We found out that what they really worshipped all along was money. I’m sure this is self-evident to many, but I was optimistic and naive about it. I saw the good in people that have no good inside them.
One of the chief arguments for low taxes on the 1% is that governments do dumb things with money. Billionaires are more likely to invest it in beneficial research, enterprise, etc.. If left to their own devices and not stripped of their resources, good billionaires will do great things for society. Or so the claim goes.
The problem is, although much potential for good may exist in billionaires, the average billionaire spends next to nothing on philanthropy or research. It's only highly unusual exceptions who do. Next to nothing, even when well invested, accomplishes next to nothing.
If billionaires won't open their purses to support the society that has provided them with opportunity, that's what taxes are for. If billionaires aren't lining up to fund research institutes, that's what tax-funded government research is for.
It sounds like you don’t think allocating capital to new business ventures or supporting the funding of existing businesses counts as supporting society?
Businesses are made up of people, and last I checked all of the things I use on a day to day basis come from companies. Companies seem pretty important.
Why do things like venture funding, which I think a lot of billionaires do engage in directly or indirectly, not count as supporting society?
The market is far from free, big money is near impossible to compete against. In effect, when they pour tens of billions the work that gets done could have been done perhaps with millions.
Take a look at Chinese AI accomplishments and at what point it has been achieved. Granted plagiarism might be reducing some of the costs, but in a free market, things would have been a lot cheaper.
Business ventures use long-term, curiosity driven research and educated workers to produce goods/services as a byproduct of generating profits for their owners.
If the owners are not paying taxes that fund education or long-term research, nor directly funding same, then they're both short-sighted and parasitic.
Just like you are weak, and essentially always incorrect, when you judge others, without substantiation of your statements - as you did above. So, you are no better than the person you replied to above.
And apart from your use of the word "essentially" being essentially redundant, and hence adding nothing of value to your statement, did you know about the word "wrong"? It can easily replace your use of the word "incorrect" (which fancy-pants people tend to use, when simpler equivalent ones exist, probably to impress others), for a saving of a whole four letters - per use! Gee!
A lot (most?) people have good in them for themselves. We've done a pretty good job at making sure the best thing for you also happens to be a pretty good thing for humanity as a whole. For the ultra-wealthy, this is almost never the case.
If I chose to be evil, right now, my life would implode. Now that's not the only thing keeping me from going evil, but it certainly helps. The same is not true for people with the world's biggest safety net and infinite get out of jail free cards.
(Something theologians debate about endlessly and absolutely uselessly. That is all they are good, er, bad, for.)
Yeah, right. Pontificating much? Pathetic.
How do you know he/she is "weak"? No argument provided. And the same for "incorrect".
And who the hell are you to judge them?
Let me apply some of your own judgement "ointment" on you:
>essentially always incorrect.
Your use of the word essentially in that phrase is essentially inessential. :) The meaning is equally well conveyed without that word. IOW, it's fluff, and can be done away with, fluffy kid. (wags wings at you. hi!)
