Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[Toro]

With any luck, we’ll have our first billionaire sworn in as President in January!

 

[Brain357]

What country spends the most on healthcare?

depends on how you create the data. our spending in the USA is not the same as in countries like the UK since in the UK most of it is funded by high taxes.

a better question is which system has the best medical outcomes and finds the most new cures and drugs.

Why do you think that rich people from all over the world come to the USA for treatment when they are seriously ill? if their socialized "free" medicine was so great why spend the money to come here?

I don't know, but anyone who wants the government to control healthcare obviously does not care about quality. Everything the government is involved in is full of corruption, waste and inefficiencies.

It's like with the income inequality. It's just an excuse. They want government to have the power instead of the people. They want government to control capital, and healthcare - and pretty much everything else they can get their hands on - because they want government to control things.

Markets don’t work with healthcare. Ours is the most expensive by far and still not the best. It needs fixing.

Bullshit. Markets become dysfunctional when unscrupulous politicians pollute them with inane regulation. And then these same unscrupulous politicians point to the mess (that they created by interfering) and pretend it's proof that "markets don't work".

They can make markets worse certainly. But that doesn’t change they inherently don’t work for healthcare. You can’t call around for pricing when in an ambulance. You don’t shop around for cheap surgery when your life is on the line.

 

[Brain357]

Why do you think that is? Because they are incapable of caring for themselves? If you think about it, they are actually the "greedy" ones.

I think it's because of a naive conception of government. They see government as equivalent to the will of the society - some even claim government IS the society, that it IS the people. From their point of view, if you want to change something in society, you pass a law. And if someone objects to the law, it's because they object to the change you have in mind.

I run into this all the time. If I oppose intrusive civil rights laws, it's because I'm a bigot. If I oppose the welfare state it's because I want poor people to suffer. If I oppose government control of healthcare, it's because I don't care about sick people. That's not just demagoguery. That's what they actually believe. It extends from their faith in government as the ultimate expression of society and humanity.

Our politicians are all owned by the wealthy.

And that's the way they want it and it is they who allow it.

We need campaign finance reform.

LOL - we need government control of EVERYTHING!!! C'mon, Brain - own it!

I don’t see how that would be good. Are you still lying and claiming I want that? Aren’t you better than that? You seem better than the common troll, but I could be wrong.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Yes, people who end up being millionaires and billionaires have a different mindset that's for sure.

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

They do but I guess my personal opinion is that you would think that their company and especially their employees would be better off if the multi-millionaire or billionaire founder or owner didn’t allow themselves to get to that level because they gave more money back into the company and it’s employees beyond simple employment.

its up to the individual rich person what they do with their money. If you don't like how a CEO acts boycott his business. The government should never tell any person what they must do with their money.

I would agree that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do with their money. I guess my point was that in my opinion if the wealthiest CEO’s were to reinvest their wealth into their employees and the communities that their employees live it would help create a more stable life for millions of people across the country. Many CEOs are philanthropists, I’m aware of that, but if you are a multi-millionaire or especially a billionaire business owner or CEO I personally think that you have more to share. Money is not the end all be all and so I’m not saying employees need to be millionaires or anything like that but many large companies have employees that are barely making it by while the top executives have generational wealth. I’m not saying to force them to do anything but I am saying that I personally believe that they should close that gap more between them. I know I would if I were in that position.

Most employees who work for larger companies with such CEO's have stock. If you want to earn money according to company profits, you can buy stock in your company.

I would think most regular employees would favor increased consistent income over stocks though. I’d also argue that most regular employees of large companies can’t afford to purchase significant shares of stock in the company they work for. If someone working at Microsoft wanted to buy one share per week they’d spend over $10,000 a year and could lose that money if the economy becomes volatile. Imagine if they just had their salary increase $10,000 though and the top executives took less. You’d probably have a longer lasting and more dedicated employee base that can afford to provide more for their families and possibly their community in my personal opinion.

 

[dblack]

depends on how you create the data. our spending in the USA is not the same as in countries like the UK since in the UK most of it is funded by high taxes.

a better question is which system has the best medical outcomes and finds the most new cures and drugs.

Why do you think that rich people from all over the world come to the USA for treatment when they are seriously ill? if their socialized "free" medicine was so great why spend the money to come here?

I don't know, but anyone who wants the government to control healthcare obviously does not care about quality. Everything the government is involved in is full of corruption, waste and inefficiencies.

It's like with the income inequality. It's just an excuse. They want government to have the power instead of the people. They want government to control capital, and healthcare - and pretty much everything else they can get their hands on - because they want government to control things.

Markets don’t work with healthcare. Ours is the most expensive by far and still not the best. It needs fixing.

Bullshit. Markets become dysfunctional when unscrupulous politicians pollute them with inane regulation. And then these same unscrupulous politicians point to the mess (that they created by interfering) and pretend it's proof that "markets don't work".

They can make markets worse certainly. But that doesn’t change they inherently don’t work for healthcare. You can’t call around for pricing when in an ambulance. You don’t shop around for cheap surgery when your life is on the line.

Haven't really got time to get into this bullshit right now, but I've heard it ad nauseam. Every time a liberal wants more power for government, it's the excuse. The free market (freedom) doesn't work. We must submit.

No thanks.

 

[dblack]

I think it's because of a naive conception of government. They see government as equivalent to the will of the society - some even claim government IS the society, that it IS the people. From their point of view, if you want to change something in society, you pass a law. And if someone objects to the law, it's because they object to the change you have in mind.

I run into this all the time. If I oppose intrusive civil rights laws, it's because I'm a bigot. If I oppose the welfare state it's because I want poor people to suffer. If I oppose government control of healthcare, it's because I don't care about sick people. That's not just demagoguery. That's what they actually believe. It extends from their faith in government as the ultimate expression of society and humanity.

Our politicians are all owned by the wealthy.

And that's the way they want it and it is they who allow it.

We need campaign finance reform.

LOL - we need government control of EVERYTHING!!! C'mon, Brain - own it!

I don’t see how that would be good. Are you still lying and claiming I want that? Aren’t you better than that? You seem better than the common troll, but I could be wrong.

**** you. I'm not the one screeching for more, MOAR, authoritarian government control at every single opportunity. You're not a troll. You're a passionate advocate for totalitarian government. No thanks.

 

[Brain357]

I don't know, but anyone who wants the government to control healthcare obviously does not care about quality. Everything the government is involved in is full of corruption, waste and inefficiencies.

It's like with the income inequality. It's just an excuse. They want government to have the power instead of the people. They want government to control capital, and healthcare - and pretty much everything else they can get their hands on - because they want government to control things.

Markets don’t work with healthcare. Ours is the most expensive by far and still not the best. It needs fixing.

Bullshit. Markets become dysfunctional when unscrupulous politicians pollute them with inane regulation. And then these same unscrupulous politicians point to the mess (that they created by interfering) and pretend it's proof that "markets don't work".

They can make markets worse certainly. But that doesn’t change they inherently don’t work for healthcare. You can’t call around for pricing when in an ambulance. You don’t shop around for cheap surgery when your life is on the line.

Haven't really got time to get into this bullshit right now, but I've heard it ad nauseam. Every time a liberal wants more power for government, it's the excuse. The free market (freedom) doesn't work. We must submit.

No thanks.

I think it’s only true for healthcare. Now our markets are broken everywhere thanks to the near monopolies, but that can be fixed.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

They do but I guess my personal opinion is that you would think that their company and especially their employees would be better off if the multi-millionaire or billionaire founder or owner didn’t allow themselves to get to that level because they gave more money back into the company and it’s employees beyond simple employment.

its up to the individual rich person what they do with their money. If you don't like how a CEO acts boycott his business. The government should never tell any person what they must do with their money.

I would agree that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do with their money. I guess my point was that in my opinion if the wealthiest CEO’s were to reinvest their wealth into their employees and the communities that their employees live it would help create a more stable life for millions of people across the country. Many CEOs are philanthropists, I’m aware of that, but if you are a multi-millionaire or especially a billionaire business owner or CEO I personally think that you have more to share. Money is not the end all be all and so I’m not saying employees need to be millionaires or anything like that but many large companies have employees that are barely making it by while the top executives have generational wealth. I’m not saying to force them to do anything but I am saying that I personally believe that they should close that gap more between them. I know I would if I were in that position.

Most employees who work for larger companies with such CEO's have stock. If you want to earn money according to company profits, you can buy stock in your company.

I would think most regular employees would favor increased consistent income over stocks though. I’d also argue that most regular employees of large companies can’t afford to purchase significant shares of stock in the company they work for. If someone working at Microsoft wanted to buy one share per week they’d spend over $10,000 a year and could lose that money if the economy becomes volatile. Imagine if they just had their salary increase $10,000 though and the top executives took less. You’d probably have a longer lasting and more dedicated employee base that can afford to provide more for their families and possibly their community in my personal opinion.

Being more a part of your company's success makes you a better and more dependable employee though. I like the idea of profit sharing too. Let's face it, a lot of employees will do just the minimum required of them in order to keep their job. Some of these programs encourage employees to do a bit more than the bare necessities, and they can benefit from it. A business is not an endless pit of money, afterall. They have expenses and have limits as well.

 

[dblack]

Now our markets are broken everywhere thanks to the near monopolies, but that can be fixed.

Lemme guess, with more government control?

 

[Brain357]

Our politicians are all owned by the wealthy.

And that's the way they want it and it is they who allow it.

We need campaign finance reform.

LOL - we need government control of EVERYTHING!!! C'mon, Brain - own it!

I don’t see how that would be good. Are you still lying and claiming I want that? Aren’t you better than that? You seem better than the common troll, but I could be wrong.

**** you. I'm not the one screeching for more, MOAR, authoritarian government control at every single opportunity. You're not a troll. You're a passionate advocate for totalitarian government. No thanks.

If you aren’t a troll than share when I have ever done that? You are lying. Search my history. I’m a free market capitalist, and you are a lying troll.

 

[dblack]

I’m a free market capitalist, and you are a lying troll.

I've never seen a post from you advocating for freedom or free markets. Other than empty claims that you are a "free market capitalist".

 

[Brain357]

Now our markets are broken everywhere thanks to the near monopolies, but that can be fixed.

Lemme guess, with more government control?

Well we need to start with campaign finance reform for less government corruption.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

They do but I guess my personal opinion is that you would think that their company and especially their employees would be better off if the multi-millionaire or billionaire founder or owner didn’t allow themselves to get to that level because they gave more money back into the company and it’s employees beyond simple employment.

its up to the individual rich person what they do with their money. If you don't like how a CEO acts boycott his business. The government should never tell any person what they must do with their money.

I would agree that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do with their money. I guess my point was that in my opinion if the wealthiest CEO’s were to reinvest their wealth into their employees and the communities that their employees live it would help create a more stable life for millions of people across the country. Many CEOs are philanthropists, I’m aware of that, but if you are a multi-millionaire or especially a billionaire business owner or CEO I personally think that you have more to share. Money is not the end all be all and so I’m not saying employees need to be millionaires or anything like that but many large companies have employees that are barely making it by while the top executives have generational wealth. I’m not saying to force them to do anything but I am saying that I personally believe that they should close that gap more between them. I know I would if I were in that position.

Most employees who work for larger companies with such CEO's have stock. If you want to earn money according to company profits, you can buy stock in your company.

I would think most regular employees would favor increased consistent income over stocks though. I’d also argue that most regular employees of large companies can’t afford to purchase significant shares of stock in the company they work for. If someone working at Microsoft wanted to buy one share per week they’d spend over $10,000 a year and could lose that money if the economy becomes volatile. Imagine if they just had their salary increase $10,000 though and the top executives took less. You’d probably have a longer lasting and more dedicated employee base that can afford to provide more for their families and possibly their community in my personal opinion.

CEO's are like any other contract worker. They are paid by their past performances.

You and I are competitors. We each own a widget factory. A very well known successful CEO just left another company, and is available to run one of ours. The CEO wants 7 million a year. You decline and offer 3 million because you'd rather overpay your workers. He leaves and comes to my company. I agree to pay him or her that 7 million a year.

Now my new employee works to take your customers away. He's known to do it, He's got the experience, the political connections, and the business connections. In a few years time, you lost half of your business to me.

That's why you pay your employees what they are worth, and pay the CEO's what they make.

 

[Brain357]

I’m a free market capitalist, and you are a lying troll.

I've never seen a post from you advocating free market principles.

You are lying again. I have had many conversations with you regarding markets.

 

[dblack]

Now our markets are broken everywhere thanks to the near monopolies, but that can be fixed.

Lemme guess, with more government control?

Well we need to start with campaign finance reform for less government corruption.

More laws. More laws! Go Brain!!!

 

[dblack]

I’m a free market capitalist, and you are a lying troll.

I've never seen a post from you advocating free market principles.

You are lying again. I have had many conversations with you regarding markets.

Yes, and every. single. time. you're arguing for more state power to interfere in markets.

 

[Brain357]

Now our markets are broken everywhere thanks to the near monopolies, but that can be fixed.

Lemme guess, with more government control?

Well we need to start with campaign finance reform for less government corruption.

More laws. More laws! Go Brain!!!

You must love the corruption,

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

They do but I guess my personal opinion is that you would think that their company and especially their employees would be better off if the multi-millionaire or billionaire founder or owner didn’t allow themselves to get to that level because they gave more money back into the company and it’s employees beyond simple employment.

its up to the individual rich person what they do with their money. If you don't like how a CEO acts boycott his business. The government should never tell any person what they must do with their money.

I would agree that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do with their money. I guess my point was that in my opinion if the wealthiest CEO’s were to reinvest their wealth into their employees and the communities that their employees live it would help create a more stable life for millions of people across the country. Many CEOs are philanthropists, I’m aware of that, but if you are a multi-millionaire or especially a billionaire business owner or CEO I personally think that you have more to share. Money is not the end all be all and so I’m not saying employees need to be millionaires or anything like that but many large companies have employees that are barely making it by while the top executives have generational wealth. I’m not saying to force them to do anything but I am saying that I personally believe that they should close that gap more between them. I know I would if I were in that position.

Most employees who work for larger companies with such CEO's have stock. If you want to earn money according to company profits, you can buy stock in your company.

I would think most regular employees would favor increased consistent income over stocks though. I’d also argue that most regular employees of large companies can’t afford to purchase significant shares of stock in the company they work for. If someone working at Microsoft wanted to buy one share per week they’d spend over $10,000 a year and could lose that money if the economy becomes volatile. Imagine if they just had their salary increase $10,000 though and the top executives took less. You’d probably have a longer lasting and more dedicated employee base that can afford to provide more for their families and possibly their community in my personal opinion.

Being more a part of your company's success makes you a better and more dependable employee though. I like the idea of profit sharing too. Let's face it, a lot of employees will do just the minimum required of them in order to keep their job. Some of these programs encourage employees to do a bit more than the bare necessities, and they can benefit from it. A business is not an endless pit of money, afterall. They have expenses and have limits as well.

I guess my point is that I’d personally rather have an increase in my consistent income than to gamble on my company’s future in hopes of increases which is kind of what stocks are in my opinion.

 

[Brain357]

I’m a free market capitalist, and you are a lying troll.

I've never seen a post from you advocating free market principles.

You are lying again. I have had many conversations with you regarding markets.

Yes, and every. single. time. you're arguing for more state power to interfere in markets.

I’ve argued many times against corporate welfare. That is less state power.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

They do but I guess my personal opinion is that you would think that their company and especially their employees would be better off if the multi-millionaire or billionaire founder or owner didn’t allow themselves to get to that level because they gave more money back into the company and it’s employees beyond simple employment.

its up to the individual rich person what they do with their money. If you don't like how a CEO acts boycott his business. The government should never tell any person what they must do with their money.

I would agree that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do with their money. I guess my point was that in my opinion if the wealthiest CEO’s were to reinvest their wealth into their employees and the communities that their employees live it would help create a more stable life for millions of people across the country. Many CEOs are philanthropists, I’m aware of that, but if you are a multi-millionaire or especially a billionaire business owner or CEO I personally think that you have more to share. Money is not the end all be all and so I’m not saying employees need to be millionaires or anything like that but many large companies have employees that are barely making it by while the top executives have generational wealth. I’m not saying to force them to do anything but I am saying that I personally believe that they should close that gap more between them. I know I would if I were in that position.

Most employees who work for larger companies with such CEO's have stock. If you want to earn money according to company profits, you can buy stock in your company.

I would think most regular employees would favor increased consistent income over stocks though. I’d also argue that most regular employees of large companies can’t afford to purchase significant shares of stock in the company they work for. If someone working at Microsoft wanted to buy one share per week they’d spend over $10,000 a year and could lose that money if the economy becomes volatile. Imagine if they just had their salary increase $10,000 though and the top executives took less. You’d probably have a longer lasting and more dedicated employee base that can afford to provide more for their families and possibly their community in my personal opinion.

CEO's are like any other contract worker. They are paid by their past performances.

You and I are competitors. We each own a widget factory. A very well known successful CEO just left another company, and is available to run one of ours. The CEO wants 7 million a year. You decline and offer 3 million because you'd rather overpay your workers. He leaves and comes to my company. I agree to pay him or her that 7 million a year.

Now my new employee works to take your customers away. He's known to do it, He's got the experience, the political connections, and the business connections. In a few years time, you lost half of your business to me.

That's why you pay your employees what they are worth, and pay the CEO's what they make.

See for me as I read that scenario you laid out I’d rather invest in the lives of my employees and hire a CEO that will serve the employees ethically and with heart than into a person that is going to work to destroy another company for their own company’s gain or for their personal resume. I guess that’s why I don’t work in business though.