Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

[Conflicting Thought]

For some time now, in conversations with friends and family (all of them on the "leftist" spectrum), the topic of philanthropy and charity of billionaires (in particular Bill Gates or Warren Buffet) has come up, and it always surprises me, when they defend and think its a positive thing for them to do that.

Specially because of their progressive and left leaning views (that i share). Its like a blind spot or some kind of wishfull thinking. 

In my opinion, this charity and philanthopy are very suspect and does nothing to fix the multitud of problems, that the hoarding of wealth of the very people who then become philantrhopists. And in fact it works in their favor and actively works to preserve and expand their wealth and the capitalist system. Not to mention the imperialistic and racist side of it all (goes hand in hand). 

What do you guys think? , do you view it as a possitive thing?. Why do you think people on the left have this "blind spot"?. 

[Rippounet]

Tough call. I agree with you that philanthropy doesn't fix much and is all too often used against wealth redistribution. However, I don't see how one could blame generous billionaires. Buffet especially has been pretty vocal in suggesting fixes to the overall system (some of them debatable, but that's another question), so I really don't see how one could reproach him for his philanthropy.

This does tie in with something that's been nagging me for a while about the way we perceive wealth and money. There's this insidious idea on the right that everything earned is "yours" and that taxes and wealth redistribution are some kind of theft. Imho it's insidious because I don't see how one could really "earn" billions of dollars through work: at some point it stops being earning and becomes hoarding. But how do you argue that the economic system is fundamentally flawed? These kinds of conversations always go back to the heart of the social contract. In my eyes society decides what each individual should earn for their work, not the market, and certainly not silly notions like providence, divine justice, or whatever. But this idea that we all belong to the same society and that we have to work toward having one that is fair is somehow anathema to most people.

[Spockydog]

If, like the rest of us, the billionaires and their companies paid their taxes, there wouldn't be so much need for charity.

 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

If, like the rest of us, the billionaires and their companies paid their taxes, there wouldn't be so much need for charity.

 

Not exactly.

For instance with the Gates thing - Gates is working on a number of issues in places well outside where he earned his money. Most of it is going to countries in Africa. Taxing alone doesn't solve this, and in this case it acts as an odd way to redistribute wealth from colonizers and imperialists. 

But that probably isn't enough to keep it as a salutary value. Even if Gates is doing something laudable, he's still making a choice based entirely on his own viewpoint of what is and isn't worth investing in. That he happens to be picking something that is largely a major good is immaterial, because it's entirely undemocratic and entirely arbitrary. There's no oversight into it, no choices, no real values that the receiving countries can say. Gates could also simply give every single member of Microsoft $100,000, and it would be equally as arbitrary and allowed. 

That seems like a major problem in a Democratic system. 

[Impmk2]

Pragmatic me thinks money talks, and having a few billionaires with some kind of social conscience is better than none.

Communist me thinks redistribute it all via firing squad 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

Pragmatic me thinks money talks, and having a few billionaires with some kind of social conscience is better than none.

Communist me thinks redistribute it all via firing squad 

It's not better than none, or rather it's better to have zero billionaires period. 

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't think Philanthropy and charity on the part of the wealthy should be criticised per se. Rather the system that creates a demand for philanthropy and charity in areas that really should not exist in a just and fair society, but demands that do exist in a more dog eat dog society. Of course part of that dog eat dog society is having ridiculous extremes of wealth and poverty.

Also a bit of somewhat false advertising is that billionaire philanthropists are spending meaningfully large amounts of money. Compared to the public spending of governments on social programmes and R&D the collective spending of all the billionnaires in similar areas is miniscule. All while billionnaires seek to minimise their tax bill, and not necessarily always in ethically defensible ways. So in some respects they giveth and they taketh away with their philanthropy.

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not exactly.

For instance with the Gates thing - Gates is working on a number of issues in places well outside where he earned his money. Most of it is going to countries in Africa. Taxing alone doesn't solve this, and in this case it acts as an odd way to redistribute wealth from colonizers and imperialists. 

But that probably isn't enough to keep it as a salutary value. Even if Gates is doing something laudable, he's still making a choice based entirely on his own viewpoint of what is and isn't worth investing in. That he happens to be picking something that is largely a major good is immaterial, because it's entirely undemocratic and entirely arbitrary. There's no oversight into it, no choices, no real values that the receiving countries can say. Gates could also simply give every single member of Microsoft $100,000, and it would be equally as arbitrary and allowed. 

That seems like a major problem in a Democratic system. 

Gates is different, a true philanthropist. He did not emerge in this bizarro, post-tax landscape that exists today. I do not have a problem with anything he has done.

What I have a big fucking problem with is companies like Google (Do No Harm, eh?), legally 'avoiding' £1.5bn of UK tax. And Amazon paying poverty wages to oppressed workers, whilst somehow paying just £4.5m in corporation tax. Jeff Bezos tossing a few million bucks in the direction of his favourite charities in an attempt to make him look good doesn't change the fact that some of his workers are forced to visit food banks in order to feed their families.

[Impmk2]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not better than none, or rather it's better to have zero billionaires period. 

Sure. But I was being pragmatic, and I don't think zero billionaires is a realistic goal, short of an apocalypse. 

[Spring Bass]

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That he happens to be picking something that is largely a major good is immaterial, because it's entirely undemocratic and entirely arbitrary.

You could apply that criticism to any NGO or charity effort. An NGO funded by one billionaire isn't any less accountable to the broader democratic government than a charity funded by ten thousand donors giving a couple grand each. It's just setting an arbitrary standard about what an "acceptable" level of personal influence is in society. 

30 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

Sure. But I was being pragmatic, and I don't think zero billionaires is a realistic goal, short of an apocalypse. 

It basically isn't. As long as you can start and own part or all of companies that grow into big firms, you're going to have billionaires. They won't have a billion dollars in liquid cash on them if the income tax rate is really high and exemptions tight, but they'll be billionaires. 

[Conflicting Thought]

Yesterday John Oliver did a segment on movile houses, and their horrible predatory practices, the owner of one of the biggest companies that build this houses and take advantage of the people who go into devt to buy them... Warren Buffet. 

Bill Gates is not inocent, he "belives" in (in my opinion, racisit, colonialistic and jus plain wrong) view of over population and his "philanthropy" is in service of that view. With the bulk of the mony of his and Melinda's foundation invested in África. He also invested money on our friend Monsanto. 

Non of this billionairs want to change the system that put them where thy have the money to do "philanthropy" (impose their view). 

They do NOT have our best interest as their motivation. 

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Gates is different, a true philanthropist. He did not emerge in this bizarro, post-tax landscape that exists today. I do not have a problem with anything he has done.

He absolutely did. Most of his wealth came from his stock, which was entirely tax-free. When Bush gave that tax-free stock buyback, he gained something like 20 billion dollars as he cashed out. He continues to be able to basically ride on that wealth forever. 

He's not as bad as Bezos, don't get me wrong - but the notion that he is somehow a true philanthropist because he got his money fair and square is not accurate.

5 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Sure. But I was being pragmatic, and I don't think zero billionaires is a realistic goal, short of an apocalypse. 

The sooner that we stop thinking of billionaires as being vaguely acceptable if they deign to donate some of their riches, the better.

4 hours ago, Spring Bass said:

You could apply that criticism to any NGO or charity effort. An NGO funded by one billionaire isn't any less accountable to the broader democratic government than a charity funded by ten thousand donors giving a couple grand each. It's just setting an arbitrary standard about what an "acceptable" level of personal influence is in society.  

If you're requiring donations from several thousand people, you're several thousand times more democratic. I don't see how this is difficult. 

4 hours ago, Spring Bass said:

It basically isn't. As long as you can start and own part or all of companies that grow into big firms, you're going to have billionaires. They won't have a billion dollars in liquid cash on them if the income tax rate is really high and exemptions tight, but they'll be billionaires. 

There are a whole lot of ways to do this otherwise, including requiring companies to be mostly owned by their employees, have absurdly high wealth taxes, ban big firms entirely, etc. You're right that unmolested capitalism results in billionaires and massively poor people; I'm suggesting that unmolested (or at least less molested) capitalism is a major problem. 

[Serious Callers Only]

It's going to get 'extremely' interesting when in 5 to 20 years automation of repetitive tasks driven by reliable object recognition and robotics will spread to unsuspected lowly skilled niches just as global warming is decimating both habitats and the economy. Do 'they' really *need* delivery from containers to subsidiaries? Like walmart is probably just waiting for things to develop a bit to flip the switch on that and organizing the product by robots.

Worst of both worlds? 1984 and Gattaca with genocide on top?

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Sure. But I was being pragmatic, and I don't think zero billionaires is a realistic goal, short of an apocalypse. 

I agree.  The only way to eliminate billionaires is to run your society like Liberia in the eighties and nineties,

[Free Northman Reborn]

Why should your wealth be linked only to the labour you deliver? Should you not be rewarded for taking risk as well? You can work an hour for $10, or you could take your previously earned $10 and invest it in a business that might lose it all or might change it into $20.

If you then make twice as much as the guy who only earns money from his direct labour, why is that wrong? 

And if that extrapolates to your capital eventually growing to $1bn, why should it matter that those earnings are not directly linked to the physical labour hours you have personally delivered?

[Week]

13 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If you then make twice as much as the guy who only earns money from his direct labour, why is that wrong? 

And if that extrapolates to your capital eventually growing to $1bn, why should it matter that those earnings are not directly linked to the physical labour hours you have personally delivered?

That's some fucking extrapolation from a $10 per hour job. I'll just compare the top earning healthcare CEO last year (R. Milton Johnson of HCA Healthcare [for-profit hospital group] @ $109M) -- now they've made more than 5,000 more in a year than someone working $10 for 40 hours a week for 52 weeks. THEN there is the benefit of compounding wealth AFTER that immoral gap in pay. It's completely absurd to defend.

You are also ignoring that nearly 50% of the wealth in the US is inherited and many "self-made" billionaires have been able to take risks and grow companies due to family wealth (Theranos, Kylie Jenner, etc.).

[OldGimletEye]

53 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 Should you not be rewarded for taking risk as well?

Is the point here to get people to do useful shit, or is it more of a just dessert thing, without regard to economic efficiency or economic welfare?

 

53 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 previously earned $10 your previously earned $10 and invest

I think if you are making $10 per hour, it is unlikely that you'll have much to invest. You should know that. If don't know it, then you are living under a rock or something.

53 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If you then make twice as much as the guy who only earns money from his direct labour, why is that wrong?

Supposing the guy who makes his living by labor is earning less than his marginal product because of monopsony power. And supposing the guy earning his income from capital does it because of monopoly power or rent seeking. Your opinion would be what?

The problem with conservatives like you is that for years you've been selling supply side snake oil. And well your crap never quite panned out they way that was promised. But, hey keep on believing Trump and Stephen Moore are economic masterminds.

[LongRider]

13 hours ago, Spockydog said:

And Amazon paying poverty wages to oppressed workers, whilst somehow paying just £4.5m in corporation tax.

In the States it's Amazon paying the companies that hire the temp workers , I mean, contractors, who work without benefits, a secure job and fewer protected job rights.  A few contractors do go on to be eventually hired by Amazon, and Bezos could change that and still remain a billionaire with plenty of dough for charity. 

[OldGimletEye]

59 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I agree.  The only way to eliminate billionaires is to run your society like Liberia in the eighties and nineties,

I wouldn't try to get rid of all billionares per se. But, here in the United States, we probably have more than we need.

For years conservatives have told us about their so called "pro growth" polices which basically means hey let us bust up your unions, weaken anti-trust laws, and cut taxes for the rich and you won't be sorry because economic growth will be so awesome you won't mind. And in about 4 decades or so, since the so called Reagan revolution, there is little evidence that ever happened. And of course within conservative circles "Morning in America" is built on a fairy tell. It had to do with monetary policy and little to do with Reagan's tax cuts.

And right now one of the biggest supply side knuckleheads around, who has never been right about anything over his entire career, is being considered for the Federal Reserve. Dear fuckin' lord.

[SeanF]

17 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I wouldn't try to get rid of all billionares per se. But, here in the United States, we probably have more than we need.

For years conservatives have told us about their so called "pro growth" polices which basically means hey let us bust up your unions, weaken anti-trust laws, and cut taxes for the rich and you won't be sorry because economic growth will be so awesome you won't mind. And in about 4 decades or so, since the so called Reagan revolution, there is little evidence that ever happened. And of course within conservative circles "Morning in America" is built on a fairy tell. It had to do with monetary policy and little to do with Reagan's tax cuts.

And right now one of the biggest supply side knuckleheads around, who has never been right about anything over his entire career, is being considered for the Federal Reserve. Dear fuckin' lord.

My impression (on this side of the Atlantic) is that for most people, the standard of living in the USA is well above what it is here, but for the bottom 20%, it's better here than in the USA.