Remix.run Logo
WarmWash 3 hours ago

I think the most chronic misunderstanding in the "billionaire" rhetoric is that billionaires are in it for money.

People who work a job they don't like because they need money to live, view money as the objective in life, because the equivocate it to escaping and freedom. So wearing that lens, and looking at billionaires, these motherfuckers are greed driven psychopaths who blew past the "escape with freedom" bank account ages ago, and are now just taking money off the table from others trying to get ahead.

But that is not how it is at all. Virtually every billionaire is crazy focused on their work, and the money is a side effect that they don't really care that much about, besides it being a tool to enable more work they can do.

It's very hard to get this across when speaking to people who view work as an obstacle, money as god, don't have personal business experience, and whose passions are things that aren't very productive.

nfw2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the deeper issue is a chronic misunderstanding of what wealth is. Most people engage with wealth in the form of usable goods and services. A banana is wealth. A house is wealth. A dollar in my bank account or a share I own is, at the margin, entirely fungible into things I can consume, so they aren't meaningfully different.

This is an illusion. A share has value because it represents the hypothetical future productivity of an abstract entity that may or may not even exist in the future.

At the margin, you can take an Amazon share and buy bananas with it. However you absolutely can't take the entirety of Amazon and exchange it for a trillion bananas. Those bananas don't exist.

More importantly, you can't take the entirety of Amazon and transform it into housing supply. I think people are often too careful about "missing the forest for the trees" and then conceive of problems as overly abstract. The affordability crisis is, first and foremost, a housing shortage.

Young people can't afford homes. Millennials are hitting 40 and realizing they may never afford one. Being secure in housing is pretty damn low on the Maslow hierarchy of needs. Sure maybe we need a more progressive tax policy, but this myopic focus on billionaires distracts from the real problem which is a housing shortage.

barnabee 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If they’re not in it for the money, they’ll be happy to pay more tax

WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Taxes are money that they lose control of.

There is a reason Bill Gates didn't just write the IRS a check for $175B and created the Gates foundation instead.

lkjdsklf an hour ago | parent [-]

That's kind of the opposite of your original claim then.

They're in it for the money as it allows them to exert control. That's still being in it for the money.

CPLX 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've known and spent time with quite a few billionaires personally.

I can assure you, with the utmost in direct observation, that they are extraordinarily obsessed with money. It is, in fact, the defining characteristic of their entire existence, literally by definition.

Any argument to the contrary is profoundly hilarious. Imagine if you came across someone that had over one billion model trains in his basement who was claiming that he wasn't super interested in model trains.

bjustin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One of the problems is that rather than billionaires being it for money, they’re in it for money. They don’t lack for money to live, sure, but they do want more money for the power it provides.