The idea of business is a super complex adaptive system and I think it is a topic that needs to be looked at from both opposing sides (i.e. a compromise should be agreed upon). That being said, I envision a world where corporate business is transparent (has no alternative motives in regards to DAF's) and sustainable interventions can be implemented and the economy can still stay strong. I think the idea of completely removing billionaires is fundamentally flawed as I believe it would have severe implications on our economy and global markets. Billionaires often reinvest their money into new companies and stocks ultimately providing services at more efficient and cheaper rates, but also allowing more job opportunities to arise for the general population. We also need to empathize with these people as most of them have created key innovations that have generational impacts, therefore they do deserve the wealth they have accumulated. Furthermore, my suggestion for intervention is consistency and strict laws on heavily taxing the ultra rich. Even though these billionaires may not like this, I believe they need to come to a realization that this is the best case scenario for dealing with wealth inequality.
I have included an interesting article posted by the University of Michigan that highlights “The Economics of Billionaires” and provides support for my view.
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2020/11/17/the-economics-of-billionaires/
Totally agree. Patagonia suffered an issue where their transparency in business invited criticism because people weren't use to getting such insight into the production process, but if there were mandates to force transparency then such targeting may not occur.
Hey Hunter, I am wondering if your positions on billionaires have changed at all, knowing how many of them associate with dubious figures. How much of this wealth gained is indeed gained through legal means free of exploitation? What is the true price of each billionaire on earth?
Hi Hunter,
I am wondering about your thought that removing billionaires would have severe implications for the economy. Do you think that it is the buying power of billionaires that makes then so important? I ask this because in my opinion, you could remove billionaires so long as the immense wealth they hold is spread strategically throughout the economy in a manner that would still encourage investment in entrepreneurial activities. If you ask me, $999,000,000 should still be enough to invest in idea that create global change, but I would be interested to hear your perspective.
I think you've offered a very comprehensive perspective on this issue Hunter - thank you! I think its important to consider both(or all) sides of a story and you've helped highlight that.
Hey Hunter!
Thank you for your post! It was the only one I saw this week that discussed some of the meaningful contributions of billionaires. Following a class where we mostly talked about the downsides of billionaires, it takes courage to bring up some of the potential benefits. I hope we see more posts like this one in future weeks.
I agree with you that the best intervention would be higher taxes and stricter laws targeting the ultra rich. However, how do you think we could increase the effectiveness of these laws? The recent Panama Papers scandal revealed how the ultra-wealthy used tax havens to hide their riches. Several world leaders, as well as relatives of current and former world leaders, were implicated. How do you think we could enact national laws that prevent a second Panama Papers from happening? Or are more international laws needed?
I want to touch on your idea about empathizing with billionaires. I think everyone is deserving of basic human kindness but empathy is a different story. You empathize with someone to gain insight on how they're feeling about a (typically) bad situation so you can relate to them on a more personal level. Billionaires have effectively removed themselves from having the ability to be empathized with because they are so far removed, socially, from the rest of the population. It's harder to empathize with someone who you can't relate to so a) how are we expected to relate to a billionaire when that kind of personal wealth is practically incomprehensible and b) almost all of us will never reach that kind of richness? When you have more money than you know what to do with and can buy your way in or out of practically anything, which elevates you to a god-like status where very little to no harm could touch you and the people 'below' you become relatively insignificant. Moreover, just being ultra rich doesn't grant you my empathy or my thanks. That'll only happen when they are actively trying to help people below their socioeconomic status and are showing us that they can empathize with us. Plus, I think it's really important to question why a billionaire might reinvest their money (tax breaks, strategically reallocating company funds or shares, donations for company marketing, etc.) because they have more power, access, and influence than anyone to manipulate their actions and those around them.
I agree that our current economic structures would make the removal of billionaires difficult, and like your point on taxing the rich more. I am interested in hearing you expand more on your point about emphasizing with billionaires because they have created key innovations that have generational impacts. What about the fact that many of these key innovations have exacerbated or created significant new problems in the world? ex. some of the examples given of billionaires in the article you shared include men who have gained their wealth through conquest, slavery, oil, and automobiles. Are people who have accumulated wealth through the subjugation and exploitation of people and the environment really that deserving of our empathy and this wealth?
I think there is a difference in earning money for groundbreaking work (which is important) and having multiple billion dollars. That number is so incredibly large that we can't even start to comprehend how big it is. One thousand million. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates would still be able to support quite a few start ups if he had only 20 billion instead of 100. There needs to be a cutoff point in how much money one single person can have. Also, our ecological footprint would be substantially smaller with a few billionaires less, see the link.
Hi Hunter Norminton, I agree, the complete abolishment of billionaires would have unimaginable impacts on our economy and most of them have earned their money. As a result, ensuring that they are taxed fairly based on their income and abolishing loopholes will allow their fortune to decrease over time.