71–80 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The article boils down to this: Krämer: "It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires." It's just a philosophical difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the money - elected officials or billionaires.
No, it's a difference in opinion about who should decide what to do with the power , as the quote said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?
It isn't necessary to believe that the private sector is well run and wise for that statement to be relevant. All that is necessary is for the private sector to be better run and wiser than the government. In the US, that isn't hard to fathom, although I could probably accept the premise if we all lived in Germany.
Compare the NSA to Palantir.
Compare NASA to SpaceX.
Compare the Treasury to Enron.
Compare Bell Labs with WorldCom.
Your argument isn't as strong as your Econ 101 textbook made it out to be.
This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?
You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?
I think we can both agree that the term "democratically chosen" contains many positive connotations which simply don't apply to the current US government. If I were a billionaire, I personally would do as much as legally possible to keep my money out of the hands of the government and personally seeing that it is used for the betterment of society. Because frankly, the idea that the current US government is effectively spending this money for our betterment is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it really doesn't. Here is the meat of it: > Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal. Literally, that is all the article has in terms of direct quotes and support. The rest of the article is a d…
"The pair do not have a sterling track record when it comes to effective charity. One of their previous efforts, a high-profile $100 million donation to fix the schools in Newark, N.J., has been widely criticized as a failure." Asking for a quote misses the point. Look into it yourself and the first link is Where Zuckerberg's $100 million gift went wrong http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/23/where-zuckerbergs-100-million...
Krämer: So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow? SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day. Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democrat…
You make it sound like Zuckerberg's donation in Newark happened in a vacuum. It happened in tight collaboration with the school system, who stated needs and approved every step of the process. It's not like Zuckerberg stepped in and said "you shall obey!!!" Course in this case it just turned out that not only could the democratically elected government of Newark magically waste all their tax revenue, they were excell…
There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is good and private foundations imitating the state are bad . There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought. Articles like this are bad .
The question arises: How would the government be able to "give" Zuckerberg's fortune rather than him giving it himself? Through extremely high taxation for the wealthy that would take away the lion's share of his billions so that the government can put it to work more effectively. So what? 90% tax rate on the megarich?
Government isn't known for it's efficiency in spending or giving. I'm left leaning, but we don't need to give the government new ways to not spend money where it's needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise. Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments? edit: Just downvotes, no response?
Billionaires ARE democratically chosen. Think that all the way through. What is more democratic than direct voting with ones dollars? Politicians in the US are actually not all that democratically chosen. The individual vote accounts for almost nothing. Look into how the electoral college system works for example. There are 2 great ways to learn a bit more about this, one in the form of an Adam Ruins Everything episo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I upvoted you, but disagree with your assessment. > wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen In a word: no. Although the state spends some money on things that aren't abhorrent - broken clock politics as it were - it also spends money killing, torturing, and imprisoning people. So I think it's a very defensible moral stand to give the state as little money as possible.
Private companies used to spend money killing, torturing, imprisoning, exploiting, robbing, and oppressing people, until the public stopped them through the means available to them in government. And you're saying this is a bad thing, and the power should mostly rest with private companies? At least with the government, the people staffing the bureaucracies and agencies don't have their (non-existent) bonus tied to h…
> I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable. Or flip that around - is Krämer's implied solution not a case of the state taking the place of the individual? Put another way, if you founded a company, created thousands…
Because the structure that enabled you to amass that amount of wealth is flawed, and disproportionately rewards "you" over the network that actually did much of the heavy lifting. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be richly rewarded, just that it's gotten fucking ridiculous.
This thinking is so poisonous and destructive and pervasive that I'm starting to wonder if it is either due to some natural law of human nature or some grand conspiracy to destroy modern society. Businesses are not built on the charity of the "system". Everyone is compensated in the building of a business, in exactly the amounts they demand to be compensated. The government gets its taxes, the employees get their salaries and benefits, the shareholders get their equity, and the founder(s) get(s) the rest. At that point, everyone is squared. Risk is appropriately rewarded, and risk is an absolute requirement if you want great things to happen.
Krämer: So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow? SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day. Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democrat…
You make it sound like Zuckerberg's donation in Newark happened in a vacuum. It happened in tight collaboration with the school system, who stated needs and approved every step of the process. It's not like Zuckerberg stepped in and said "you shall obey!!!" Course in this case it just turned out that not only could the democratically elected government of Newark magically waste all their tax revenue, they were excell…