Why do billionaires need so much money?

lizzypopbottle

I think it's the old idea of money comes to money. When you reach a certain level of wealth your money, through investments, keeps growing by itself (or at least through the efforts of the trolls in Gringott's wizarding bank aka the stock exchange). It becomes unstoppable unless, of course, you give it all away.

Money comes to money because the economic system under which that happens has been manipulated, by those with money, to work that way. There's no compelling reason why this should be accepted as inevitable.

The game Monopoly mentioned upthread is an excellent way of experiencing how it feels to make more money than everyone else. It's self perpetuating. Once you've hotels on Mayfair and Park Lane, nobody can afford to pay the rent so you've won but have nobody to play with.

What do rich people do with their money? They buy football clubs and vast swathes of land and castles in Scotland.

Personally I could not live with myself if I had a huge house, a yacht and a swanky car if I knew some people were living in cardboard boxes.

I’ve a good friend who I met when in the military my son and hers were friends at the time my hubby was a private and hers the brid first time I found out I was shocked but once over that we found it was ppl looking in at us that had issues her now husband is a millionaire I’m definitely not lol and it hasn’t stopped our friendship of over 25yrs but even today ppl still judge us. She actually had a friend who said I was a gold digger and her husband soon put them right. Like I said I don’t care if you rich or poor you can’t take it with you

They need it, otherwise they couldn't call themselves Billionaires!

would it a better world if the rich gave the money someone who would reditribute it, say on wealth over 50k.
am i dreaming? unfortunately yes.

They do not NEED so much money - they just covet it. I can't imagine why.

I would not mind a million quid, so I could help my AC with their mortgages, but aside from that what the heck would I do with it?

You would quickly find out, Lucky. A million doesn’t actually go as far as you might think, once you have it.

They would be able to get rid of a chunk of their mortgagees. That'll do me - not looking for the world.

No one told them they can’t take it with them when they die ?

I'm surprised that people seem to think that a relatively few individuals hogging the world's money and resources and contributing disproportionately to climate change is perfectly OK because the super rich are somehow entitled to their money.

I thought this topic might have been a bit more divisive 😀

When the water companies were privatized, the senior managers and directors had their salaries increased by at least a factor of 10. There was no money left to increase the workers salaries.
Any politician involved in privatization of a business can not take a directorship in that company for a few only a few months after privatization.
I remember reading that an MP involved in negotiations had been offered a directorship of a train company which was awarded a lucrative franchise which turned out to be a poor deal for travelers
I am all for re nationalizing utility companies They should not be owned by foreign investors
Where does morality and public interest become an issue?

^When the water companies were privatized, the senior managers and directors had their salaries increased by at least a factor of 10*

Which is precisely how the wealthy get to suck most of the money out of the economy. They organise their business that way. Who approves these salaries? The shareholders, who are increasing their own wealth by dividends paid out of company profits. They don't worry about the workers who actually earn the money for them...

This is how neoliberalism works, and has thrived since Thatcher embraced the philosophy so enthusiastically.

No one should have more than €10m’: the author of Limitarianism on why the super-rich need to level down radically
Tim Adams interviews Prof Ingrid Robeyns who has spent a decade studying wealth and ethics and says that limits are essential if we want to eradicate poverty and protect social cohesion and the planet

A long read which might interest some people.

www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/how-much-personal-wealth-is-enough-ingrid-robeyns-limitarianism

I have read the link and cannot find the quote given above in it.

It struck me as very wooly and diffuse and while inventing arguments that people who oppose her might make - always arguments that are asy to knock down. She doesn't ddress - at least this not suggested in either of the Guardian articles, what mechanisms are needed to limit incomes, nor does she address many of the real problems that face limiting entrepreneur's wealth.

For example: what should Bill Gates have done when having worked hard (and he did ) to set up microsoft, develop the software and sell it to computer manufacturers, when the value of his company exceeded E10 million?

If he owned the company is that classed as personal wealth? It is not money he can just go out an spend. It is invested in people, premises, and equipment.

How would he know when the company was worth that much?

She also divides billionaires in to sheep and goats, sheep who give money away and goats that do not. if she is opposed to huge personal wealth then surely she is opposed to it good or bad?

I could see a lot of problems with her arguments, but not the nice easy peasy ones she sets up people as making for which she has some easy peasy answers.

Who would decide what should be done with the excess wealth? Could he put it in his own private charitable foundation or should the government take it from him?

I know, MOnica. Ethics and morality are such inconveniently woolly concepts, aren't they?

I think you'll find that Bill Gates acquired such wealth by determinedly working to create a monopoly. My reading tells me that monopolies are serious blocks to the effective working of the free market, stifling competition and individual enterprise...

Which is odd, because I thought that it was free market capitalism that was supposed to be the best economic system for everyone.

I'm not overly bothered about taking away what the super wealthy already have (though some heavier taxation seems like a reasonable idea). I'm more interested in limiting the ability to acquire so much in the first place.

MaizieD, I am sure you are being deliberately charmingly naive. Ethics and morality are not wooly. This lady's arguments for her cause are.

In light of what you say about limiting the ability of people to acquire large fortunes, let me set you the question about Bill Gates again, or perhaps, since you are obsessed by his later domination of operating systems, let us say James Dyson instead, there are lots of different vacuum makes for sale.

^For example: what should Bill Gates Jim Dyson have done when having worked hard (and he did ) to set up microsoft Dyson Ltd, develop the software his ground breaking cleaning technology and sell it to computer manufacturers customers when the value of his company exceeded E10 million?

If he owned the company is that classed as personal wealth? It is not money he can just go out an spend. It is invested in people, premises, and equipment.

Like the researcher you extol, you tend to answer the questions you want to answer rather than the questions that are actually asked.

How would he know when the company was worth that much?

Are you saying that Microsoft has become an entity entirely separate from its founder, MOnica?. With a life all of its own? A sort of Frankenstein's monster?

And that canny businessman, Bill Gates wouldn't know at any stage what his company was worth when he'll be the one deriving the greatest income from it?

I'm not 'extolling' the researcher. I think her proposition is interesting and posted it for others to see.

I'm afraid I don't see anything moral or ethical in a few individuals monopolising global wealth and resources while billions live in poverty and the planet is dying.

Nor do I buy the 'they've worked hard for it' argument and the 'trickle down' argument. Money begets money because the prevailing economic system is set up that way, primarily because it has been constructed by the wealthy to protect their wealth.

Your avoiding the questions again MaizieD. That or you do not understand them and that I do not believe.

I think it is rather unicorns and rainbows to think that if the wealthy had less the poor would have more. It is far more complicated, with a myriad of reasons that some people are in the lower income bracket.

I am totally against compulsory wealth distribution, if they have paid their taxes it is nobody’s business what they do with their money as long as it is legal.

^For example: what should Bill Gates Jim Dyson have done when having worked hard (and he did ) to set up microsoft Dyson Ltd, develop the software his ground breaking cleaning technology and sell it to computer manufacturers customers when the value of his company exceeded E10 million?

This question?

You're ignoring what I said. We can't do much about what has already happened, but we could change the law, we could change tax regimes. We could resist the influence of the wealthy and stop revering them on entirely spurious grounds.

I find it very odd that people fall over themselves to condemn the 'greed' of workers who ask for a better share of the wealth that their work creates while defending the 'right' of the wealthy to extract as much wealth as they possibly can from them, as if they themselves will be the losers by any attempt to curb it.

I am NOT talking about compulsory wealth distribution, GG13. I am talking about limiting the opportunities for people to acquire excessive wealth.

People have wealth because it is made easy for them to extract money from the poor.

Governments issue a state's money. There wouldn't be less money around if the wealthy had less. They don't 'make' the money, the state does. No reason why more of it shouldn't stay further down the food chain in the economy.

Don't worry, I'm not after your money, unless you're a secret billionaire

red1

would it a better world if the rich gave the money someone who would reditribute it, say on wealth over 50k.
am i dreaming? unfortunately yes.

I don’t think you’ve thought that idea through, red1
Are you seriously saying that everyone, business or private once they have £50k sitting in their account should distribute the excess.
Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

MaizieD

I am NOT talking about compulsory wealth distribution, GG13. I am talking about limiting the opportunities for people to acquire excessive wealth.

People have wealth because it is made easy for them to extract money from the poor.

Governments issue a state's money. There wouldn't be less money around if the wealthy had less. They don't 'make' the money, the state does. No reason why more of it shouldn't stay further down the food chain in the economy.

Don't worry, I'm not after your money, unless you're a secret billionaire

Like I said upthread, there are a myriad of reasons why people are on a low income.

I am all for an adequate safety net for those unable to work for whatever reason and for as long as it is needed. It needs to be increased (from the little I know).

The poor cannot spend what they haven’t got, so how are the rich extracting money from the poor. ?

I think it is unworkable to put a limit on what anyone can earn, you would have an army of accountants employed to oversee that companies and individuals stayed below the limit . I am not sure that would benefit the lower paid, only line the pockets of specialised accountancy firms which rather defeats yours and others plan.