2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets.

Sadly I am nowhere near 1 billion or even 10 million.  A boy can still dream I guess.
I have professionally encountered real and fake billionaires though.  Plenty of sons of a bitches but some OK.  In that sense very much like the non-billionaires.

[Syt]

Trump reminding ungrateful liberal Jews to vote correctly next time.

[Sheilbh]

I think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.

Personally I agree that "investing" - especially at scale - is not inherently value neutral or benign. I don't think it's a given that large scale investing is inherently unethical (are pension funds unethical), but it certainly could be in any number of cases.

Yeah I don't think it's about individual's morality or ethics, or a magic number that they cross, or even necessarily how they made their money. It's more like I don't think you could describe a lord in medieval or early modern Europe, or a gentleman in the 18-19th century as moral or ethical. If you don't think the system is ethical or moral, which I don't, then I think you inevitably say that the winners can't be. I also think people have that sense when you read about, say, a Nigerian or Indian or Chinese billionaire that there is a scepticism - perhaps with some justification. I'm just not sure that our billionaires who are the apex predators of global capitalism are significantly different or better - or that that level of wealth can be acquired or maintained without similar compromises.

And the reality is that this is, because of the nature of the world as it is (and as in every other period in human history), that we are all, to some extent, involved. I always think of that Walter Benjamin line that there is "no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism". The billionaires can perhaps live a life less entangled with those documents or artifacts, but are, perhaps perversely, more directly implicated in the barbarism.

I'd add that I also don't have a huge amount of sympathy with them giving away large sums. First and most obviously it is very good from a tax perspective. But also I think it plays into their own mythos of men who deserve and have earned that wealth through their talent or genius - and can apply that to solve x problem, but also know better how to use that wealth than a democratic, social process would. I think Bankman-Fried and the whole "effective altruism" thing are an example of that, but also even Gates. I have a friend in malaria research and while it is absolutely very, very good it has also queered the pitch in that research is aimed at what can get funding from the Gates Foundation which may be missing other avenues.

I think it's not a million miles from the sort of technopopulism of Bloomberg (which I think Trump is also linked to becase he plays a billionaire on TV) democratic processes and the messy reality of politics is the problem - a genius businessman applying their business nous to politics/global development/ending x disease is the solution.

Also not to get too much into therapising them But I think the altruism is an attempt to mitigate their soul - no different than patronage of a different age from Carnegie Hall to the Medicis to a noble paying to establish an almshouse. And ultimately they're in control of whatever philanthropic project they launch.

[crazy canuck]

How are you defining fair here?  And how do you define what is a fair share?

A burden that is distributed in proportion to the strength of the shoulders carrying it.

Ok, now define those things

[crazy canuck]

Yes.

Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.

But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.

[HVC]

Yes.

Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.

But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.

I don't agree with zoupas formula, but under his scenario the government would now have billions of dollars more to fight climate change.

[Josquius]

Yes.

Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.

But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.

I don't agree with zoupas formula, but under his scenario the government would now have billions of dollars more to fight climate change.

Also surely this investment comes from companies not individuals?

Which is another problem with enforcement really. Won't the rich just hide wealth with fake companies. We already see this even on a considerably smaller cash level- but then tightening up companies law is something that needs to be done for other reasons.

[Zoupa]

Yes.

Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.

But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.

Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.

[Admiral Yi]

our billionaires who are the apex predators of global capitalism

Who do billionaires kill and eat?  Since by implication all of us are predators, who do we all kill and eat?

[Admiral Yi]

Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.

Unfettered capitalism has had some company.  Like state owned utilities in China.

[viper37]

Yes.

Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.

But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.

Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.

Climate change was well under way in non capitalist countries.

[Barrister]

Yes.

Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.

But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.

Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.

Climate change was well under way in non capitalist countries.

Even in capitalist countries a lot of emissions come from industries that are pretty heavily regulated - transportation, energy production, agriculture, heavy industry, etc.  It's just that until recently we've done very little to regulate those sectors regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

Now I'm not arguing that all we need to do is remove regulations and the private sector will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  But it's childish and naive to argue that "unfetterd capitalism" is the cause of the climate crises.

[crazy canuck]

Yes.

Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.

But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.

Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.

The uh what is contained in my post that he was responding to.  It might have made more sense if he had included my post in his response. 

So a couple of points to clarify, I don't think anyone here is arguing for unfettered capitalism.  If you wish to say that nobody can have assets over 10 million, that means that the private sector will never be able to amass the capital investments that are going to have to be raised to both mitigate the effects of climate change and scale up the production of the methods that are being developed to remove carbon and other greenhouse gases from the atmoshere.

While it might make people feel better to vilify those who become wealthy through such investments, you probably also want those investments to be made.

[crazy canuck]

Interesting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets.

Unending?  You realize the debate is over the claim that all billionaires are by definition bad people?

Some of us here, more than two, have worked with people who were or who became billionaires because of the investments they have made.  In my experience all were just lucky that what they were working on caught fire and they were in the right place at the right time.  There are a lot more people for whom investments and business ideas they had went nowhere or had moderate success. 

Our system depends on taking the chance that something might work, despite the odds that most things don't work out.

What we do in terms of taxing that wealth is a separate question.  But no one has yet put forward a good argument for why someone who acts ethically throughout and just has a great idea that becomes very successful, by definition becomes a bad person because, by virtue of their shareholding in the company they start to develop their idea, they become wealthy.   

[garbon]

Interesting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets.

Unending?  You realize the debate is over the claim that all billionaires are by definition bad people?

Some of us here, more than two, have worked with people who were or who became billionaires because of the investments they have made.  In my experience all were just lucky that what they were working on caught fire and they were in the right place at the right time.  There are a lot more people for whom investments and business ideas they had went nowhere or had moderate success. 

Our system depends on taking the chance that something might work, despite the odds that most things don't work out.

What we do in terms of taxing that wealth is a separate question.  But no one has yet put forward a good argument for why someone who acts ethically throughout and just has a great idea that becomes very successful, by definition becomes a bad person because, by virtue of their shareholding in the company they start to develop their idea, they become wealthy.   

I'm not sure how we can given your starting principle that some people just luck themselves into billions.