.8  KDMichigan  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.7    5 years ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

No one will debate me jrSmiley_52_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.8    5 years ago

Try asking straightforward, honest questions the next time.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
1.1.10  Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.1    5 years ago
You must agree that taxation is theft then too.
No.


JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS   v.   SHRINK
MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[January 24, 2000]

    Justice Stevens, concurring.

    Justice Kennedy suggests that the misuse of soft money tolerated by this Court’s misguided decision in   Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm.   v.   Federal Election Comm’n,   518 U.S. 604   (1996), demonstrates the need for a fresh examination of the constitutional issues raised by Congress’ enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 and this Court’s resolution of those issues in   Buckley   v.   Valeo,   424 U.S. 1   (1976)   (per curiam) . In response to his call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property ; it is not speech.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since it is bob's position that property is theft, and our revered supreme court believes that money is property, then is stands to reason that a socialist would view money as theft..... (that is if they are a true socialist)

Hence taxation cannot be theft, how can you steal something that wasn't yours to begin with?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.11  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.10    5 years ago

You do realize, I hope, that you are talking to yourself?

And that what you are saying has nothing to do with me?

But... no matter. Enjoy yourself.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    5 years ago

No problem.  

Anarchists are welcome to try and take/use my stuff.   Of course, since we are talking anarchy here, i am free to put them down if i so choose if they try.

Works for me.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @1.2    5 years ago
we are talking anarchy here

I'm not.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    5 years ago

More words games Bob?

Okay, i'll play along for a bit.

Please illuminate on what you do mean by post one above which is normally attributed to Anarchism .

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.2    5 years ago

I mean "Property is theft". Is that clear enough? If not, please ask...

Putting words in my mouth that I did not speak is "word games", and it is you who are playing them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.3    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.3    5 years ago

Theft from who, Bob?

Who was it stolen FROM?

How does anyone else own what I bought and paid for?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.5    5 years ago

Whom.

It's the object of the preposition "from".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.6    5 years ago

Okay.

Theft from WHOM, Bob?

All better now?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.7    5 years ago
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
      -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.8    5 years ago

Real nice quote, and really, really nice that once again you fail to answer my question.

Give it up.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.10  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    5 years ago

Look, Tex...

If you want a conversation, you can't set the parameters unilaterally.

You're asking a closed question, IMHO irrelevant.

I gave you another citation, so you could surely suppose that I consider it pertinent... and give it some thought. You did not.

No one authorized you to interrogate me. I have no obligation to answer you. I will do so if I believe it contributes to mutual understanding... and not otherwise.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.10    5 years ago

A closed question?

Who you trying to kid?

I asked a very simple question directly related to what you posted.

If you can't answer, just say so.

I certainly won't think less of you because you can't answer it.

And a question or tow or even three is hardly an interrogation.

Just don't try to blow smoke up my ass with some sob story about "mutual understanding" or any of the other bullshit.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.11    5 years ago

You're talking to yourself in a mirror. Enjoy!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.12    5 years ago

Well, at least I would get a coherent, on-point response that way, because I am certainly not getting one any other way here.

I'll go to another thread where intellectual honesty is at least allowed and not spat upon.

You have a real good day, y'hear?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.14  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.13    5 years ago

     bye-bye-male-smiley-smiley-emoticon-000291-large.gif?w=480&h=480&fit=clip%22

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.14    5 years ago

11 minutes later and THAT is the very best you can come up with?

Not that I expected any more, really.

Some can, some can't.

I can.

You...…………………………...meh.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.2.16  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.15    5 years ago

I didn't know you were hanging on my every word...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.16    5 years ago
I didn't know you were hanging on my every word...

I'll just add that to the ever-growing list.

Sigh*

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    5 years ago
Give it up.

Dude... this is about "feelings".  It's more feelingly feeling than a combined Gilmore Girls/Grey's Anatomy marathon.  

Do not expect anything to make sense.  You are in the land of the slithy toves and the frumious Bandersnatch.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
1.2.19  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.18    5 years ago
You are in the land of the slithy toves and the frumious Bandersnatch.

Lewis Carroll! GREAT QUOTE!!!!!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    5 years ago

I don't object to property. People are individuals and they should be able to have something that belongs to them and is not community property.

What kills me are the libertarians and right/anarchists who think they have a right to property outside of a governmental sanction of that property.

The idea that there is a "god given" right to own some piece of land and tell everyone else they can't have it is nonsense. It is only when a government puts an imprimatur on it through a deed that ownership of the property becomes recognized and real.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.3.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    5 years ago

Hi, John...

The topic is actually getting rid of billionaires, but [Deleted]

So... Let's discuss property. Proudhon's phrase is a generalization, obviously. Only an idiot - or someone with ill intentions - would take it literally. It's pretty clear that we have a bunch of one or the other, here on NT. (As the man said, "All generalizations are worthless, including this one.")

Did you read the Rousseau citation? Rousseau doesn't condemn ownership of what one creates. He condemns the expropriation of what others create.

Human rights are, IMNAAHO, concentric circles around the person, beginning with the most fundamental of all: the right to life. Supporting that right, we have the next set of rings, which are nourishment, health and shelter.

Once the "basics of life" are covered, we arrive at a set of rings concerning "the quality of life": speech, belief, association, ...

None of these rights is exclusive. No matter how fully I exercise any of them, I do not intrude on my fellows.

"Property" is very different. My ownership precludes your ownership. The four million acres that John Malone and Ted Turner own are not available for ownership by anyone else. Importantly, the "original ownership" of that land is necessarily theft. It was once owned by all mankind... until someone "claimed" it and had the power to uphold that claim

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    5 years ago

makeas me wonder , who owns the individual and the fruit of their labors, until now its been discussed as land or posessions such as money , but who owns the individual and what they produce . our fiat currency is based on what the country can produce , not on anything tangible or something one can hold in ones hand , but the promise that production will continue for the government to tax.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.3.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.2    5 years ago

Good questions.

Another: "Who owns the robots?"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.1    5 years ago

If we didnt have private property we would have chaos.

But I agree about anyone who thinks they need to "own" millions of acres. That is a travesty.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.4    5 years ago

May not be a need, just may be a desire to own.

You can do it, too, if you choose.

Who is one to decide that what you have is too much?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.3.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.4    5 years ago

Let's tie this to socialism: ownership of means of production and distribution. That should not be private, except for one-person companies.

Personal property is not a problem. Let people accrue all they wish.

And then... of course... no inheritance.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.3.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @1.3.7    5 years ago

Read the seed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    5 years ago

Do you own property bob?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.4.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4    5 years ago

How is that information relevant, Sean?

You wouldn't be trying to set up an ad hominum attack, now would you?   jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4.1    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4.1    5 years ago

Sean's question made me think, not in the same way as he was probably thinking, about the feeling of security. While I owned a home, and at one time I owned three - one in Toronto, one beside a lake in Haliburton, Ontario, and a shared interest with my brother in a golf condominium in Florida, and I felt very secure.  But after suffering bankruptcy I pay rent to landlords, and the rent keeps increasing, which is a constant worry, and every time the lease approaches its termination (the landlords here prefer annual leases) I feel very insecure in that I may have to move yet again if they decide not to renew.  So obviously, to me at least, owning property brings a feeling of security that one might not have if they own no property. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.4.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4.3    5 years ago

I doubt there is any absolute rule.

It's hard to discuss one social parameter without bumping into others.

As I've said before:

Human rights are, IMNAAHO, concentric circles around the person, beginning with the most fundamental of all: the right to life. Supporting that right, we have the next set of rings, which are nourishment, health and shelter. Once the "basics of life" are covered, we arrive at a set of rings concerning "the quality of life": speech, belief, association, ...

None of these rights is exclusive. No matter how fully I exercise any of them, I do not intrude on my fellows.

"Property" is very different. My ownership precludes your ownership. The four million acres that John Malone and Ted Turner own are not available for ownership by anyone else. Importantly, the "original ownership" of that land is necessarily theft. It was once owned by all mankind... until someone "claimed" it and had the power to uphold that claim.

I included "shelter" in the first circle of rights. It's wrong to oblige people to constantly worry about where they will sleep the next night or the next year.

The problem, obviously, is that "shelter" bumps into "property" - your landlord. The OWNER is more important than you...

That's wrong.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4.4    5 years ago

I agree that the ownership of four million acres by Malone and Turner is obscene.  At least even at my greatest days of owning property it was never more in total than 3  acres or so. So there was a lot more than that available for others to use.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.4.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4.5    5 years ago
I agree that the ownership of four million acres by Malone and Turner is obscene.

Why?

What's the threshold for OK vs. Obscene?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.6    5 years ago

You must be joking.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.4.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4.7    5 years ago
You must be joking.

Not at all.  

You seem to indicate that you believe there is some level of property (in this case land) that is acceptable....like your three acres...and some level of ownership which become obscene....like four million acres.  

The questions are very simple, and they apply to all these examples of Marxist/Socialist/Communist ideology.  What's the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable, why, and who gets to decide?

Is it 5 acres?  50 acres?  500?  5000?  How many?  

Whatever that threshold is....why is that the threshold? 

And finally, who gets to set that threshold?  And why them? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.8    5 years ago

Your comment is to me something like wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  I've provided my opinion about 4 million acres and notwithstanding your inquiry, I have no need to respond.  I really don't give a shit because this whole issue is not important to me, and nothing more but a waste of my time to have even gone this far to discuss it.  I have better things to do, and I'll bet you do too.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.4.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4.9    5 years ago
Your comment is to me something like wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Then I'm not stating it well.

The point I'm getting at is that once we start talking about some level of ownership of property being morally wrong, then we have a question of "how much is that?"

Then we also have the question of "who gets to decide that?"

I have no idea of your net worth, but no matter what that number is, there will always be somebody who says "nobody needs that much".  

To which my response is "who are they to decide what I need or don't need?"  

Then we start to address the question "what remedies should society take to correct this amoral situation?"  And within 10 minutes somebody like AOC has a plan to seize assets and "distribute the people's wealth fairly".  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.4.11  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.10    5 years ago
Then we also have the question of "who gets to decide that?"

I suggest "our democracy"...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.4.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4.11    5 years ago
I suggest "our democracy"...

And our democracy has decided that individuals have the right to accumulate property.  

Horribly annoying to leftists, I know, but they'll manage.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.4.13  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.12    5 years ago
And our democracy has decided...

... for the time being...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.10    5 years ago

Yes.  "From each according their ability, to each according to their needs."  Where have I heard that before?  Still your question applies unless every person in the world were honest - good luck with that.

And LOL.  I'll bet your net worth FAR exceeds mine. I have no property, my clothes, my desk, my computer and printer, my camera, some books, some kitchen utensils, a small savings account for emergency medical needs, and NOTHING else. I live in a rented furnished apartment and survive on Canada government pensions. Only that much, after having been a millionaire 15 years ago.  And believe it or not, I'm actually happier now than I was then - far less worries and obligations (other than about my failing health and the concern about whether the landlord will renew the lease or not, and for what rent).

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.4.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4.14    5 years ago
And believe it or not, I'm actually happier now than I was then

That's the important thing.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
2  It Is ME    5 years ago

" Envy and jealousy are incurable diseases ." 

Robert Kraft

56

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @2    5 years ago
"Envy and jealousy are incurable diseases."  Robert Kraft

Is a quote from a billionaire - one of those the author would eliminate - supposed to convince me - or anyone - of anything?

I'm not even a Pats fan...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
2.2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2    5 years ago
"Envy and jealousy are incurable diseases." Robert Kraft

Lets get the full quote out there bob.....

“Envy and jealousy are incurable diseases,” Kraft said. “The haters still hate. And I understand it, and we’ll do our best to keep them in that position.”

He was discussing this in an interview about those that have a great dislike for the Patriots success and their five Superbowl trophy's. (now six)

He sure as hell wasn't talking about rich people, taxes or wealth re-distribution......

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.2.1    5 years ago

Ummm... NWM ??

I did not bring up the citation.

It_is_ME brought it up.

Scold him.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
2.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.2.1    5 years ago
we’ll do our best to keep them in that position.”

Loved that part. 

He is not afraid of, nor is he ashamed of his, or his teams successes !

The "Haters" are just gonna "Hate" !

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
4  dave-2693993    5 years ago

The voice and consequences of the charismatic revolutionary, posted from a descendant of a survivor. Didn't need a history class or some blog.

This is were all the "intellectual" revolutionary rhetoric leads. Proven by history and millions of dead people and ruined lives.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  dave-2693993 @4    5 years ago

It was really easy for some to be cavalier about calling for the extermination of the Kulaks, and then they woke up to find out they  were now Kulaks,

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
4.1.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    5 years ago
It was really easy for some to be cavalier about calling for the extermination of the Kulaks, and then they woke up to find out they  were now Kulaks,

Yes and the article was a perfect example of the sweet sounding charismatic revolutionary words of Lenin.

Begin by planting a seed. Over time pose reasonable sounding "intellectual" arguments to grow the concepts. Along the way, you start to demonize the "bad guys" and expend on the definition of who they are and why. In time you can begin to work in some emotion. You know like articles conclusion borrowing on one of Trumps campaign speeches. The little snowflake at the top of the mountain has begun to tumble. In time it becomes an avalanche and it becomes a no brainer that those demonized enemies of the sate really don't deserve to live, After all they are enemies of the conscious good people. They are enemies of the state. Kill them. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.1.2  Krishna  replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.1    5 years ago

Has anyone here read Animal Farm by George Orwell? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @4.1.2    5 years ago

It was required reading when I went to high school. 

Some animals are more equal than others.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
4.1.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @4.1.2    5 years ago
Has anyone here read Animal Farm by George Orwell? 

Long time ago. A rather dark story of how things often work.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.2  Krishna  replied to  dave-2693993 @4    5 years ago

This is were all the "intellectual" revolutionary rhetoric leads. Proven by history and millions of dead people and ruined lives.

That brings to mind a (controversial) quote from George Bernard Shaw:

Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny, they have only shifted it to another shoulder

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
4.2.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @4.2    5 years ago
That brings to mind a (controversial) quote from George Bernard Shaw: Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny, they have only shifted it to another shoulder

Controversial in the eyes of the revolutionaries.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 years ago

Three hours... and not a single pertinent Comment.

Yay, NewsTalkers!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    5 years ago
Three hours... and not a single pertinent Comment.
Yay, NewsTalkers!!

The pertinent ones you ignored.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    5 years ago
Three hours... and not a single pertinent Comment. Yay, NewsTalkers!!

Well then you don't know the reality of real history and why what I posted was EXACTLY PERTINENT to your article.

If you can not connect the dots to Lenin then read a fucking book.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.4.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.4    5 years ago

Sorry, Dave...

But your clip is dubious, historically... and irrelevant in any case.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.4.2  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.4.1    5 years ago
Sorry, Dave... But your clip is dubious, historically... and irrelevant in any case.

Why do you say that?

That was reality of the results of the charismatic speech of the revolutionary Lenin.

That statement shows ignorance. People came home to a dead dead people. My grandfather was one of those stunned and surprised people.

I know what he went through, from his lips.

What is dubious about real history? I can tell you, your statement is as dubious as the deniers of the Holocaust. Lenin is guilty of butchering 6 million of his own people including members of my family.

Why?

They were rich. "Get rid of the billionaires". Kill the rich people.

Again, what is dubious about the clip?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.4.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.4.2    5 years ago

I really do not care to discuss the Russian Revolution. Maybe some other time.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.4.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.4.3    5 years ago

It is a direct correlation to your topic here.

To call the correlation historically dubious and irrelevant is nonsense.

Since when do we ignore historical relevance to current issues, especially when they are directly related?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.4.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.4.4    5 years ago

I really do not care to discuss the Russian Revolution. Maybe some other time.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.4.6  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.4.5    5 years ago

The Russian Revolution is directly related to the seed.

Ignoring it doesn't doesn't make it go away.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.4.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.4.6    5 years ago

The Russian Revolution is more or less related to all events since.

I really do not care to discuss the Russian Revolution. Maybe some other time.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.4.8  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.4.7    5 years ago

Don't really understand your reasoning, but fine.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 years ago

I am s-o-o-o-o naive!

I've been complaining about all the Comments that ignore the article. It only just now occurred to me that, well, of course the Usual Suspects didn't Comment on the article... for the simple reason that they did not read the article.

They never read the article. Duh, Bob! What did you expect?

Yay, NewsTalkers!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
7.1  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    5 years ago

Of course the vast majority of people here comment on an article without reading it. (Ditto videos). And, for that matter, most of the time most people also don't click on links before commenting on them. (In all fairness it should be pointed out that that's not the case only on NT-- it happens on most Internet discussion sites. (Some time ago I realized that from time to time I've been involved in some really intelligent discussions with people-- and those sorts of discussions rarely happen online.)-

Actually an interesting topic for discussion might be why that is the case...

But OK-- that's off topic here.

So getting back to the topic-- my first thought about the idea (abolishing billionaires) is that while it might make for an interesting discussion-- it can never happen, at least in the U.S. 

Then I also thought  that it implies that this is a problem-- but the existence of some billionaires may actually be a plus.

One example of how this may happen is the existence of The Giving Pledge :^)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
7.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @7.1    5 years ago

Then I also thought  that it implies that this is a problem-- but the existence of some billionaires may actually be a plus. 

One example of how this may happen is the existence of The Giving Pledge :^)

LOL-- I admit it: I deliberately posted that lnk...after I just mentioned that most people don't click on links!

So here's a bit about it from that page (granted, some folks here may not even read a short paragraph or two before commenting on them-- but at this point I don't take what goes on online too seriously...(LOL?) 

The Giving Pledge is an effort to help address society’s most pressing problems by inviting the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to commit more than half of their wealth to philanthropy or charitable causes either during their lifetime or in their will. ( The Giving Pledge -About )

In August 2010, 40 of America’s wealthiest individuals and couples joined together in a commitment to give more than half of their wealth away. Created by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett, the Giving Pledge came to life following a series of conversations with philanthropists around the world about how they could collectively set a new standard of generosity among the ultra-wealthy.

                                                 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @7.1.1    5 years ago

I think the response must be that a sane society shouldn't have a portion of its population so spectacularly wealthier than most, that The Giving Pledge makes any sense.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
7.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.2    5 years ago

I think the response must be that a sane society shouldn't have a portion of its population so spectacularly wealthier than most, that The Giving Pledge makes any sense.

Shouldn't have.

But it does.

Well, the topic does relate  to what some people would like to see in an ideal world. My own opinion is that that world is impossible. (Of course I could be wrong)

I think it is possible to level the playing field somewhat-- after all, the "income disparity" in this country has reached some fairly extreme proportions.

But I think that there will always be some people who much better off financially than others.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @7.1.3    5 years ago
I think that there will always be some people who much better off financially than others.

Of course. People live different lives, with different results in many domains - wealth is only one. Other people create other things.

I have no problem with people creating wealth from themselves.

My problem is that there are people who are wealthy without creating anything, while other people create wealth which is taken from them.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.4    5 years ago
My problem is that there are people who are wealthy without creating anything

SO !

"while other people create wealth which is taken from them."

You mean.….people that have been given and willing took a job (for pay mind you) to work for an individual that came up with an idea specifically to make money for themselves, but also give the populace something they want and will buy ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.5    5 years ago

original people that have been given and willing took a job

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.6    5 years ago

WTF ?

Picture of the Clinton Foundation Haiti initiative ? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.7    5 years ago

Do you always laugh at poverty?

Interesting.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.8    5 years ago

A laugh at outlandish and ridicules  ..... PICTURES !

Do those people work ?

Do they have a job that doesn't pay enough ?

Have they even looked for a job ?

Are they even in this country ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.10  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.9    5 years ago
A laugh at outlandish and ridicules  ..... PICTURES !

I see. You only laugh at poverty in pictures.

Interesting.......

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.10    5 years ago

 jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

GET A JOB !

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.11    5 years ago

No.

I'm retired.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.12    5 years ago

Were you in the picture you put up ?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.1.14  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.13    5 years ago

Look... your posts are getting pretty crazy. I'm not wasting any more time on you. 'Bye!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.15  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.14    5 years ago
your posts are getting pretty crazy.

No crazier than your ridicules "Picture" !

Mirror, Mirror bothers you ?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.2  JBB  replied to  Bob Nelson @7    5 years ago

You shouldn't have to take what you got served above. Sad state of affairs!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  JBB @7.2    5 years ago

Anyone may post anything anywhere on the Front Page.

As a result, anyone can derail anything.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.2.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @7.2.1    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    5 years ago

I read the entire seeded article, and approve of it's conclusion that we don't need billionaires and we should start to think of how we can get rid of them.

But the adulation we heap upon billionaires obscures the plain moral quandary at the center of their wealth: Why should anyone have a billion dollars, why should anyone be proud to brandish their billions, when there is so much suffering in the world?

It's a good question.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
8.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @8    5 years ago
I read the entire seeded article...

You're gonna get in trouble, again...

As for the question you repeat... Americans are constantly bombarded by a pro-capitalism propaganda. "Greed is good" and so on.

It is kinda sorta un-American to question great wealth.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
8.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @8    5 years ago
I read the entire seeded article, and approve of it's conclusion that we don't need billionaires and we should start to think of how we can get rid of them.

So we're deciding who we "need" based on their wealth? 

Fascinating.

Why do we "need" billionaires less than we "need" any other income group?  Why do we "need" them less than we "need" indigent drug addicts, for example?  Or people with net worth between $221k and $247k?  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

And now, back to the original topic...

Shakespeare wrote in Henry IV, Part Two "The first thing we do, Let's kill all the Lawyers."   I guess this article says "The first thing we do, let's kill all the billionaires."  Can we start with George Soros please?

This could be relevant to the article:

From Fiddler on the Roof

[TEVYE]
"Dear God, you made many, many poor people.
I realize, of course, that it's no shame to be poor.
But it's no great honor either!
So, what would have been so terrible if I had a small fortune?"
If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man.
I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.
I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks
For the town to see and hear.
(Insert)Squawking just as noisily as they can. (End Insert)
With each loud "cheep" "swaqwk" "honk" "quack"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."
If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man.
I'd see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man's wife
With a proper double-chin.
Supervising meals to her heart's delight.
I see her putting on airs and strutting like a peacock.
Oy, what a happy mood she's in.
Screaming at the servants, day and night.
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!
If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.
If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man.
Lord who made the lion and the lamb,
You decreed I should be what I am.
Would it spoil some vast eternal plan?
If I were a wealthy man.
 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
9.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    5 years ago

Sounds like Lenin preaching his charismatic revolutionary brain washing. For some reason that doesn't relate to the topic. I am curious to see if your comment does.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    5 years ago
 I guess this article says "The first thing we do, let's kill all the billionaires."

You wouldn't have to guess if you read the article...

The Fiddler song is beloved because it shows a common man's total ignorance of what it is to be rich.

"The rich are different from you and me" - F Scott Fitzgerald

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2    5 years ago

I didn't really guess, I read the article and it talked about "abolishing" the billionaires, but I couldn't find a Shakespeare quote that used that word, so I used another way of abolishing - killing.

No, Tevye was not at all ignorant about being rich at all. He wanted to be like those in his community who were rich, and he made a damn good description of what it was like to be rich there and then, and how others kowtowed to them.  You're not familiar with the stories written by Sholom Aleichem, the author who wrote the story that formed the plot for the movie Fiddler on the Roof.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
9.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.2    5 years ago

The Fiddler song is beloved because it shows a common man's total ignorance of what it is to be rich.

The rich are not all alike....

To cite but one example,Warren Buffet is one of the richest (I believe his current rank is third, after Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates). Buffet is currently worth about $88 billion. 

So what is this multi -billionaire like? Here's the first part of a quote:

“Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks (Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates) on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others.”

My Philanthropic Pledge

In 2006, I made a commitment to gradually give all of my Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic foundations. I couldn’t be happier with that decision.

Now, Bill and Melinda Gates and I are asking hundreds of rich Americans to pledge at least 50% of their wealth to charity. So I think it is fitting that I reiterate my intentions and explain the thinking that lies behind them.

First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day.

Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge.

Moreover, this pledge does not leave me contributing the most precious asset, which is time. Many people, including—I’m proud to say—my three children, give extensively of their own time and talents to help others. Gifts of this kind often prove far more valuable than money. A struggling child, befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check. My sister, Doris, extends significant person- to-person help daily. I’ve done little of this.

(cont'd)

(In case you were wondering, Warren Buffet is a Democrat...)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.2.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @9.2.2    5 years ago

Oh, certainly there's a place for charity, for philanthropy...

Christ commanded it, because "Love your neighbor"...

At the same time, I find something offensive in the idea that these people, however well-meaning, decide the best manner to move society forward.

Obviously, they’re far better than Sheldon Adelson, but they're still billionaires.

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred


67 visitors