[voidhorse]

I don't think anyone is simply envious. People mean to point out that allowing individual accumulation of wealth to extreme degrees lead to runaway structural problems. Billionaires and companies existing and providing wages are not inextricably intertwined. It's entirely possible to have one while preventing the other. The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.

[abletonlive]

> I don't think anyone is simply envious.

I think most are.

> The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.

And how many of those companies and founders have given back to society at the scale that these uber wealthy people have? Entire new economies have been built up.

> ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.

This is still just envy. You should try to prove that you're being oppressed by the systems these billionaires have created because we don't have to go very far back to observe when these systems and economies did not exist. I'll remind you that for example, in NYC before Uber, taxi medallions were being sold for over a million dollars and people were going into debt just for the opportunity to drive a cab. If you go far back enough creating a virtual store front to sell your ideas and goods was a gate that was actually very high. Thanks to the systems that are in place now you have the opportunity to spin this up for very little risk and prove out your idea. Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before. You can launch an entire grass roots political campaign on social media for free. Does that sound like a system that oppresses or is that a system that has given you opportunity to enact change?

Even the barrier to invest in companies and participate directly in the profits and value creation has been erased or lowered. Hundreds of millions of people are directly benefitting from this everyday. It is now a few simple clicks of a button and you're in. Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires. And yes, because they did that they will get an asymmetrical reward because their impact and value creation for society is asymmetrical to yours.

You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response? Once you start poking holes at the concept it always reverts to "you're a bootlicker", "why are you defending billionaires, they don't care about you". These responses highlight envy, not reality or the desire to be objective.

Deep down a lot people either don't realize how much free will and agency they now have in this society or they are just living with contempt because everywhere they look they see people that are using that free will to accomplish more than them. It's lack and envy all the way through.

[lurker919]

Thank you for spelling out some good points. They always seemed obvious to me but I could never clearly explain them.

[voidhorse]

> given back to society

I wouldn't necessarily categorize giving people opportunity to do underpaid, tenuous, non-career, zero-mobility gig work as "giving back to society" nor would I classify the unregulated harms of social media, phone additions, etc. as social good either. That's not to say some of these things aren't also good in many ways, but I also still don't understand why you think this somehow leads to a moral or social justification for unbounded levels of amassed wealth to a single individual.

> Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before.

So your response to issues such as most people being unable to have a single living wage, rising homelessness, unaffordable housing, is "shrug wealth is power". This is not some kind of inviolable law of nature. We as human beings defining the terms of the game, can set up some legislation.

Learn history. America specifically has combated very similar issues in the past and curbing unimpeded accumulation and breaking up monopolies led to more innovation more diversity in the market and a better distribution of wealth. America has taxed the wealthiest classes more in the past and it wasn't a disaster. Look up the new deal.

> You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response?

Who are you conversing with, me, or the general population? What do you mean when you try to ascribe a belief to the general population? Have you done polling on this? Or are you basing this on media? What are you actually talking about? Why are you so confident in arguing against some perceived hypothetical belief you think "the general population" holds? How do you know there aren't more people who actually agree with your perspective?

> Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires

No. Scores of laborers employed by the billionaires lowered the barrier. Yes, many of the billionaires begin with a great idea, but there's no reason having an idea justifies having unbounded wealth. All enterprises depend on legions of people to actually materialize production. There is nothing written in nature that states that the person risking upfront capital should always be compensated more than the people who make production a reality, nor is there any corollary that states that the accumulation permitted should be completely unbounded.

You have convinced yourself that anyone not agreeing with your own belief is ruled by nothing but an emotional or psychological state rather than rational, but different, perspective. This is a perfect way to be a stubborn ass and ensure that no one will ever change your mind. It is anti-intellectualism at its finest. I hope one day you realize how foolish you are being about this.

Since you seem to be into super-reductive arguments, here's mine: we are all clearly hyper-dependent on one another on this planet. There is no reason people who make lots of money shouldn't have to give a reasonable portion of it back to the government and country that they draw labor, customers, and much more from daily. There is no reason that accumulation should be permitted without bound. It is pointless and leads to problems. We can and should argue for reasonable limits or at the very least taxation on massive wealth.

As for me, no envy here. I live comfortably and I am happy with what means I have, something most billionaires don't ever seem to experience. However, I also have eyes and functioning neurons so when I clearly see other human beings unable to afford basic necessities without feeling tremendous stress and pressure and then I see certain high-profile billionaires blowing money on dumb shit, underpaying and abusing workers (piss bottles) and more, I can understand why people want better guardrails in place, and no, wanting to limit the degree to which random people who got lucky in the market can exploit you is not envy.

[someguydave]

this post drips with envy

[zzrrt]

If they were saying that kings shouldn't have the unchecked right to execute people, this response would be akin to "Oh, you just wish you could kill anyone. Your argument is invalid."

[someguydave]

No, I mean that the argument that someone is evil because of a number in their bank account is dumb, and a more likely explanation is simple envy

[abletonlive]

Not really. The person saying that billionaires shouldn't exist is just failing to describe why that number is so mystical or interesting to them. If billionaires don't exist are we saying that people worth 500 million won't have power? you can keep doing this but the end result is the same. Power is asymmetrical and the system is self balancing. Those that have more wealth have more power. It's that simple. If you want to make wealth irrelevant then at least come up with a real system where wealth does not exist, because power is an intrinsic property of wealth.

The idea that you can distribute wealth is actually the tell for envy. You want to distribute power because you want power. And you won't be satisfied until that power reaches you, therefore you need to eliminate not just the billionaires, but after it trickles to centimillionaires and decamillionaires after that. If your premise is based on billionaires not existing because they have outsized power you're not going to be satisfied until that power eventually reaches where you are stationed in society.

  It has nothing to do with billionaires and it has everything to do with people with more wealth than you having more power. That's envy. How far do you have to distribute before power is meaningless?

The truth is that there are more billionaires than ever before and that number is growing. It would seem that having power is becoming more democratized over time too. If we go back 500 years the number of people that had this level of power were limited to actual Kings. You are closer to a billionaire in your capabilities and agency in this society than a peasant was under an actual King. 500 years ago if you made a tiktok video about your King's private affairs and his properties while trying to tell everybody that the king doesn't deserve their power and the king should be taxed, you'd be executed in the town square. Yet somehow people that have the mindset that "billionaires should not exist" fail to convey how we've suddenly reached some tipping point where there's no going back.

[zzrrt]

Like saying, "There have never been more opportunities for commoners to become kings!" Okay, most of the people who say kings shouldn't exist will still feel that way, even if they could become king.

> You are closer to a billionaire in your capabilities and agency in this society than a peasant was under an actual King.

How much of that is because I live in a democratic republic, and not because billionaires exist? I guess you might say they're the same thing, but I believe there are free-enough societies with less wealth/power inequality than the US. I think I care more about the gap between top and bottom than about my own personal level of power, but of course it's hard to be objective.

It is harder to draw the line with money than with literal kingship, but I don't accept that we should change nothing and let unbounded power disparities exist.

Edit: More to the point of the original article, maybe I can accept their existence if we plugged all the holes they use to pay a very low percentage, as discussed in other comments. They may remain billionaires, but the tax law would treat them more like the rest of us than like kings.

[someguydave]

You are acting as an evil king, deciding for yourself who is moral and immoral on the basis of vibes

[voidhorse]

I think there is a massive difference between wanting power and wanting freedom and security from undue exploitation and/or economic hardship.

Most people I know don't "want power". They just want to be able to afford basic necessities (food, housing, clothing) without feeling like they are on the brink of survival every day.

Billionaires are starting to take the heat because people are starting to recognize that the wealth created for these billionaires is 100% dependent on their labor, time, and sweat, yet many of them see fractions of fractions of what the billionaires make. If it's somehow unfair for the billionaires to have to pay the government a wealth tax it is equally unfair for said billionaires to withhold so much of the capital generated by their workforces for themselves.

[someguydave]

People who want to do nothing and have others pay for their existence are generally evil