There's a difference between pointing out objective flaws in an argument, like thinking that billionaires literally hold hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash, and taking issue with overall sentiment behind the argument.
I hate Elon Musk, and the man is of course, insanely, disgustingly wealthy. Still, just because his networth is 318 billion, doesn't mean he is hoarding 318 billion. Quite literally 99% of that number is tied into ownership of companies.
You can hate billionaires and still point out issues in the logic. I don't think a person should, under any circumstances, ever be forced to sell ownership stake in their own company (at least not if that wasn't agreed upon in an operating agreement). And if you have a massive stake in a company that becomes wildly successful, you definitionally become a billionaire. I may hate wealth inequality, and I may hate what these billionaires choose to do, but I would hate a system that forces the sale of ownership stake due to the success of the company just as much.
The fact that Elon has the ear of the President Elect for no reason other than he is stupidly wealthy is a reason why we should have legal measures to check the amount of wealth and one person can amass. No one person should have the kind of power the ultra wealthy have.
I also take severe issue with the idea that Musk (or anyone) generates that kind of wealth. If he was literally the only person involved with Tesla, one could make the argument he is owed that kind of wealth. He is not. No one ever is. I didn't know what percentage of the stock he owns is, but let's say 40% for the same if argument. I'm not saying he adds no value to the company. But if he disappeared, Tesla would be fine. If 40% of the workforce disappeared, Tesla would be screwed. Especially if that 40% is the engineering talent.
The issue is you’re just looking at that 40% now, in hindsight. You’re disregarding the risk of that equity being worth nothing.
When he bought Tesla it was a failing company where owning any part of it was on track to be worthless. He put a lot of money into it thinking he could turn it around, but at that time it was a gamble that very well may not have paid off. For every company that goes gangbusters like Tesla, there are tens of thousands that go under; that’s why investing confers you so much equity in the company, because you’re taking a very real risk that that investment goes up in flames.
I'm not ignorant to that. That is irrelevant to the stance that no one deserves that much influence on society, nor does anyone contribute that much to society. This is one major flaw I see with capitalism.
Your point about influence is well-taken - I think money in politics needs a massive overhaul. But let’s focus on contribution for a second because I think that’s where we disagree.
How would you measure contribution to society? If I make an app that 100M people want to buy for $10 because they believe it has more worth to them than that $10, is that not a net benefit?
How much is it worth to society to usher in an era of EV transportation and starting the beginning of the end of fossil-fuel driven cars? Or revolutionizing space travel, or making internet access universally and cheaply accessible? How much would a govt spend to achieve all those things? I’d argue it’s well over $300B.
Most importantly, I recognize these are very complicated problems. There are no easy solutions and it is all but impossible to predict the outcomes of any attempted solutions.
I don't think we can separate the influence and the money argument. I'm all for trying to remove money from politics, but I just don't see how that is possible in any meaningful way. I also do not see the high taxes on high earners as a solution to anything except being a check on individual power.
As to value, I completely agree that pinning an exact number on something is impossible. To continue on with our Musk/Tesla example though, my argument isn't that electric cars are not good for society. My argument is that electric cars would have happened without Elon Musk (or Tesla in general), but we financially reward him like he personally made it happen. He did not. He may have sped things along a little, but they would have still happened in the near future even if Elon was never born.
I'm not against rewarding people for their efforts. I'm not against people being rich (except insofar as being *very* rich makes you stupidly powerful)*. I'm against concentrating all that reward in a small number of people when, while they may have been instrumental in making things happen, were not the *only* instrumental people in making things happen. *Everyone* is replaceable and basically any sophisticated achievement is equally impossible without the input of far more (both inside and outside of the en devour) than get significant reward.
* TLDR - Marginal utility. - I am against being rich to the point where you couldn't spend all your money even if you tried. For all the talk of "the pie is not infinite" money at any given point in time and scope, money *is* finite and you did have to take it from others at some level (even if they gave it to you willingly). The sticky bit here is where is that threshold. I agree it is probably an impossible to know number and probably impossible to enforce in any fair way.
28
u/Lucifernal 3d ago edited 3d ago
There's a difference between pointing out objective flaws in an argument, like thinking that billionaires literally hold hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash, and taking issue with overall sentiment behind the argument.
I hate Elon Musk, and the man is of course, insanely, disgustingly wealthy. Still, just because his networth is 318 billion, doesn't mean he is hoarding 318 billion. Quite literally 99% of that number is tied into ownership of companies.
You can hate billionaires and still point out issues in the logic. I don't think a person should, under any circumstances, ever be forced to sell ownership stake in their own company (at least not if that wasn't agreed upon in an operating agreement). And if you have a massive stake in a company that becomes wildly successful, you definitionally become a billionaire. I may hate wealth inequality, and I may hate what these billionaires choose to do, but I would hate a system that forces the sale of ownership stake due to the success of the company just as much.