A Positive News Article on Billionaires

Page 2 of 3 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,675

10 Nov 2019, 1:01 am

Antrax wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Antrax wrote:
You ask me to show you a billionaire that didn't use aggressive business tactics. I ask you to show me a person who is better off without a job than with one. Good business is good for people. If we can't agree that businesses doing well is good for society as a whole than we're never going to see eye to eye on anything.


Is this a Libertarian philosophy? sounds like pure free market thinking.


Are you suggesting that libertarian philosophy is not pure free market thinking? By libertarian standards I am pretty modest in how much I embrace free market thinking. There are those who think the Fed should be abolished, minimum wage should be repealed and that government's only role is to safeguard property.

The logic of good business practices -> good business performance -> economic growth -> better benefits for society, seems pretty self-evident to me.


Sorry I'm not entirely familiar with Libertarianism but your answer confirmed what I suspected.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,675

10 Nov 2019, 1:05 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Socialism has two main objectives:
1. Claim one is morally entitled to other people's money.
2. Take other people's money.


Social justice within the capitalist framework has two objectives
1. where wealth is unfairly concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals ensure this is at least partly redistributed to their fellow citizens through getting these selfish bastards to reinvest in theor own coutnries infrastructure instead of letting them hide their wealth offshore or in trust funds (like the Trump family)
2. Maintain the free market but ensure the rich pay their due such as taxes instead of squirrelling it in offshore tax havens

Inequality is expected.

Successful people will rise to the top.

Lady GAGA, very rich, makes music that billions of humans enjoy.

You object to such a successful person getting mega-rich?


I'm not aiming my post specifically to Lady Gaga who has a net worth of 300 M. I'm talking about the billionaires club. But I guess where do you draw the line? celebrities invest in tax schemes such as Planet Hollywood, Wahlburgers or Crust Pizza to minimise tax but I suppose at least they are reinvesting back in their country instead of taking wealth out of the country.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,675

10 Nov 2019, 1:13 am

Antrax wrote:
Yeah I have respect for experience. While some aspects of corporate leadership may transfer to government work, in general I think people who have been working in government throughout their life are more likely to be effective.


Leadership skills in running a company in the private sector driven entirely by profit and shareholder interests doesn't not equate to good governance, running a country with multiple stakeholders both national and international.

Trump became wealthy by using other people's money in real estate investments (including his father's money) which explains why he became bankrupt three times as the US taxpayer bailed him out and he avoided jail. As a general rule one doesn't become a billionaire without doing business with underworld criminals.

Many thousands of people lost their money and a few probably jumped out of buildings. This is not the type of person you want running the free world.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,398
Location: Midwest

10 Nov 2019, 1:37 am

cyberdad wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Yeah I have respect for experience. While some aspects of corporate leadership may transfer to government work, in general I think people who have been working in government throughout their life are more likely to be effective.


Leadership skills in running a company in the private sector driven entirely by profit and shareholder interests doesn't not equate to good governance, running a country with multiple stakeholders both national and international.



You and I are in agreement on this.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,436

10 Nov 2019, 4:09 am

Antrax wrote:
If we can't agree that businesses doing well is good for society as a whole than we're never going to see eye to eye on anything.


Businesses can do well while society is in entirely awful state.
"Businesses doing well" is so vague - since 2008, businesses have taken cheap credit meant to foster new investment, and bought their own stocks with it. Share-prices are high, dividends are high, "the economy is doing well" - and society is getting angrier and angrier, be it in a socialist direction or a Trumpist drain-the-swamp way.

I think I disagree on the necessary causal connection between "businesses doing well" and "society doing well".

At best, it's a precondition: if businesses are not doing well, that's bad for a society - but businesses doing well means little for the society. If there's no qualification on how the businesses are doing their business (while doing well), it's as meaningless as "it's the economy, stupid". The policies enacted under Clinton eventually led to 2008 and banks gambling with public money.
But if we can't agree that "it's the economy, stupid", we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,675

10 Nov 2019, 4:18 am

shlaifu wrote:
The policies enacted under Clinton eventually led to 2008 and banks gambling with public money.
But if we can't agree that "it's the economy, stupid", we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.


Before trying to see eye to eye - If we are talking about economic stupidity then don't forget George W Bush's contribution to the 2008 financial crisis.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,436

10 Nov 2019, 6:05 am

cyberdad wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
The policies enacted under Clinton eventually led to 2008 and banks gambling with public money.
But if we can't agree that "it's the economy, stupid", we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.


Before trying to see eye to eye - If we are talking about economic stupidity then don't forget George W Bush's contribution to the 2008 financial crisis.


Sure, but I merely tried to pull a comparable rhetoric trick, by demanding Antrax agrees to a seemingly non-contentious commonplace, which in reality is so meaningless and open to interpretation that I can now utter all sorts of nonsense and answer to any counter-argument with: "but you already agreed that it's the economy, stupid! Are you now saying it's not?"


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,398
Location: Midwest

10 Nov 2019, 2:29 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Antrax wrote:
If we can't agree that businesses doing well is good for society as a whole than we're never going to see eye to eye on anything.


Businesses can do well while society is in entirely awful state.
"Businesses doing well" is so vague - since 2008, businesses have taken cheap credit meant to foster new investment, and bought their own stocks with it. Share-prices are high, dividends are high, "the economy is doing well" - and society is getting angrier and angrier, be it in a socialist direction or a Trumpist drain-the-swamp way.

I think I disagree on the necessary causal connection between "businesses doing well" and "society doing well".

At best, it's a precondition: if businesses are not doing well, that's bad for a society - but businesses doing well means little for the society. If there's no qualification on how the businesses are doing their business (while doing well), it's as meaningless as "it's the economy, stupid". The policies enacted under Clinton eventually led to 2008 and banks gambling with public money.
But if we can't agree that "it's the economy, stupid", we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.


You misconstrued what I was saying. I was not saying that businesses doing well is the only condition for society doing well. Merely that businesses doing well is a good thing for society. And certainly that businesses doing well is better than businesses not doing well.

I'm not sure what you mean agreeing with the "it's the economy stupid." "It's the economy stupid" is a political punditry phrase that means people vote for incumbent presidents when the economy is doing better than the start of their term, or against them when the economy is doing worse than the start of their term. In general it's a theory I agree with, but might not hold true in all circumstances. The current election cycle is going to be an interesting test as that theory as Trump is very unpopular despite a strong economy.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

10 Nov 2019, 3:31 pm

This article shows us -- the fact that it even got printed -- that Democrats will protect their billionaire donors.

Democrats Worried Over Wealth Tax Design Other Plans to Tax the Rich
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... o-tax-rich


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,675

11 Nov 2019, 1:10 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
This article shows us -- the fact that it even got printed -- that Democrats will protect their billionaire donors.

Democrats Worried Over Wealth Tax Design Other Plans to Tax the Rich
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... o-tax-rich


Which is a moot point as it's no secret billionaires donate to both major parties...



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

11 Nov 2019, 11:58 am

cyberdad wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
This article shows us -- the fact that it even got printed -- that Democrats will protect their billionaire donors.

Democrats Worried Over Wealth Tax Design Other Plans to Tax the Rich
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... o-tax-rich


Which is a moot point as it's no secret billionaires donate to both major parties...

Democrats claim to be the champions of the lower classes.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,436

11 Nov 2019, 12:07 pm

Antrax wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Antrax wrote:
If we can't agree that businesses doing well is good for society as a whole than we're never going to see eye to eye on anything.


Businesses can do well while society is in entirely awful state.
"Businesses doing well" is so vague - since 2008, businesses have taken cheap credit meant to foster new investment, and bought their own stocks with it. Share-prices are high, dividends are high, "the economy is doing well" - and society is getting angrier and angrier, be it in a socialist direction or a Trumpist drain-the-swamp way.

I think I disagree on the necessary causal connection between "businesses doing well" and "society doing well".

At best, it's a precondition: if businesses are not doing well, that's bad for a society - but businesses doing well means little for the society. If there's no qualification on how the businesses are doing their business (while doing well), it's as meaningless as "it's the economy, stupid". The policies enacted under Clinton eventually led to 2008 and banks gambling with public money.
But if we can't agree that "it's the economy, stupid", we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.


You misconstrued what I was saying. I was not saying that businesses doing well is the only condition for society doing well. Merely that businesses doing well is a good thing for society. And certainly that businesses doing well is better than businesses not doing well.

I'm not sure what you mean agreeing with the "it's the economy stupid." "It's the economy stupid" is a political punditry phrase that means people vote for incumbent presidents when the economy is doing better than the start of their term, or against them when the economy is doing worse than the start of their term. In general it's a theory I agree with, but might not hold true in all circumstances. The current election cycle is going to be an interesting test as that theory as Trump is very unpopular despite a strong economy.


What I meant is: businesses can do well without there being a benefit to society (as is the case right now. It would have been great to have bought stocks - even right before the 2009 crash! You'd still have made a profit. But society ain't doing so well)
So: businesses doing well or not that well has little effect on society. I.e. should the policy be to have business go as well as possible, above all other goals? Probably not.

It's a meaningless statement.
You can't derive policy from it. It's a slogan as meaningful as 'it's the economy, stupid!'.

As a slogan, it sounds right, but you better not question it much.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,398
Location: Midwest

11 Nov 2019, 1:06 pm

shlaifu wrote:

What I meant is: businesses can do well without there being a benefit to society (as is the case right now. It would have been great to have bought stocks - even right before the 2009 crash! You'd still have made a profit. But society ain't doing so well)
So: businesses doing well or not that well has little effect on society. I.e. should the policy be to have business go as well as possible, above all other goals? Probably not.


This is not correct. Buying stocks before the 2008 crash would only turn a profit if you could ride out the recession. Which is basically the same as the economy as a whole. Real income and real wealth of all income brackets are even or better now than they were in 2007. You can argue that the stock market turnaround is faster, but this is because investors price in future value not just current value. A lot of people criticizing stock buybacks seem to not realize how investing works. Stock buybacks are basically a company investing in itself. The stock companies buyback will be sold back to the public at a higher price raising capital for the company.

Successful businesses contribute to economic growth. Economic growth is a MAJOR component of how well society is doing. It is not the SOLE component, but it is a huge factor.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,675

12 Nov 2019, 1:05 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
This article shows us -- the fact that it even got printed -- that Democrats will protect their billionaire donors.

Democrats Worried Over Wealth Tax Design Other Plans to Tax the Rich
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... o-tax-rich


Which is a moot point as it's no secret billionaires donate to both major parties...

Democrats claim to be the champions of the lower classes.


They are the only logical choice for the lower classes



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,675

12 Nov 2019, 1:10 am

Another positive article about billionaires
https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-li ... 725c231d4b
And more positive imagery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkvhwRCLRDw

Aren't they just the best :roll: