nationalize Facebook and Amazon
Wealth & Income Inequality
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
Interesting...
Elections are about people, yet the Bernie bros refuse to acknowledge that million more people voted for Hillary in the primary.
Elections are about people, yet the Bernie bros refuse to acknowledge that million more people voted for Hillary in the primary.
She also benefited from a corrupt system that helped her cheat her way to victory over any potential Dem opponent by way of superdelegates.
nationalize and split into smaller companies
How do you initialize a company though? Is there anything on American's law that allows it. Does the constitution needs to be changed? Is Amazon actually a bad thing (some might say that while some businesses are lost, some others are created - independent sellers in amazon, same argument you can make for Uber - and the service to customers is better than it has ever been)?
While I love buying stuff in Amazon, I acknowledge that serious questions need to be asked about it, and at this pace is going to become more powerful than many powerful countries. The more I think about it, the more I think that the future will be ruled from ultra-big companies, with states essentially being servants to them.
It wouldn't happen to Amazon since they have a major competitor in Walmart (and others). Facebook on the other hand would be a prime candidate since they don't have any significant American competitor and are simply gobbling up smaller companies who may one day challenge them.
What's wrong with eating an unendangered iguana which also happens to be an invasive species?
It's clearly just a ridiculous idea by someone who hates the ultra-rich.
Sure, but Facebook is a bit less harmful, I guess. I mean it is a social network, not the most important thing.
Amazon are essentially becoming the place where people exchange things. I mean, it is hardly crazy to think that in a few years or couple of decades, Amazon coins or whatever they are called will become Western World's de facto currency.
hating billionaires is right and goodIt's clearly just a ridiculous idea by someone who hates the ultra-rich.
Many of the biggest advances in human history are contributed by billionaires. I'm not saying love them for being rich, but many of them have made the world a better place and became rich as a result.
But we clearly disagree with almost everything anyway, so this is no different.
keep licking that boot
I once had the same argument with a very lib college prof. His final point was summat about Jonas Salk giving his polio vaccine to the world for free. I looked up Salk later and it turned out he was bankrolled by a rich philanthropist. If only I had known that fact at the time, I'd have won the argument in style.
is this cannibalism
I just don't get why some people just hate people for being rich without any regards for how those people got rich.
To be fair, there is a point on that. Bill Gates has given an estimated 50b to charity, and the work his foundation has done in Africa with vaccinations have saved thousands of lives, likely millions of lives. There are many good things that ultra rich people have done.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't hate this totally terrible system we live on, and hope for a better one. But I don't think that individuals are the problem, the system is the problem instead. And this is a case where the sum is greater than its parts.
Alexander Fleming wouldn't have done shit if he was poor
Capitalism is a bit like democracy, democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Would Nikola Tesla even know what a current if he didn't own a substantial amount of the worlds resources?
It was the executives who created the user interface, those nerds at IBM were just pissing in the wind
I think we are way past capitalism though (or at least what capitalism originally was).
They got rich by stealing from workers cal. That's how you get a billion dollars
Yep. Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook are more powerful than the rest of tech companies combined.
One can make the argument that true capitalism doesn't really exist due to all the rules and regulations in almost every first world country.
Whilst you can make that argument about Walmart and Amazon, how did someone like Warren Buffett or any of the tech billionaires still from workers?
there are no good billionaires. Bill Gates took advantage of a complicated system of rules we have in the United states to accumulate billions of dollars. Hes not a billion times smarter and he didn't work a billion times harder.
wealth is created by workers and stolen by greedy people like Bill Gates. He has 4 houses (one of which cost $115 million) and there are 11 thousand homeless people in seattle. Miss me with the good billionaire stuff
Which are a fecking great thing if you don't believe in slavery.
Wealth is created by workers and they are owed the fruits of their labor. Funneling it to tech dipshits or Warren buffet is theft.
Wells Fargo, the company that literally signed people up for fake mortgages and credit cards is first on the list.
Bank of America forclosed on houses they didnt even have a deed to.
feck Warren buffett
You can make the same argument on a lower scale for practically everyone. The owner of that cafeteria in your street is evil cause he is getting rich stealing from his waitresses, etc etc.
Gates has given a significant money for charity and that has changed the lives of many many people. For the good. Sure, it is easy to give 50b when you own 100b, but at the same time it is easy to give to charity 100$ for month if you get 2000$ for month. How many people do that though?
Oh dear, the guy has given away 10s of billions and pledged to give most of his money away. What do you expect from him? Live in a tiny apartment and give all his money to random people on the street?
How about he live in 1 house? Is that too much to ask? Hes one person.
oh man he's given away some of his money, the system that let him make 10s of billions at the expense of people who actually work must be fine
So on what markets are these giants competing with eachother? Feels to me like they're all monopolies in their own fields.
Bill Gates can literally give away billions of dollars and not change his quality of life in any way. We know because hes done it.
He chooses to live in a 66,000 square foot home while people live on the street. He chooses to own 4 houses.
Theft?
Buffett still apparently lives in the same house he paid 31k for in 1958 (its worth 650k today).
What about people who own two cars? Or two bicycles for that matter? Or, I guess you own at least two pair of shoes. Why you don't give one of them to some homeless person in your city (you're American right?) who doesn't have one?
It is weird why I am arguing with you, considering that on the grand scheme of things I am much more in your side of the argument rather than Cal's, but at the same time I find your arguments 'extremely extreme', to the point of being useless.
As if Well Fargo wouldn't have done the same thing if Warren Buffett didn't buy their stocks?
