Debate: Should Billionaires be Abolished?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Billionaires have more wealth than 60% of the world's population. So, as billionaires are jetting off to space, is it time to abolish them here on earth? Or is this a simplistic take. Making Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg poorer is not going to make the 99 per cent any richer. It might make the envious feel better but it isn’t a rational economic argument. Watch the debate and make up your mind about whether we should abolish billionaires.
For the motion: Linsey McGoey, Professor of Sociology and director of the Centre for Economic Sociology and Innovation at the University of Essex
Against the motion: Ryan Bourne, R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato Institute
Chair: Ben Chu, Economics Editor of BBC Newsnight
About Intelligence Squared:
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world.
Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Click here to subscribe on Apple Podcasts and receive our audio podcasts as soon as they are released: apple.co/3nKUHV4
Brilliant minds, debate, online events, ask your questions. Try Intelligence Squared +: www.intelligen...
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE SQUARED+?
Intelligence Squared+ brings you live, interactive events online every week. You can ask your questions to our speakers, vote in live polls and interact with other members of the audience. Your subscription will give you access to multiple events, live and on-demand, featuring the world’s top thinkers and opinion formers.
Subscribe to Intelligence Squared+ today: www.intelligen...
Follow Intelligence Squared:
Instagram: / intelligenc. .
Facebook: / intelligence2
Twitter: / intelligence2
Listen to our podcasts?
Intelligence Squared Podcast: play.acast.com....
How I Found My Voice with Samira Ahmed: apple.co/32WnrPV
Do you agree with the final vote? Where do you stand?
What happened with the pre-vote? Only totted up to 78%. Given the Pre and Post numbers for For and Undecided were very similar, one might assume the Against pre-vote was actually 33%, not 11% as stated. (But that’s conjecture.)
Assuming both counts for For and Undecided were accurate, then each side picked up 1% each from the undecided (or some equivalent combination). Under proper debate rules typically used by Intelligence Squared, this would be considered a Draw, with both sides achieving the same gain.
This rule exists to prevent one side from winning the motion simply by having overwhelming numbers in the voting audience.
If somehow Against did shift from 11% Pre to 34% Post, then Against would be the clear winner of this debate, picking up 23% compared to For’s 1%.
The discussion was interesting, but the voting was flubbed, leading to a Win being declared for For, when it was a Draw at best, and a resounding win for Against otherwise.
OVERWHELMINGLY!
It was odd that the argument NOT to abolish them came from a point of view that disliked any cronyism's yet if you extracted crony billionaires you are straight away cutting out some of the most powerful and wealthiest billionaires in the world, some of whom are richer than countries.
It seems that even the against argument wanted to abolish "some" of them.
Personally, I agree with the result fully. IF I were told "hey we love this idea and its selling well, but we do cap your total earnings at 500-900 million" I think I could be more than accepting of such a proposal without it impacting my motivation. You'd still want to earn money and you get the added bonus that (once then also living a life of luxury) your business will then be almost working to benefit the community it serves. It demonstrates the degradation of decency and morals, showing instead the priority of the ego and of self interest regardless of impact on anything and anyone else when it seems "harsh" to impede rules upon literal billionaires!
Finger pointing at government is all well and good, but who says we shouldn't change how that operates as well. Society as a whole is in need of a fresh take on how things are done. The question remains, how, and when?
Everyone seems to be conservative with their own money
It's not the money it's the people...
It's not about how much money they make, or how much money they pile up.
It's about how much of a country's publicly funded services/utilities they use to house and run their monopolies, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. You're not really a philanthropist if the only reason you're setting up a charitable foundation is just so you can get tax evasion excuses and longterm goodwill-based wealth boost..
*OH RIGHT, don't forget about all the laws, regulations, protections, etc., which these primitively driven people weaken and warp by Lobbying (Bribing), just to facilitate an easier money making environment for their own Chimpy selves.*
ALL monopolies should be broken up, enough of this 'philanthropy '
Only if there is a competitor available ... Otherwise it's hard to make people invest in certain things.
@@wayando the government can always subsidize the businesses in a certain market for some amountof time, this will attract competitors. If the government pays, it's easy to start business.
IQ2 debates are NOT supposed to be won by the person that ends up with the highest percentage of votes; rather it is the won by the person who gains the highest percentage votes at the end of the date. Linsey gained only 1% and Ryan won by a landslide by gaining 23%.
No. But, we should ban politicians who become millionaires while holding office.
Why?
@@robroberts1473
Because their salaries don't amount to the millions they possess in just a few years of being in office.
It points to corruption.
@@danielvonliechtenstein8742alot of other legal ways to make money having nothing to do with ones salary you going to ban that too?
@@robroberts1473
Show me one legal way.
There was a documentary about how US politicians write books and single buyers, or very few buyers purchase the equivalent of millions of dollars of books. Or they pay upfront for the contract of selling the books.
Companies purchasing properties and putting them under a family member's name.
Paying tuition for the children of politicians.
Or giving "gifts" like luxury watches, or jewelry, etc.
Politicians that go work for companies that they were supposed to legislate against.
Leaving companies and going to public office, and then passing favourable legislation towards the industries they used to work for.
All of this points to (is) corruption.
@@danielvonliechtenstein8742 inherit, stocks.
I can't see how you convince 20% of the audience and your opponent 1% but you still lose the debate.
Exactly what I was thinking. This was actually a huge win for Ryan and I thought he did an excellent job.
What happened with the pre-vote? Only totted up to 78%. Given the Pre and Post numbers for For and Undecided were very similar, one might assume the Against pre-vote was actually 33%, not 11% as stated. (But that’s conjecture.)
Assuming both counts for For and Undecided were accurate, then each side picked up 1% each from the undecided (or some equivalent combination). Under proper debate rules typically used by Intelligence Squared, this would be considered a Draw, with both sides achieving the same gain.
This rule exists to prevent one side from winning the motion simply by having overwhelming numbers in the voting audience.
If somehow Against did shift from 11% Pre to 34% Post, then Against would be the clear winner of this debate, picking up 23% compared to For’s 1%.
The discussion was interesting, but the voting was flubbed, leading to a Win being declared for For when it was a Draw (or possibly a win for Against).
Taxing the rich has always been extremely difficult because the concentration of money leads to the theft of the power of the people. The rich will use this power to fight taxes, and the US tax law is actually very targeted at the rich, including inheritance taxes. But the rich have a variety of ways to avoid taxes, like Trump, and Buffett's taxes are even lower than those of his secretary. This is also one of the fundamental reasons why my motherland (China) chose to centralize power.
Lindsey Mcoey
@African Emperor “ China is not the aspired habitant to live even for the chineese themselves”hahahahah！！You people persevere in telling us Chinese how bad we Chinese think our lives are, is really ironic and funny.🤣Before the epidemic, 100 million people traveled abroad and returned to China every year. I'm begging you, don't live in a lie. I have been to the so-called beautiful, democratic and free America. I am very happy in China.
@African Emperor And I would like to remind you that only stupid Western media can explain a lot of things as "yes" and "no". For example, freedom, you never discuss the degree and type of freedom in the end, such as democracy. So only those of you who have been brainwashed by the Western media will think that there is centralization or not. In China, the centralization and decentralization of power varies according to needs and types of affairs. For example, when you want to combat corruption, power needs to be concentrated, for example, when you develop the economy, power should be properly dispersed. Centralization and democracy need to be balanced. So don't keep being stupid, my friend.
Im a Socialist but have no problem with ppl getting rich. My problem with billionaires and trillion worth corporations is that that kind of money buys influence and ability to replace government. No one can spend a billion in their lifetime never mind multi billions. Taxing that at a very high rate is just and fair ( considering that millions have their tax taken out before they get their pay) , They will still get rich but just slower!
Lets be open and and honest in the debate. The vast majority of vast wealth is not with Musk, Bezos and Gates but with the stock market gamblers who take government money and use it for stock buybacks and illegal (or barely legal) financial transactions. Most billionaires add nothing in the wealth of a nation due to this, they do not create anything or produce anything and their influence creates a byzantine tax scenario aimed purely at increasing their wealth for no benefit to society.
What is more frightening to me as a socialist is that @ 40% of wealth is inherited as a percentage of actual nation wealth. This creates a class of trust fund kids who can afford to run for political office and are increasingly doing so and have no clue how 95% of society lives. This cabal of rich kids know nothing and just reinforce the wealth divde which is causing real anger.
Crucial question left unanswered. If they should be “abolished” then how exactly should that process be carried out?
Quite a few attempts in the history..we all know how it played out..
Reform the money system. And the government system: .... Part of the problem comes from the Banking System, and the "Investing" system: ... People at certain level can go get money from a bank at very low interest - huge sums like Billions - the bank itself creates the money out of thin air by fractional reserve lending - Basically "giving" money that they don't actually have ... Then the said money is used to TAKE REAL THINGS away from the market and away from normal people who have to jump through ALOT of hoops to get credit, which is itself technically free money for the banks.
So the rich can double, triple, or quadruple their wealth just by shifting numbers from one column of a proverbial spreadsheet to another.
Then access to government systems, lobbying ... And let's not forget outright bribing and giving away favour using the wealth - meaning these Billionaires almost always get what they want from the system because of the disproportionate influence.
A rich guy can take a huge loan, buy land ... Relax for a year, then get inside information from government regarding some changed law or plan that affects the land ... Then sell it for like 5times, pay back the bank and keep the balance without ever having done anything ... Infact even locating the land can be done for them by someone else.
This can also be done in the case of entire companies ... A normal person builds a company through years of sweat ... Then when it starts being successful, a rich multinational can take a huge loan from a bank copy your concept an integrate it into their existing system and sink the normal guy. Leaving him with huge debts to pay to the same banks.
Control over money and policy makes the Billionaire Class into Kings, or even Mini-Gods. Which may be good if you have a "good" billionaire ...
But who wants to bet that these "gods" would all be good.
Oh, oh ... And their kids just pick up where they left off without ever doing anything.
It's probably more important to first settle if we want to. Because then it will be possible.
We abolished kings and that was probably inconceivable before. I mean they were literally ruling through divine right.
But to be slightly more practical, you'll agree crony capitalism that gives rise to billionaires is a problem. Would you say it's intractable? No? Obviously not
Ryan focused on the 'list' of very top earners, which indicates that the majority of these earners were also innovators. By understanding the overall context of who has the wealth, the 'list' now becomes much more indicative of what is really going on, which is that so much wealth continues to be captured by the already wealthy, not by adding value, but by simply posessing previously earned wealth. I agree that with the notion that not all billionaires should be abolished, but adding complexity for the very wealthy, taking unnecessary wealth accumulation which does not advance society as a whole.
If we want to abolish billionaires, it is actually getting rid of the market system. It is way too radical. Which just shifted power from the people into government and open the door to authoritarianism.
What I would argue is to improve the tax system (covering the loophole) and increase transnational cooperation on taxation. Improving labour working conditions and wages under government mandate and with the market mechanism.
Taxing the rich has always been extremely difficult because the concentration of money leads to the theft of the power of the people. The rich will use this right to fight taxes, and the US tax law is actually very targeted at the rich, including inheritance taxes. But the rich have a variety of ways to avoid taxes, like Trump, and Buffett's taxes are even lower than those of his secretary.
The day billionaires stop existing is the day we stoo buying the goods and services they provide. Last i checked apple, amazon, google, and all the other big playera have the money they do because we use them; we vote with our dollar. We hate the billionaires, yet we seem to love their products.
False. Almost all the goods and services of those companies existed before and can perfectly exist without them, by small businesses, instead of the oligopoly of today. Billionaires shouldn't exist.
Billionaires would rather have yet more money than reduce the price of their goods or give their employees a pay raise - or both.
The wealth of the billionaires simply demonstrates how much they have over-charged for their goods/services.
Billionaires would rather have yet more money than reduce the price of their goods or give their employees an increase in pay - or both.
The wealth of the billionaires simply demonstrates how much they have over-charged for their goods/services.
How does said person get the material to materialize his idea for an automatic vacuum?
You changed the rules when deciding a winner. Usually the winner is the one who managed to convince the most people, but here the win was given to the 'for' side, even though they only managed to sway 1% more, whereas the 'against' side had movement of over 20% in their favour.
It's not so much abolishing, but rather severely curtailing.
Noone said they're against Millionaires. Shouldn't that be enough for innovators? But after Billion or so, it becomes how to take advantage of laws and workers. But it's a good point what will govts use that money...
It would be better to abolish the poor. You won't be allowed to be poor. Either you go back to school and get a good skill, improved education or help starting a business or help finding more than one job. etc...but you can't stay poor.
One person spoke in facts and data, the other in rhetoric and emotion. And the audience agreed. Congrats to Ryan Bourne, pleasure listening to him.
Technically speaking, the problem would also be solved if poor people were abolished.
Both propositions are equally absurd.
The opposite of poor is rich, not billionaire.
Yea, all the billionaires could give all their money to all the poor and whoops, the poor are abolished.
@@freeman9586 Until they spend their money and they're rich again in 2 months time.
I think the framing of the debate question, because it seems absurd, favours those opposing the motion. It could've been framed differently. Billionaires are necessary. Billionaires are an unjust outcome. Etc.
Thanks so much!
There's no incentive to make 999 million dollars
At roughly 20 minutes in Ryan says billionaires don’t have a shared interest because they fight politically. But the shared interest is that their wealth gives them the power to fight politically on a level other people can’t.
No
when all countries of the world are poor and certain people are billionaires must be something wrong in the world defendly all countries owe money to whom they owe money I wonder we are on the direction of the messianic years again stay tuned
How you become billionaire matters
Yes they should abolished ✊✊✊✊
No.
Motivator effect is the new trickle down economics
Part of the problem comes from the Banking System, and the "Investing" system: ... People at certain level can go get money from a bank at very low interest - huge sums like Billions - the bank itself creates the money out of thin air by fractional reserve lending - Basically "giving" money that they don't actually have ... Then the said money is used to TAKE REAL THINGS away from the market and away from normal people who have to jump through ALOT of hoops to get credit, which is itself technically free money for the banks.
So the rich can double, triple, or quadruple their wealth just by shifting numbers from one column of a proverbial spreadsheet to another.
Then access to government systems, lobbying ... And let's not forget outright bribing and giving away favour using the wealth - meaning these Billionaires almost always get what they want from the system because of the disproportionate influence.
A rich guy can take a huge loan, buy land ... Relax for a year, then get inside information from government regarding some changed law or plan that affects the land ... Then sell it for like 5times, pay back the bank and keep the balance without ever having done anything ... Infact even locating the land can be done for them by someone else.
This can also be done in the case of entire companies ... A normal person builds a company through years of sweat ... Then when it starts being successful, a rich multinational can take a huge loan from a bank copy your concept an integrate it into their existing system and sink the normal guy. Leaving him with huge debts to pay to the same banks.
Control over money and policy makes the Billionaire Class into Kings, or even Mini-Gods. Which may be good if you have a "good" billionaire ...
But who wants to bet that these "gods" would all be good.
Oh, oh ... And their kids just pick up where they left off without ever doing anything.
Ryan Bourne: shill for billionaires 🙄
I’m curious about the musk funding claim - I thought it was a loan paid back with interest as Elon claims - am I missing something? Loved Ryan’s book economics in one virus!
Billionaires should be afraid to go in public
Ryan did well and focused on incentives and the processes why the motion would be a bad idea even if possible. The other side just focused on the end with no attention to the how. I’m so glad my leftist days are behind me, thanks to opening some books by the great economists.
gil scott heron has a net worth of almost 9 million dollars and had a platform of influence so strong that even ahe is influenced by him....Influenced by him so much that she uses his quote to gain/main popularity...and money.
Bourne states: "What message would we send by then confiscating his wealth and redistributing it to maintain equality"? I contend that most billionaires do make their money through this sort of honest value creation." I guess this sounds "just fine" in the echo chambers of the Cato Institute, but Bourne is clearly tone deaf. He doesn't mention that according to Oxfam International, the world's 1,253 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people (who make up 60% of the planet's population). Billions of the earth's inhabitants lack essentials, such as clean water, food, shelter, education, and healthcare. Confiscating and redistributing rich individuals wealth would be a giant step toward redressing these shortfalls. This isn't about maintaining equality (a red herring); it is about a cosmopolitanism that recognizes that every human being should be according equal respect and consideration. As it is, billionaires are taking "pleasure" excursions into space, all the while 25,000 humans die each day from starvation and malnutrition (according to the United Nations). Most billionaires do not obtain their wealth through "honest value creation." Bill Gates, as one example, either purchased or destroyed many emerging technologies (remember Netscape Navigator?) to maintain his monopoly on operating systems and other software. He hired a fleet of lawyers to get around anti-trust legislation ( in 1998, a judge ruled that MS had violated anti-trust laws; it was later overturned).
Only a sociopath would spend lavishly on themselves and their family/friends, while impoverished children die of malnutrition and starvation in third-world countries.
You should do a debate, or at least a discussion on sex offender laws. Abolish the Sex Offender Registry would be quite the spicy debate. Abolish Residency Requirements for Sex Offenders would too. Bring on someone to talk about the pedophile paranoia that happened between the 1980s into the early 2000s (it might be apropos because I was a child in the 90s). Most everyone agrees that pedophilia and rape are wrong, but people disagree about what to do with pedophiles and rapists. Most people would agree "keep them away from me", but what of the reformed sex offender that wants to cause nobody any trouble and wants to keep their head down and reintigrate into the community. The community and the law give them a hard time doing that.
yes as well as the system that allows them to exist.
Short answer. Yes.
How do we abolish them?
@@tombullivant544 You cant. You can abolish them in your own country and then a foreign nation will just overwhelm you by buying off your politicians.
This is easy, no.
So make success illegal or the hard work up to it? No to all of this..
Found the bootlicker
@@zachgoff7796 the bootlicker is the one submissive to authoritarians. I am on the side of freedom of the individual and the pursuit of happiness. But you just keep praying that one day a government will make you happy. See where that gets you.
Simply the concept of this debate utterly shames the idea of “intelligence”
No billion or trillionaires!
@Prince Talleyrand Because the numbers are patently unjust (and harmful to the wellbeing/stability of society), why are you in turn triggered by this call to move to reduce the proliferation of billionaire wealth?
@@brady9592 Did the billionaire pull money out of your pocket? Or is a perception or envy thing?
@@twells138
You’re here and view me as your opponent and so on and we aren’t going to agree but please consider that there is a richer conversation to be had here than one about jealously, that’s all I’d ask.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality
www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
@@brady9592 So its perception then ... given that you have been nothing but courteous, I will take you at your word.
I am not going to touch the dodging of income taxes, as I mostly agree with you on it.
The problem with redistribution of wealth is that it uses force and the threat of violence to extract that wealth. I am not a big fan of governments using such force .. history has not had a good track record on that.
@@twells138 Appreciate the reply, it's tough to have a decent conversation in these formats and I'm as guilty as the next person of resorting to punchy divisive comments. It'd be good to dig into this more sometime, for now I'll think about your views.
Yes, if it means abolishing the structures that facilitate billionaire level of private wealth accumulation.
@Prince Talleyrand Working towards solutions are the next step, do you have ideas? What are your thoughts on the ban you proposed? Any better or best ideas?
@@brady9592 no it's a terrible idea, there are no good ideas that go along with it. You are just a jealous person who believes you should be able to dictate other people's lives. Also inequality is a totally worthless term, that's always thrown around in these arguments
@@chad6738 We probably aren't primed for a productive conversation here. Side note, it interesting you mention the term inequality because it hasn't been used in my comment or the replies. Not that I agree with your take, just curious you included it.
@@chad6738 but billionaires dictate our lives. Why would that be okay?
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed".
Mahatma Gandhi
I feel all billionaires get their wealth on the shoulders of giants.
So the Gates Foundation overruled Bill, would foundations be a compromise, rather than Wealth Tax?
Hit a cap, then must create a foundation.......
I hope we can accept monopolies, make them function, because humanity has a monopoly on planet earth.
Ryan is fos
1. How do we account for the fact that Billionaires have 99.999999999% of their wealth in stocks and assets whose value would tumble if they were sold off?
2. Isn't the idea that stifling other people's mega success would in anyway serve a positive effect on the poor is an oxymoron?
3. On their way to the billoniare club and even their stay there they make multiple millionaires, thousandnaires jobs and consumer value etc. Doesn't this effect count for something?
4. Is inequality a result of growing wealth or decreasing productivity of human resources at both individual and society levels?
5.Even if there were a reason to close that gap why shouldn't we be applying it equally to the people with two bedroom apartments to share with the homeless neighbors on their streets?
(1) Selling off to get money and then giving it to people is only one way to deal with billionaire wealth and obviously if it was announced overnight, it would cause massive problems. However, stocks could be transferred, for example, to a trust owned by the workers of the company or companies which the billionaire owns. It could be taxed differently. Even taxing fairly would be a start - Warren Buffet famously said he pays less tax than his secretary. and so on. If we recognise billionaire wealth as a problem then we can think of solutions but we first have to recognise the problem.
(2)
(a) Redistribution of wealth tends to be positive because poor people spend more of their money and thereby stimulate the economy whereas rich people tend to put it into financial, speculative and non-productive assets.
(b) In terms of the effect of wealth incentivizing people, yeah, that's one kind of incentive. Imagine being incentivised by being the "best". That's not the same as saying being incentivised by making the most money.
Also, what's the difference between 1 billion and 2 billion as far as incentives go? And finally, money also leads to perverse incentives. Selling products which destroy the planet for profit. Manipulating consumer behaviour for profit. and so on and so forth.
(3) It counts for something. You couldn't have that much money without having an impact. However, isn't it the net effect that matters. Consider Bill Gates who made his money through Microsoft, a monopoly. First year economics explains why monopolies are net negative for people. It doesn't say monopolies do nothing.
(4) No. Productivity rates have increased and the returns to labour have decreased while the returns to capital have increased. At a country level it works differently and has to do with the way which countries rig the system to sustain their wealth. So bit like the problems of billionaires. In both cases, we have to ask, how was the wealth acquired?
(5) This statement misunderstands the problem as it is focuses on all equality without taking into account the specific concerns that come from gross inequality. These problems are explained in debate, but interested readers can refer to the IMF which explains, for example that high levels of inequality are associated with lower economic growth and erodes social cohesion.
A question that sounds progressive on the surface, but followed by non stop establishment talking points to reinforce the establishment point.
Intelligence Squared to a tee.
horrible sound and image quality. I cannot watch this. Please make sure particpants have studio quality recording and interenet equipment. it is a disgrace.
Do you expect anything different from skype/zoom services paired with consumer grade webcams and mics? Mildly inconvient, not a disgrace haha.
Lol a benefit? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
McGoey was outclassed here..
I lean towards Against on this topic, but was and am open minded (best way to engage with these IQ2 debates).
Within the first minute of McGoey’s opening, there was a sense of real vitriol and zealotry that I felt was likely to play well to those already steadfastly in that camp, but which could easily alienate those she was presumably here to convince.
Similarly, we saw some common characterisations take place. Bourne characterised McGoey’s aims and position as misguided, while McGoey characterised Bourne’s aims and position as, for lack of a better term, evil.
I’m left-leaning, but I find this tack (by others more deeply of the Left than myself) very unappealing. It’s a bad, unproductive tactic, feeding the polarisation of discourse and causing some on the Left to ‘walk away’.
Alexander pathetic comment like if this is a ring.............. . And could be said someone that is not on McGoey side whatsoever or any...... Telling you that. ................. .
I bet you if you abolished billionaires, the new norm might become; to have large families & each family member's worth $999 million dollars. Maybe...
🤣😅🙌
Haha that sounds exactly like what everyone would do if they were in the billionaire position
@@dudeinuk9048 😂.. Lets skip problem solving🤣
How to be a Billionaire 101. *Children are high maintenance.* Employing Nannies to change nappies and sign non-disclosure agreements is risky. Business. Children may also 'not fit' the Billionaire Brand image no matter how much is spent on them.
Personal wealth may also lead to family feuds/homicides.
Billionaires dont procreate they create Trust Funds/off-shore companies who will never blame them for not coming to their ball-game or /or/or... Not giving them a Space-trip for their 5thBirthday?¿¿?😉😉😉
God, it's so utterly offensive how these people use other people who they would never talk to, never seriously considered their ideas... They just use them as a prop. A shield of a curiosity that they think they can raise whenever anyone sees through their sneering sophistry.
What a stupid question.
lol the guy argues against government protection of propriety IP that is and, at the same time argues that abolishing billionaires will stifle innovation 🤦🏻♂️
What's
What's next abolish millionaires then abolish hundred thousandaires then ten thousand heirs
Ryan Bourne. I love you. I’m not a billionaire and never will be, likely. But your argument is beautiful. And I love you.
it doesn't matter what you think, billionaires have all the power not you.
only because people that aren't billionaires kiss their asses.
@@robroberts1473 that's not a reason. the reason is that they have the means to motivate you (money) so you are happy (or have no choice) to be exploited by them for it.
@@roman9509 so I get what I consider is a very fair exchange for my time and that is exploitation? Lol
No worker is ever paid what they are worth, otherwise if they were then businesses would not make any profit.
People who support the motion opening another tab and ordering something from Amazon, using a windows or apple computer, whilst being cooled by their Dyson fan.
The debate wasn't about throwing away the products of companies owned by billionaires, it's about capping wealth, and discussing how much money one person needs.
But you bring up an interesting point. It could be argued that Amazon, Microsoft and Apple are all too big and suffocate the innovation and invention that come from smaller companies and the sectors would hugely benefit if the playing field were levelled a bit and competition was healthier.
@@musicwithmatt6531 Yes, it's interesting that the case for Billionaires is always presented as one of freedom for them to make as much money as they can but they are the same ones who stifle any competition to them that may arise.
It seems that they want freedom but only for themselves.
Thought abullshit...!!! Warghkarghkargh
greed will imprison us all
...or burned at the stake, many options.
It's official, the quality of content has hit rock bottom
I wish this debate wasn’t necessary… hopefully it saves a few people from the current socialist trend 🤞
What trend? Do socialists have power in this country? Or are you talking about the rhetoric on social media?
Billionaires are witches and what do we do with witches?
First billionaires
Second millionaires
Third thosandaires
Where will it end ?
People with 10 bucks ?
That's a moronic argument.
So u agree with me .
No, it's the "slippery slope" fallacy.
The idea of the slippery slope fallacy is fallacious.
Once you assault the fundamental core of a concept, it's damaged fundamentally, and is therefore more easy to damage further.
Also, by it's very nature the argument against inequality moves the goalpost as the solution manifests. It's not about billionaires or millionaires; it's about wealth disparity. Which is why those who argue for equity will never be happy, even if everyone becomes a billionaire with a personal robot staff and infinite time to seek fulfilment, so long as there are trillionaires who have even more wealth.
@@JadeoftheGlade
//"Once you assault the fundamental core of a concept, it's damaged fundamentally, and is therefore more easy to damage further."//
What fundamental core concept?
//"Also, by it's very nature the argument against inequality moves the goalpost as the solution manifests. It's not about billionaires or millionaires; it's about wealth disparity."//
It's about both, since without a wealth disparity between extremely poor and extremely rich, billionaires would not have been a thing. And money buys political influence as well. They are bad for any democracy, especially since some of them have more money than entire countries.
//"Which is why those who argue for equity will never be happy, even if everyone becomes a billionaire with a personal robot staff and infinite time to seek fulfilment, so long as there are trillionaires who have even more wealth."//
Which could only be the case when extreme inflation takes place, because what capitalists don't tell you, is that not eneryone can be rich at the same time.
It may not be a zero sum game, but the game is certainly rigged.
But most arguing for equity, are arguing against extreme poverty. There is no good reason why trivial matters of billionaires should take priority over vital matters of poor people.
People should be able to get rich enough to incentivize them to do something, but not rich enough to be able to live from rent seeking.
Lost me with Whitey On the Moon- a vile and racist tome. Next up; Karen on UA-cam. PS; she completely wrong on inherited wealth.
They should be forced To build housing To the homeless and give them jobs
So you’re pro theft.
McGoey speaks the truth. Bourne is a slick son of a propagandist.
She speaks from a lack of real world experience and a position of using force to control other people (government taxation is ALWAYS done by force). It's theft of labor and intellectual property, which extreme leftist's (the professor) are all too welcome to use.
McGoey good. Bourne bad.
We need billionaires and the power they exert to force the herd into compliance. The masses love to be herded and told what to do and how to behave. They're always ragging on inequality but they secretly love it so they can moan and complain and virtue signal. Most humans are just farm animals. Triple muzzles and monthly jabs should be compulsory for most animals.
Lol who hurt you sweet child?