no one should have a billion dollars. no, not him either.

[gry60]

Mark Zuckerberg is worth Billions because he created trillions in new wealth.

MZ is pretty poor example of a person who worked for his billions, especially when we consider that FB turned access to our innermost selves into trillions of dollars, most of the time through trickery (see the terms of service of most of those companies - does Instagram still own their users' pictures?)

Capitalism is exploitative; the guy at the top gets a cut of everyone else's productivity. In my view (and in light of current events), labor doesn't need capital as much as capital needs labor because all capital does is to multiply the value of labor. Without it, the mechanic would be building tricycle engines instead of jet engines, but he would still be building something.

What would the owner of capital do if, one day, all workers and skilled folks were like " **** your money. what I can earn in 8-10 hours of work with my two hands is good enough for me to thrive"?

Spoiler

The capitalist would make them believe that they HAVE to grow and borrow from him because "greed is good" and we would have the America of the last 40 years.

 

[gry60]

it would take something that threatened all of our existence like aliens or some **** to change everyone all at once

I know many folks who would sell human-made weapons to the aliens, word to the " folks should die for the stock market" people.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

ZUckerberg settled for $65 Million for a reason.

He would be the LAST example to use considering his company's existence stemmed from a stolen idea. /

 

[hipstermike]

I know many folks who would sell human-made weapons to the aliens, word to the " folks should die for the stock market" people.

“Look I know you have a quantum field laser but it’s nothing like this AR 15!”

 

[Brownstone]

ZUckerberg settled for $65 Million for a reason.

He would be the LAST example to use considering his company's existence stemmed from a stolen idea. /

FB had 70B in revenue last year. Are the Winklevoss' responsible for that as well?

 

[Brownstone]

MZ is pretty poor example of a person who worked for his billions, especially when we consider that FB turned access to our innermost selves into trillions of dollars, most of the time through trickery (see the terms of service of most of those companies - does Instagram still own their users' pictures?)

Capitalism is exploitative; the guy at the top gets a cut of everyone else's productivity. In my view (and in light of current events), labor doesn't need capital as much as capital needs labor because all capital does is to multiply the value of labor. Without it, the mechanic would be building tricycle engines instead of jet engines, but he would still be building something.

What would the owner of capital do if, one day, all workers and skilled folks were like " **** your money. what I can earn in 8-10 hours of work with my two hands is good enough for me to thrive"?

Spoiler

The capitalist would make them believe that they HAVE to grow and borrow from him because "greed is good" and we would have the America of the last 40 years.

So......you are a communist?

 

[Xennial]

What does that have to do with the fact that he stole the idea back way before this revenue?

FB had 70B in revenue last year. Are the Winklevoss' responsible for that as well?

 

[Deleted member 42060]

It's the idea that wealth should be evenly distributed among non upper or rich classes. If its possible.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

FB had 70B in revenue last year. Are the Winklevoss' responsible for that as well?

You completely missed the point.

We are discussing whether or not it is possible to get to that point clean. Right?

 

[cosmiccoffee9]

I don't know. I don't have access to each and every billionaire's books. However, just because someone is a billionaire it doesn't mean they got it through illegitimate means. This isn't an 80s cartoon.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who keep their heads down and work to amass such a fortune.

it´s like this, cousin...if you´re a billionaire right now, and your employees are worried in any way about protecting their quality of life during this crisis, you are hoarding the resources of civilization illegitimately.

Hey OP...if no one gets a billi, that means it goes to the government.
Thats too communist for me

...but what if the people ARE the government?

 

[heelsandeers]

Mark Zuckerberg is worth Billions because he created trillions in new wealth. There is a direct correlation to the wealth he has collected and the wealth he has created.

this is false. Zuckerberg is worth billions because he was able to build a corporate empire at a low cost and therefore could retain a very large equity stake in the business

the correlation is between his wealth and the small amount of equity capital needed to grow Facebook

there are companies that do 5x times the revenue Facebook does, whose CEOs are worth nowhere close to what Zuckerberg is

industries with network effects produce winner-take-all reward structures that concentrate wealth at the top. you can't make the case that it's a good thing for society

 

[Lee And His Sneaks]

it´s like this, cousin...if you´re a billionaire right now, and your employees are worried in any way about protecting their quality of life during this crisis, you are hoarding the resources of civilization illegitimately.




...but what if the people ARE the government?

"...but what if the people ARE the government?"
That's essentially Communism.

It's actually like this...cousin. if you´re a billionaire right now, and your employees are worried in any way about protecting their quality of life during this crisis, that's on your employees. The billionaire exist because he/she assumes most/all of the risk of that company. He/she does not owe his/her employees any more than what they agreed upon. They did their part, they created the job.

Would it be nice if Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, Larry Ellison etc extended relief to employees in need? Of course! It would be awesome, but they don't have to. Living in NYC, I encounter this discussion with self righteous people like yourself very often, and I find that root of the feeling is simply because they don't have it. I also find it strange, that the very same people seldom donate to any charities.

If you feel strongly about eliminating the existence of billionaires, do this:
-Get off Niketalk.
-Donate your existing collection of sneakers.
-Save your money.
-Run for local office and be the change you want to see.
-Work your way up the senate; and create a bill and get it passed to eliminate the billionaire bracket.

However, I will warn you, you will lose. As you will be called a....Communist.

 

[Brownstone]

What does that have to do with the fact that he stole the idea back way before this revenue?

this is false. Zuckerberg is worth billions because he was able to build a corporate empire at a low cost and therefore could retain a very large equity stake in the business

the correlation is between his wealth and the small amount of equity capital needed to grow Facebook

there are companies that do 5x times the revenue Facebook does, whose CEOs are worth nowhere close to what Zuckerberg is

industries with network effects produce winner-take-all reward structures that concentrate wealth at the top. you can't make the case that it's a good thing for society

Yes, I agree, SNAP, FB, and companies like it were able to expand at low costs due to their structure and low overhead. I don't take issue with that fact, truth is FB changed advertising as we know it, and are responsible for the social media companies we see today. He turned what numerous companies had tried to do before (an online community into a business) and did it (Myspace, Tumblr etcc...) FB literally created a new industry.

Can you share which companies have founders that do 5x revenue of FB that aren't close to his net-worth? Curious to know.....

I don't conflate innovation with "good for society". In previous posts I mentioned FB as a company should be regulated and is bad for society as it is currently configured. I also added I think he is a bad person.

 

[cosmiccoffee9]

"...but what if the people ARE the government?"
That's essentially Communism.

It's actually like this...cousin. if you´re a billionaire right now, and your employees are worried in any way about protecting their quality of life during this crisis, that's on your employees. The billionaire exist because he/she assumes most/all of the risk of that company. He/she does not owe his/her employees any more than what they agreed upon. They did their part, they created the job.

Would it be nice if Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, Larry Ellison etc extended relief to employees in need? Of course! It would be awesome, but they don't have to. Living in NYC, I encounter this discussion with self righteous people like yourself very often, and I find that root of the feeling is simply because they don't have it. I also find it strange, that the very same people seldom donate to any charities.

If you feel strongly about eliminating the existence of billionaires, do this:
-Get off Niketalk.
-Donate your existing collection of sneakers.
-Save your money.
-Run for local office and be the change you want to see.
-Work your way up the senate; and create a bill and get it passed to eliminate the billionaire bracket.

However, I will warn you, you will lose. As you will be called a....Communist.

we disagree today and that´s fine. thanks for taking the time to outline your perspective.

 

[Brownstone]

You completely missed the point.

We are discussing whether or not it is possible to get to that point clean. Right?

So litigation is the moral compass we judge individuals on now?

The overarching argument (And the thread title) Is that Billionaires do not bring the value they are worth. Exploitation is a strong word. My previous point was to highlight the fact that FB creates value 70B a year to be exact. The man that created it (I'm not here to defend Mark) deserves a considerable amount of wealth.

If you don't feel that someone should ever be worth that much, I don't know what to tell you? Every continent, political structure and economy produces them.

 

[gry60]

So......you are a communist?

Now, you're the one showing the lack of nuance. Just because I think billionaires shouldn't exist doesn't mean that I think millionaires should not exist. There is an entire spectrum between laissez-faire capitalism and communism.

The billionaire exist because he/she assumes most/all of the risk of that company.

False. They would take the loss and exit if their business went south; instead, when it happens, they guilt-trip society into funding them because "they are necessary for the economic health of the county/city/state." The truth is, not even the most ardent disciples of capitalism believe in the punishment that comes with failure when it happens to them.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

So litigation is the moral compass we judge individuals on now?

Not at all. That isn't what I am saying/inferring by any stretch. But if he in fact stole the idea, that goes against the ethics of him reaching the milestone. (Which is what we have been discussing.)

If you don't feel that someone should ever be worth that much, I don't know what to tell you? Every continent, political structure and economy produces them.

It being normal means what exactly? That it is fair/needed? I just want to be clear on what you are saying here.

 

[Brownstone]

So lets assume he didn't steal the idea, should he be entitled to his wealth?

My point is that capitalism is criticized within this thread, Billionaires are created in every type of environment.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

So lets assume he didn't steal the idea, should he be entitled to his wealth?

My point is that capitalism is criticized within this thread, Billionaires are created in every type of environment.

My whole point vs. Zuck was HE wasn't a good example since his rise to his millions was based on deceit.

To Answer Your Question: I personally have no issue with anyone obtaining that wealth if they are doing it in a fair/honest/ethical way.

 

[Xennial]

a better question is who would be considered a billionaire that never practiced any unethical business on their way up?

 

[cosmiccoffee9]

a better question is who would be considered a billionaire that never practiced any unethical business on their way up?

the title of this thread is a very slight overstatement...in a world where proper taxation was levied on corporate profit and workers around the world were compensated fairly, there MIGHT still be room for a few. MAYBE.

 

[sneaksoy]

a better question is who would be considered a billionaire that never practiced any unethical business on their way up?

Not a single one.

Let’s not conflate ethical and legal.

 

[wayniac211]

a better question is who would be considered a billionaire that never practiced any unethical business on their way up?

Economics 101: **** yo feelings. Pay me

 

[layziegunts]

A billionaire is a millionaire x 1,000

they are completely 2 different things.

 

[Brownstone]

My whole point vs. Zuck was HE wasn't a good example since his rise to his millions was based on deceit.

To Answer Your Question: I personally have no issue with anyone obtaining that wealth if they are doing it in a fair/honest/ethical way.

Bloomberg? Or is he too dirty as well......

Fair/Honest/Ethical are all different, and subjective..........