The Truth about Billionaires

a reply to: reachingnirvana

You have to be narrow minded to not be able to see how disturbing it is for one person or one family to have so much money, enough to feed the world and still have a huge amount left over.

So you start with an insult to back up your opinion? That's not a great start.

I don't see how your sentiment would be any kind of fact anyway. Having any amount of money is not factually 'disturbing' - remember, there are no disturbing things, only disturbed reactions. Someone might be disturbed by things you consider normal and benign - does that mean those things are universally disturbing?

No. There is no such thing as universally disturbing thing (except maybe the old movie 'The Fly').

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a lot of money, regardless of how much would be left over.

Money is basically just a form of energy. Too bad this energy is often used to chain and control people, but that doesn't mean having a pile of cash in your mansion's garage makes you evil or changes your personality in any way. It's like having piles of leaves in your back yard. How does their existence affect you?

The problems do not exist outside like that. In a world where everything is arranged properly and fairly, everyone can have that much money, and it's not a problem.

The problems start when something INSIDE of you pops and starts poisoning you. Problems start when something INSIDE you starts associating that money with something, starts forming unhealthy connections and identifications and such. Problems are when greed and lust rise to the top and drown your humanity.

Those are the problems. Everything that happens afterwards, are just symptoms. Horrible things, but symptoms nevertheless. A dog biting someone is not the problem. It's the outcome or symptom of the real problem, which is a bad handler/owner.

Cesar Millan has proven this to be true.

You can expand this wisdom and understanding to everything - there's a big difference between the sickness and the symptoms. No one has cured an illness by only treating the symptoms. You have to go into the core.

Having money in itself is NOT the problem. I could have 100 mansions full of hundred-dollar bills, and I would still be the same me, it would not be a problem.

I had to say this to give some perspective - I do see what you are saying, though. You're just barking at the wrong tree, at least slightly.

The problem is closer to.. 'Evil bstrds having a lot of money in a world where so many starve to death, and others live in miserable poverty without any hope of a better life'.

The 'Evil', the 'what the world is like' and the contrast between them is important - I would then add to this the fact that these people are not altruistic about their money at all, they don't want to give it freely to anyone.

This world could be a paradise very easily, if people with some kind of resources and wealth (this includes women, because they have a VERY coveted resource, but we're not supposed to think this way) and corporations gave things for free instead of always wanting to get paid and exploiting people.

Think what world it would be, if many people would at least have a medium chance of getting something for free. Corporations could stop shoving ads in every twitch stream, and just let people have that service for free for a few months every year, or whatnot. Would that kill any corporation? No. They could afford it.

I won't even mention the 'if women were good and altruistic' more than I already have, but go on, be brave, take a walk on the wild thought pattern you're never supposed to have, and see where it might lead you. Would the world be better or worse if women praciced 'personal altruism' in all possible beneficial, fun, exciting ways?

In any case, the having is not the problem. The not-having is the problem. Having can only become a problem in a world, where others don't have, but could, if the haves would be kind and compassionate. Lack of compassion would still be the REAL problem even then, not the actual having in itself.

Besides, what would the poor people dream about if 'having a lot of money' was not possible?

a reply to: wdkirk

"It does feel wrong that the top 1% hoard so much wealth and we just accept it because "capatalism"."

You are a socialist.

Instead of an insult, stigma, instant category-slap, you could've corrected that 'capatalism' and shown how it's supposed to be spelled. Hint: It's 'capitalism'.

Unless we're talking about capatal, whatever that is.

I don't like this kind of 'discussion tactic', where instead of trying to get to the truth together by friendly debate or argumenthing for points or showing why someone's point might be weak or wrong, people just use a short, one-liner insult or label, and call it a day.

This doesn't add anything to the discussion. Could you at least elaborate as to why you think that?

Just because someone looks at the world and its RIDICULOUSLY unfair sharing of resources, and sees that very very tiny percent of megalomaniac evil people HOARD (you're against hoarding, you MUST be a socialist - is that how the logic here works?) the resources so even the most hard-working poor people can never get them... doesn't mean they are any 'ist'.

This observation can be done from the orbit of this planet by people that have never even heard of 'socialism'.

Also, some sort of socialism COULD work, if people weren't greedy, selfish, moronic half-animals on this planet. Then again, with GOOD people, almost any system or 'ism' would work, because no one would hoard, no one would be greedy or selfish, no one would subject any other entity to suffering and poverty, and so on.

People that hoard are not healthy, _SUPER_ rich people that hoard, are insane. But sure, I am socialist, too, right?

Factually, the only 'ist' I am, is 'vegetarist'. I don't partake, believe or support this planet's insanity, whether it's called 'politics' or 'isms'. I am just a human being that sees how the world could be a paradise, and how hoarding is very sick, especially when someone doesn't have enough to get food every day.

Maybe we could imagine a situation to clarify this.

Let's say there are ten people, and ten breads on the table. The people represent population, the breads represent resources. (This is obviously heavily simplified)

There's enough bread for everyone to get exactly one. But some people start beating up other people and hoarding three or four breads. Soon there are eight people with bloody noses and no bread, and two people, both with five breads. The eight no-bread people have to beg for 'jobs' so they can at least get bread crumbs just to stay alive. The two people are making a pig's breakfast of the breads and messing up everything and enjoying and slobbering all over the place. Then they try to find ways to get even more bread.

Seeing this and feeling wrong about this.. makes someone a SOCIALIST?

Because THAT is exactly what you are saying. I hope you can now reconsider.

a reply to: Shoujikina

Remember there are no insulting statements, just insulted reactions.
I'm sorry if my post made your sub conscious feel narrow minded, which clearly you are if you prefer to defend the filthy rich who fund war, 'virus' outbreaks, vaccine roll outs, cancer causing foods etc.
Why do you feel the need to defend the 1% instead of speaking up for the rest of us 99% ?? You do realise that you are part of that 99% that the 1% gives no f***s about?

Never have I said that their money should be shared out equally, but like the person below you commented it would make a lot more logical and compassionate sense for the resources of this world to be spread out equally and accessible to ALL.
I also never said my post was fact (apart from the numbers) it was my opinion, I didnt realise I had to make a point of writing that. 🙄

Remember there are two types of evil in this world, the ones who do evil and the ones who see evil yet do nothing about it.
Many of you in this comment section are coming across as the latter.

a reply to: Shoujikina
I stand corrected it looks like both comments have been written by you with each comment being very conflicting towards the other one. I dont understand your perception of this subject now

a reply to: reachingnirvana

jeff bezos can pay off the entire world governments national debts and still have change

it should be illegal for one individual to accumulate that much wealth

it should be limited to 1 billion
anything overt that should be redistributed for the good of humanity
into some form or system that shares wealth to the world and ends world hunger

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: doorhandle

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: carewemust

1461 dollars, if I'm not mistaken.

I wouldn't mind getting my share.

So you spend the day on a Internet forum , maybe watch some TV while these billionaires create companies and jobs and fund many of the innovations you use daily, and you expect them to give it all up so you can have a grand to spend on a new phone? A new phone made by billionaires. There’s a flaw in your logic somewhere I feel.

Good point!

But maybe if the billionaires shared that cash, then teachers could be paid more, attracting far better talent, making all schools as good as the elite private pay-schools.

Also, everyone could afford to send their kids to a great school that pays teachers properly to get a great education.

Then with that great education the likes of ArMaP and the rest of us would indeed have as much to contribute to society as you say the billionaires currently do.

In fact i'd suggest that with the billionaire's hoarded cash funding better education, living standards and care for all we'd have far, far more productive citizens. Far greater innovation than mobile phones designed primarily to increase the wealth of the 1%. We'd probably have less dissatisfaction, deprivation and the crime that goes with that. A better world!

And a solid reply, well said.

I agree with this btw, teachers, nurses, and low 'skilled'/long hours workers should get paid more, though not sure it's the fault of the squillionaires of the world, who largely actually do give large portions of their wealth back into society.

I think the problem is people want it both ways, the less rich want more money, and want the rich to have less of it. But quite a few in turn want to ultimately become 'rich', there's some circular logic going on. What's the alternative to capitalism then? It's quite an interesting question, and even had me doing some google research, iv linked to a well written article below. Ultimately, right now its the best model we have, not perfect but its better than the current alternatives - communism anyone? no thanks. Hopefully in the future we will have some idyllic Star Trek like society but that's a long way away.

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: doorhandle
So you spend the day on a Internet forum , maybe watch some TV while these billionaires create companies and jobs and fund many of the innovations you use daily, and you expect them to give it all up so you can have a grand to spend on a new phone? A new phone made by billionaires. There’s a flaw in your logic somewhere I feel.

No flaw in my logic, as my logic is nothing like you wrote.

First, I don't spend the days on an Internet forum, I work an average of 10 hours each day.
Second, you don't know what (if any) "innovations" I use every day.
Third, I don't expect a thing.
Fourth, I hate phones, the one I use is a company phone that my boss told me use.
Fifth, the world average is that 50% of jobs are on small and medium enterprises (SMEs), while the other 50% work on big enterprises. On average, in most countries the workforce from the SMEs is between 50% and 66%, so it's more likely that an SME will create jobs. As SMEs are more than 80% (99.9% in some countries) of all existing enterprises in a country, it's also more likely that an SME will start than big enterprise.

PS: if someone was going to distribute money would you pass it or would you accept it?

I'd accept it of course! And I'd likely buy a new phone with it lol.

Sorry I used 'you' but wasn't directing it towards you personally really, just trying to state that simply saying the rich should hand over their wealth isn't workable or actually makes sense when you dig into it. What's needed is a new system from the ground up that doesn't make such equality happen to begin with.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: reachingnirvana

jeff bezos can pay off the entire world governments national debts and still have change

it should be illegal for one individual to accumulate that much wealth

it should be limited to 1 billion
anything overt that should be redistributed for the good of humanity
into some form or system that shares wealth to the world and ends world hunger

Weellll, not not really. Jeff's wealth is largely based on the 'value' of Amazon and his other companies, he doesnt actually have 80 billion dollars stashed under his bed. It's largely made up numbers. He is obviously very very cash rich though no doubt, just not enough to pay off countries debts.

I'd also disagree with this statement "it should be illegal for one individual to accumulate that much wealth". Sometimes is the incentive to become so rich/powerful that drives people like Bezos, Gates etc to create the companies they have. Maybe without that incentive (that's maybe not the right word) we wouldn't have Amazon, Apple, Ford, etc etc?

Some people just dont have the intelligence or work ethic to attain such money.
A lot of it is luck and favoritism.

Many of these people make way more than what their job calls for.

a reply to: doorhandle

no one really needs amazon , apple , or ford though

no one really needs the majority of the corporate entities that "enrich" our lives with material goods

a reply to: sapien82
Exactly. Much more beneficial inventions for humanity and our planet could have been / could be achieved with the worlds wealth.

originally posted by: doorhandle
Ultimately, right now its the best model we have, not perfect but its better than the current alternatives - communism anyone? no thanks.

Some 20 years ago or so there were still some small villages in the north of Portugal that worked in a communist system, because the land is not that good for agriculture (too many rocks). In those villages everything is owned by everyone, and they take turns in, for example, taking care of the few goats they own or watering the small patched of land.

In those small systems, communism works, but it doesn't work on larger scales, much less on country level.

a reply to: reachingnirvana

it sickens us yet we still contribute to the system.

I refused to copy your whole Stalin-like diatribe, but I believe
it would be more accurate to change 'us' to 'me, as this is
your perspective. If a man has worked for his wealth, whether it's
$1 or $1 Billion dollars, no man has the right to shame him for
what he has accomplished.

originally posted by: reachingnirvana
You have to be narrow minded to not be able to see how disturbing it is for one person or one family to have so much money, enough to feed the world and still have a huge amount left over.
I've always known how wrong it is but seeing as maths isnt my strongest point I never truly understood just how far away 1 billion is from 1 million. Let me break it down for you, and any other metaphors to help people understand are welcome.

If you was to make (half a million) £500,000 a year it would still take you two thousand years to make a billion.

If you was to equate 1 million seconds into days it would come out as 11 days.
If you was to equate 1 billion seconds into days it would come out as..... 31 years.

It would take the average person on an average wage 440,000 years to earn what Elon Musk has right now.

It's like trying to wrap your head around the size of the galaxy, it's a number so high that us normal people cant even comprehend it. It should be illegal for people to be sat on so much wealth, it sickens us yet we still contribute to the system.

You forgot to mention the part where those billionaires vote with their wallets instead of regular ballot paper.

originally posted by: reachingnirvana
a reply to: tanstaafl
Lol there is always one hater who just loves to hate, my advice to you would be to direct that hatred at the billionaire elites in question.
Nothing to do with envy - why would I desire a life of greed, dishonesty and bad karma of the soul.

I think you need to have a look at how much money we are really talking about here, it is said to end world hunger by 2030 it would cost 3.30 billion.
Between may and august 2020 the wealth of U.S billionaires went up by $685 billion. So those three months alone was more than enough to end world hunger.
And considering the combined wealth of U.S billionaires is over 3.65 TRILLION !! Not even including the rest of the worlds billionaires I would say they would most certainly have a huge amount left over.

There was me thinking I was bad at maths lol .. it would take a brain dead idiot to not see what is going on right in front of them.

No. It would not cost only 3.30 billion. You are bad at math, because you're trying to make it a simpler equation than how things work in a free market economy.


In a free market economy, price is determined by supply and demand.

If you spent those billions on buying food, that would mean demand had increased. But much of the supply of food in the world is determined to a large degree by things like real estate that can't increase (no matter how much money you spend.)

So if demand goes up by a lot, and supply only increases by a little, then guess what happens to the price?


Indeed, it might be physically impossible to produce enough food to end all world hunger using the amount of farm land that currently exists where it can be used.

Some speculate that Africa has enough untapped land to get us to that point, but then you would need to settle all the political unrest there. Winning all the wars you would have to win, in order to get that job done, would probably cost a lot more than 3.30 billion.

originally posted by: McGinty


Moreover they’ve been brainwashed (imo) into a assuming it’s a binary choice; either support the 1% or lose your chance to be one. But what if we put limits on wealth; after a certain point - a million perhaps, it goes into the system to enrich the 99%. Oh, wait a mo! Isn’t that called Tax? And there’s the big problem - the American dream - the dream of all 99%ers around the world is rigged with offshore, or Swiss accounts hiding money and ensuring the billionaires never pay their taxes.

Sorry, gone off on one there. Point is that we surely need more financial equilibrium and resolutely supporting the notion of individual super riches prevents that happening and only really affords the 1% protection from having to share the goodies.

The problem with that is you're ignoring how "billionaire" is even calculated.

Elon Musk is a "billionaire" because his stocks, if they were sold, would theoretically amount to many billions of dollars.

He doesn't actually have billions of dollars in cash, or even in a bank account anywhere.

They won't be sold. If he sold even 10% of his stock it would trigger a run on the market, and he might not even get 50 cents per share.

Plus, the very fact he's a majority or plurality share holder in the company, and that it makes him the one (mostly) in charge of the company, is a lot of what makes investors believe the stock to be valuable.

a reply to: reachingnirvana

Don't know about Metallicus, but for me it's never having to live on the streets again, never being hungry, being able to afford insurance and not suffer with certian disorders cuase of the cheap insurance i could afford wouldn't pay for it, being able to give my kids the things that i never had,lossing everything due to no fault of my own, having to pay for it and not being able to own anything cuase some bastard wants to take it. i cold name a few more, but i'm sure you get my drift.

Money it's self is not evil or greedy, it's the way some a@@holes try to get it and use it that is.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
If a man has worked for his wealth, whether it's
$1 or $1 Billion dollars, no man has the right to shame him for
what he has accomplished.

That depends on how he worked. Honest work is one thing, getting money from exploitation of other people, for example, is another.

originally posted by: Bunch
Given the sentiment on this thread I don’t get why many of you get so bent out of shape with a plan to tax wealthy individuals.

The system for so long has worked in their favor. Is about time that someone comes from the left or right and makes things right for the rest.

And not the trickle down BS…that has never worked.

Meh, does no good if you leave the loopholes.

About all we need to do to ensure they indeed pay a fair share is close the loopholes. And make it a requirement that if you're living here, so are your bank accounts. Foreign held = unusable until officially transferred to a domestic account.

Now, at first glance, that probably seems harsh to many. BUT! Y'all can't be hypocrites here, if it's a commonly held view that it's bad/shady for a company to hide their moolah offshore to avoid paying taxes, guess what else should be?


Close the loopholes, negate a buttload of problems. I said negate here, not fix. I'm not dumb enough to think someone wouldn't figure out how to shirk those ideas, too. Nothing is weasel-proof.

a reply to: reachingnirvana

So is there no other solution apart from capitalism or socialism ?
Genuine question

The problem is simple: there are not enough resources for everyone to have everything they want. There must be some way to let people choose what they want most out of life.

Let's take paper clips. There are a lot of paper clips on the planet. Tons of paper clips. Now, I would love to have a lot of paper clips so I could hold papers together. So would you. So would your friends, my friends, their friends... billions of people around the world would love to have a ton of paper clips. Problem is, there aren't enough paper clips for everyone to have as many as they might want.

Under communism, someone in government decides how many paper clips everyone gets to have. Under capitalism, people decide how many paper clips they really want. Yeah, they're cheap, but some people care more about having bubble gum than paper clips. So they buy more bubble gum and less paper clips. The more people who want paper clips, the more valuable the paper clips become. So in the end, only the people who want a lot of [paper clips really, really badly have a lot of paper clips. Those who don't want a lot of paper clips can get more bubble gum, or whatever else they want.

The reason we have billionaires is that they produce something that a lot of people really, really want. Bill Gates produced the first interactive operating system for a computer, Windows 3.1. Before that, most people weren't able to use a computer. To use a computer before Windows meant one had to know how to program that particular computer. With Windows 3.1, all computers were programmed about the same, and there were many more programs pre-written for people to use.

Everyone wanted a computer with Windows, so it became very valuable. Bill Gates sold people the operating system and made a lot of money. He then re-invested that money into making Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows VIsta, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 and now (horror of horrors) Microsoft is coming out with Windows 11! Every one of those did things the earlier versions didn't, and people were willing to buy them.

Jeff Bezos started an Internet company that sold books. That's all they sold. Amazon was a book store originally. Then he realized that the Internet could be used to sell other things and he created the Amazon we know today. I personally love it! I live in a rural area, but I can buy the same things people in the big cities can buy. It wasn't that way before Amazon... if I wanted something that wasn't common, I had to drive an hour at best, and four hours at worst to go get it, assuming it was even offered then. So I buy things from Amazon, usually for less than I would spend if I drove hours to go get it in person, and Bezos makes a little bit of money every time I do. Some people try to tell me that's a bad thing; I say it's a good thing because Bezos made my life easier and cheaper.

Microsoft has all these massive buildings to house their employees, tons of networking equipment, debugging equipment, and have hired the best and brightest computer engineers they can find. That took money to do. Amazon has warehouses full of goods around the planet so they can ship things out quickly. That takes a lot of money to do. The same goes for about every convenience we have: cars, trucks to ship goods, computers, TVs, restaurants, power plants... all cost a great deal of money to create and operate. So they're worth a great deal of money! If we started trying to take that money from the billionaires, we would close every plant and service industry and there would be no jobs because there would be no large companies to work for.

So you tell me: what's a better system? Genuine question.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Do you really think I've tried to work that equation out myself when the original point of my post is how difficult it is for a normal person to wrap their head around the enormity of these numbers lol
I simply googled what it would cost to end world hunger as an EXAMPLE. 3.30 was a typo, it says it would cost 330 billion to end world hunger by 2030.