Hey I’m no big supporter of billionaires but “that behavior in any other species we would classify it as some kind of divergent behavior” is extremely wrong. Altruism is extremely rare outside humans. Most animals would absolutely love to get every single piece of food in the forest all to themselves. They steal food from each other constantly. Whole species are based on the very concept of stealing as their main or sole life strategy. There are fish out there whose main food is the juveniles of the exact same fish species. Literal baby-eating as their main strategy.
We humans are supposed to be better than animals. Comparing someone to an animal is comparing them to something bad.
If you saw a single bear successfully hoarding 98% of the food supply of an entire forest, you’d have to be a fucking moron to fail to classify them as a detrimental anomaly.
if the other 98% of the bears gave their food supply to the 1 bear with 98% of the supply because the bear with the food supply gave them cheap Labubu’s you’d probably just say yeah that’s their culture
And tbh this discussion seems to come back to the American bear species almost all of the time
They don’t do that because they physically can’t. If they could they would. If you have two starving bears and throw them one carcass. Only one will eat because they will fight and scream away the weaker one.
The original point is that billionaires, as I interpret it, is that billionaires are worse than animals. Or at least that if we look at billionaires as if they were animals we would still diagnose them as ill. My point is that that’s not true. Animals can be just as psychotic. Most have absolutely no morals and a subset of them regularly do things that are way worse than what the billionaires are doing, hence my examples.
However animals are not humans. Billionaires are humans. If we say billionaires are like animals that’s already a really bad grade. We humans are supposed to be much better than that. I’m not defending billionaires at all. I’m saying one should compare them to something else. There are much better and more effective ways to criticize them than this.
When they are full they move on with their lives. Hoarding behavior, like with squirrels and nuts is rare and even when present is usually because they aren’t smart enough to remember their hiding spots.
That all being said, we are human the whole idea is that we can moderate behaviors and not only act on instinct.
People want cheap products in order to live affordable lives, companies owned by billionaires are the only ones capable of the scale required to achieve that so it’s not like people have a choice.
If someone wants some nice shoes or a doll why shouldn’t they be allowed to get one? There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, all consumption is apart of the same system.
It’s one thing for a working person to spend whatever income they don’t need to live at a baseline on others, it’s another for someone to hoard so much money they couldn’t necessarily physically spend it all if they tried, let alone spend it on things that would actually measurably increase their happiness.
You can argue regular people should donate more, and many actually do donate more than billionaires (as a % of assets/income) depending on which source you trust to give a good enough picture, (given a lot of donations are hard to track, both from large billionaire foundations and DAFs, to smaller donors with hard to classify spending) but there is a massive gap in how much a regular person can donate relative to a rich person, even just as a % of their income.
If you live paycheck to paycheck, but have, say, $20 left over at the end of the month in actual money to your name that hasn’t already gone to groceries, rent, etc, (and we assume you have no other assets), your net worth is $20.
If a billionaire donates $999,000,000 to charity, that would be the equivalent of that person donating $19.98.
Unlike that person though, the billionaire would have a million dollars in net worth, enough money to buy a house, while the regular person would have $0.02.
Even if these conditions aren’t perfect, and you assume maybe the person has some more net worth than $20, the point still stands. A billionaire can give up almost all of their net worth and still have enough money to comfortably live, or at least meet basic living standards for the average person. For most Americans, if they lose their job, have any surprise bill, or don’t make as much money as they expected to, they will instantly become homeless the next month rent is due, even if they give up none of their existing assets and just stop adding more money on top.
This is why “billionairism” (not a real term ofc) is such a damaging condition. It not only causes you to become obsessed with hoarding wealth that you don’t necessarily need, but it causes you to do so at the expense of others you could readily help without experiencing any material downside in your everyday life. There is no reason to hoard so much wealth.
Money is just a means to get or do things. If you are not spending that money, and you have more money than you’ll ever need to spend, that excess dollar value past your realistic spending for the rest of your life is just a valueless number to you. It’s a number that will never impact your life, but it can impact others. Hoarding it is stupid and immoral.
Because most people are working class and need the money they earn to keep themselves and their loved ones alive, if they can even afford that under capital’s starvation wages.
Hoarding a resource (money) when other people are starving, homeless and dying of preventable diseases.
If we see that behavior in any other species we would classify it as some kind of divergent behavior.
Hey I’m no big supporter of billionaires but “that behavior in any other species we would classify it as some kind of divergent behavior” is extremely wrong. Altruism is extremely rare outside humans. Most animals would absolutely love to get every single piece of food in the forest all to themselves. They steal food from each other constantly. Whole species are based on the very concept of stealing as their main or sole life strategy. There are fish out there whose main food is the juveniles of the exact same fish species. Literal baby-eating as their main strategy.
We humans are supposed to be better than animals. Comparing someone to an animal is comparing them to something bad.
Hermit crabs
If you saw a single bear successfully hoarding 98% of the food supply of an entire forest, you’d have to be a fucking moron to fail to classify them as a detrimental anomaly.
if the other 98% of the bears gave their food supply to the 1 bear with 98% of the supply because the bear with the food supply gave them cheap Labubu’s you’d probably just say yeah that’s their culture
And tbh this discussion seems to come back to the American bear species almost all of the time
Again, you would have to be a fucking moron to fail to classify them as the shitstain anomaly they would be.
Just because you are so stupid as to dismiss such a thing as ‘culture’ does not mean I would.
Hello!
Please calm down, take a chill pill and we can discuss this more later
There’s no need to be so angry in a community chat forum
They don’t do that because they physically can’t. If they could they would. If you have two starving bears and throw them one carcass. Only one will eat because they will fight and scream away the weaker one.
Yet billionaires can. Interesting how you are willing to work so hard to completely miss the point. How stupid do you choose to be?
The original point is that billionaires, as I interpret it, is that billionaires are worse than animals. Or at least that if we look at billionaires as if they were animals we would still diagnose them as ill. My point is that that’s not true. Animals can be just as psychotic. Most have absolutely no morals and a subset of them regularly do things that are way worse than what the billionaires are doing, hence my examples.
However animals are not humans. Billionaires are humans. If we say billionaires are like animals that’s already a really bad grade. We humans are supposed to be much better than that. I’m not defending billionaires at all. I’m saying one should compare them to something else. There are much better and more effective ways to criticize them than this.
Well there’s always this more “humane” take:
Yes because they don’t have enough food.
When they are full they move on with their lives. Hoarding behavior, like with squirrels and nuts is rare and even when present is usually because they aren’t smart enough to remember their hiding spots.
That all being said, we are human the whole idea is that we can moderate behaviors and not only act on instinct.
Why do you talk like capitalism is feudalism?
people are WILLINGLY giving THEIR MONEY to BILLIONAIRES in exchange for GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
If you don’t want billionaires to get richer convince people to not use Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Apple etc
You’ll find very quickly that most people are not only ok with billionaires they love the services they are provided and don’t even think about it
People want cheap products in order to live affordable lives, companies owned by billionaires are the only ones capable of the scale required to achieve that so it’s not like people have a choice.
These are excuses people tell themselves to make themselves feel better while they order Nikes and Labubu’s off of Amazon
If someone wants some nice shoes or a doll why shouldn’t they be allowed to get one? There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, all consumption is apart of the same system.
Why aren’t you spending all your money and time on helping others then?
The money you earn would find around zilion uses in helping others.
Once my needs are met, I am. And I’m disabled. Why aren’t you?
Because I’m selfish.
Contrary to your hero’s opinion, this is not a virtue. It is a vice.
It’s one thing for a working person to spend whatever income they don’t need to live at a baseline on others, it’s another for someone to hoard so much money they couldn’t necessarily physically spend it all if they tried, let alone spend it on things that would actually measurably increase their happiness.
You can argue regular people should donate more, and many actually do donate more than billionaires (as a % of assets/income) depending on which source you trust to give a good enough picture, (given a lot of donations are hard to track, both from large billionaire foundations and DAFs, to smaller donors with hard to classify spending) but there is a massive gap in how much a regular person can donate relative to a rich person, even just as a % of their income.
If you live paycheck to paycheck, but have, say, $20 left over at the end of the month in actual money to your name that hasn’t already gone to groceries, rent, etc, (and we assume you have no other assets), your net worth is $20.
If a billionaire donates $999,000,000 to charity, that would be the equivalent of that person donating $19.98.
Unlike that person though, the billionaire would have a million dollars in net worth, enough money to buy a house, while the regular person would have $0.02.
Even if these conditions aren’t perfect, and you assume maybe the person has some more net worth than $20, the point still stands. A billionaire can give up almost all of their net worth and still have enough money to comfortably live, or at least meet basic living standards for the average person. For most Americans, if they lose their job, have any surprise bill, or don’t make as much money as they expected to, they will instantly become homeless the next month rent is due, even if they give up none of their existing assets and just stop adding more money on top.
This is why “billionairism” (not a real term ofc) is such a damaging condition. It not only causes you to become obsessed with hoarding wealth that you don’t necessarily need, but it causes you to do so at the expense of others you could readily help without experiencing any material downside in your everyday life. There is no reason to hoard so much wealth.
Money is just a means to get or do things. If you are not spending that money, and you have more money than you’ll ever need to spend, that excess dollar value past your realistic spending for the rest of your life is just a valueless number to you. It’s a number that will never impact your life, but it can impact others. Hoarding it is stupid and immoral.
deleted by creator
Because most people are working class and need the money they earn to keep themselves and their loved ones alive, if they can even afford that under capital’s starvation wages.
Do you spend all your money on survival?
No
If I had any, I wouldnt. Me and the type I keep in my company, would go broke giving it away. Thats why were not billionaires. Money isnt a god.
Never thought I’d see the day someone actually propose Voodoo Economics seriously, ie. Thatcher’s and Reagan’s policies. Fuck that shit
deleted by creator
You don’t understand the first thing about economics, yet want to shit on everyone. You are truly pathetic.
Hello!
I’m actually quite well aware of a lot of things about economics, however being told I’m an idiot or ‘truly pathetic’ does literally 0 for me
Please take a chill pill, eat some coco pops, then think about a response that’s deeper than ‘u r stupid, i r smrt’ and then we can discuss, thanks!
deleted by creator
I can’t believe you went to all that effort just to get blocked, how odd
Interesting how you continue to go through the effort to eat your foot in front of all of us. How pathetic.