Ask yourself how that billionaire was made first
The way every billionaire is made: ruthlessly exploiting the working class.
Not all of them. i wouldn’t call buying a concert ticket exploitation. Pricing them to astronomical heights, yeah. The only person responsible for parting with their moneys is the Self.
This comes up a lot. While Swift might not be able to control concert ticket prices as a whole, she certainly has the influence to make it better. She’s a literal billionaire with a very devout following.
If anyone could hold a concert at a non-ticketmaster venue, it’s her.
If anyone could pay her staff quintuple the going rate, it’s her.
If anyone could lobby cities that hold her concerts accountable for how they treat homeless people, it’s her.
I love Taylor Swift as much as the next person, but she has blood on her hands just like every billionaire. She may be one of the “good” ones but if anyone could afford to do better, it’s her.
And yet, you pay for her priviledge. Is your arm ever sore for the twisting of it?
And yet, you pay for her priviledge
??? dude who you talking to?
You, concert ticket buyer
Are you like a boomer that can’t understand you’re not talking to the same person with every comment? You know lemmy is the whole forum, not a user you’re replying to right?
Ruthless espolitation of the working class and then portected from said working class by armed guards (ploice) and their apparatchik (judical system) , paid for mostly by the working classes.
Is Dolly Parton a billionaire? She has numerous assistance programs. I figure she wouldn’t be.
People don’t understand just how much money a billion dollars is. Once you are that rich it’s really REALLY hard not to get richer. Just putting your money in basic savings accounts would just keep piling on money. Invest it even conservatively and you’ll grow like crazy. Invest aggressively and you’ll have another billion soon.
Billionaires simply shouldn’t exist.
I’m more charitable than most, I say you get to have up to 100 million, after that you’ve won life. Any extra money money you make goes back into your community.
With 3 million in an account you’re already making over 100k/year out of interest. With 100 million you never have to care about money even if you live in lavish luxury. 1bil is absolutely ridiculous.
Turns out she isn’t. I guess the constant donation of huge amounts of money prevented her from getting there.
Oh jeeze, you mentioned Swift in a meme. I feel sorry for your inbox.
I think it’s kind of stupid that we’re defaulting to the idea that a billion dollars as sort of the default “well, that’s too much money, nobody could ever possibly deserve THAT much money!” metric we’re using. Not particularly because there are really any good billionaires, I mostly think that’s not really the case and agree that any claim to the contrary would probably strain credibility.
About the most you could point to is somebody like taylor swift, or any musical performer, or athlete, someone who specifically gains money based almost exclusively on their command of cultural capital and ability as a performer rather than necessarily on extracting the surplus labor value of others, though to a certain extent, you have to have some sort of corporate backing or management company to reach that level, and even if those performers don’t control it, there’s probably some level of loaded complicity going on there. These types would maybe be just above the sorts of people who just run good or more ethical companies, as far as companies can be, on the billionaire morality totem poll.
No, my criticism isn’t so much that billionaires aren’t necessarily evil, because I think it’s mostly true enough that billionaires are all evil for it to be as true a heuristic as a heuristic can be true. I think my ire draws less from that, and more from how this sort of like, meaningless agreement over this particular example doesn’t really necessarily lend itself towards any more in depth analysis. We’ve put the marker too high, the standard too high. A billion dollars is obviously very extreme, you can see that with the comparisons from a million to a billion. What about a million, though? Is that bad, is that a bad standard of evil, if you have a million dollars, does that make you evil? Where’s the cutoff, here? I’m sure plenty of people know someone with a million bucks, you could probably just point at anyone who owns a home in LA.
My point is that instead of some arbitrary cutoff we should probably just be looking at what’s actually going on here in terms of the relationships at work and the constructed hierarchies. If that’s the case then we can probably draw the line less at a billion dollars and more at anyone propping up this stupid bullshit type hierarchy, and specifically those more critical lynchpins which hold it together. Perhaps, like a “not necessarily a billionaire” healthcare CEO. Now that, that would be a good start.
my ire draws less from that, and more from how this sort of like, meaningless agreement over this particular example doesn’t really necessarily lend itself towards any more in depth analysis. We’ve put the marker too high, the standard too high. A billion dollars is obviously very extreme, you can see that with the comparisons from a million to a billion. What about a million, though? Is that bad, is that a bad standard of evil, if you have a million dollars, does that make you evil? Where’s the cutoff, here?
You got way too focused on the bottom text of the meme while ignoring the top text.
It is very clear - As long as extreme poverty exists then people with extreme excess wealth are not good people.
If the world had no homeless, workers were paid fairly and not exploited, people didn’t die from lack of medical coverage or affordability,
and billionaires didn’t poison our planet in search of record quarterly profits, then we might be able to have super rich people who are also good.So, you no longer need to ponder about an arbitrary dollar amount.
The only good billionaire is one who actively becomes a millionaire by choice.
Here’s the only example I know of:Charles “Chuck” Feeney, who co-founded retailer Duty Free Shoppers, became a billionaire and donated much of his fortune anonymously.
Over his lifetime, Feeney made more than $8 billion in grants in a handful of countries, supporting education, health, equity and more.
Former Billionaire Chuck Feeney, Philanthropist Who Pioneered Giving While Living
You live on a farm and one day a stray dog shows up. It looks like this: starving dog pic
You decide not to feed it because it’s not your dog - it’s not your problem.
But your whole house is completely stocked with food. You throw out large amounts
of table scraps and leftovers daily.How many people would consider that to be evil?
It’s not about the behavior and character of one billionaire over another.
It’s the DOING NOTHING while HOARDING MONEY that is the issue.No one can argue that $50 million isn’t enough to live a fabulous life.
Yet, many want to argue that 1,000 million (1 billion) or more is fine
as long as that person worked hard and didn’t step on people to get it.A billionaire is simply not a good person even if he or she does nothing.
You throw out large amounts of table scraps and leftovers daily.
But of course you make sure to poison them so the dog can’t eat it
You decide not to feed it because it’s not your dog - it’s not your problem. But your whole house is completely stocked with food. You throw out large amounts of table scraps and leftovers daily.
How many people would consider that to be evil?
Internally the person can justify his actions “You feed a stray dog one time, it will nag you forever, maybe call up his buddies because there is free food, and now suddenly you have a pack of stray dogs on your farm that are causing all sorts of trouble”. Such nuances are always present(I will stop with the dog analogy, because your original example and my addendum, dehumanizes people in need to dogs). but such is the harsh reality, that often arises with a direct personal transfer of wealth, people tend to form a dependency on the table scraps and those that provide them(even though they are losing literally nothing) resent it.
The solution you may ask to greedy billionaires and hungry homeless people, SOCIETAL or GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION, think about it, its the failure of whoever the fuck is in charge that a select few of their citizens have exploited the system so well that their wastage is equivalent to the GDP of a small country, and similarly there are many people that only dream of a roof over their heads!!
Billionaire: “So if they don’t exist anymore, I’m good? How many do I have to kill?”
I would go so far as to say: they will never be a good billionaire, unless that means a median income in a poor country
Swifties triggered.
Hi, Swiftie here 🙋♀️
There are no good billionaires. Taylor Swift is not a good person due to her business practices. I have no defense of her and I would never say “she is one of the good ones.” I and most of the Swiftie circles I run in wish that she would practice equitable compensation in her tours (where she gets the vast majority of her profit), among other areas.
Taylor Swift is a capitalist, and that’s bad. There are thousands of artists and laborers being exploited by her every performance. All those laborers, stage hands, designers, arena staff, etc should have a say in how the massive revenue generated is distributed, and they do not get that say. That is bad.
As a majority male space, Lemmy has a tendency to slide a bit toward dunking on women and majority women’s spaces because you may not be aware that many leftist Swifties are just as critical of Swift as other billionaires. This post is a good example of that. (If you feel bad or called out by this, don’t stress it. I just want to gently course correct the conversation a tad 🙂)
Wow, I could never listen to her, but thanks for a Swiftie with a reasonable take on this.
to reiterate: i’m not alone :) my positions mirror a ton of other swifties’ (obviously not all, but you do what you can)—they just have limited representation on lemmy due to gender and vibes
Why keep giving her attention? Why label yourself as a “Swiftie”? Why continue to consume her media? Are there no other artists?
once you’re a part of a cult of personality, it’s hard enough to become self aware of the fact, let alone to break free.
How do you reconcile the understanding of her not being a good person and doing harm to the world with being a Swiftie? That’s a genuine question, I find identifying with the group supporting or admiring the person or idea I myself am opposed to on the ideological level hard to imagine. I can understand it being the case if one is defending the lesser evil, as they are coerced to do so by implied existence of the greater evil, but while I’m not well versed in the Swift lore I believe there isn’t any evil twin running around that she needs to stop. Unless.
That’s not an attack, I believe that being a Swiftie might mean something else than what I understand by this term and I am making a fool out of myself. Still, it does seem to mean supporting what you’re opposed to. How do you resolve that contradiction?
Thanks for your question! It’s a good one.
Short answer: I don’t
Long answer: @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca explains it super well so I won’t rewrite their excellent comment: https://lemmy.cafe/post/10463918/8811775
Parallel example but chronically fandom answer: Swift has also made a lot of really shitty decisions regarding relationships that I strongly dislike, including dating freak weirdo misogynist Matty Healy. 🫤 I don’t think we could ever be friends, or whatever, because of these flaws to her character. I don’t try to reconcile her flaws at all. I just like most of her music a lot and keep myself honest about the rest of it. 🤷♀️
Brava!
I appreciate you posting this, it was actually unexpected to see to me and was nice to know.
i appreciate you leaving the feedback! sometimes i feel like what i say lands on deaf ears so it’s reassuring that my experience can actually get out there :) cheers
Yep, of all the billionaires, there are so many more men to choose from. So. Many.
and how many of them have such a large cult of personality? it must be nice, to be able to use gender as a shield from any sort of criticism.
I feel the reason she is being used as an example isn’t because she’s a female billionaire, but because she is a billionaire who receives adoration. The meme points out that even the “good ones” shouldn’t be billionaires.
You mean like Bruce Springsteen? Michael Jordan? Cristiano Ronaldo?
Yes all very current names lol.
I feel the reason she is being used as an example
Rihanna is right there in the same picture and not a single person is commenting on her.
I don’t think she is being used as an example - I think people hyper-focused on the image of her
and don’t understand “no good billionaires” means not a single one - not Swift, not Rihanna, not Jay-Z,
not Selena Gomez, not George Lucas, etc…I think the difference is that Swift is in right now.
I’m not a swiftie, and I’m male, so take my words as you will in that context.
Simply: IMO, it is possible to appreciate someones artistry while disliking their personal value system and actions.
Just because someone is a good artist, does not and should not imply that they are good.
Both liking someone’s music and disliking their decisions as a person, can both be true. I hate the plethora of false dichotomy arguments that you can’t appreciate music made by a person if that person is considered a bad person. One does not mean the other cannot be true.
based
false dichotomy arguments that you can’t appreciate music made by a person if that person is considered a bad person
For me this is more about making someone more popular and making them profits by listening to their music. And then there’s also a possibility that someone is considered a bad person for their views that are also displayed in their music, then I consider that I might start viewing their opinion as the norm, and also prefer not to listen to them.
All in all, I agree that the dichotomy is false, but I think it has some sense in some cases.
There’s definitely logic behind wanting to boycott their art so that you are not indirectly supporting their decisions by giving them the money to continue to do the things that they’re doing.
Of course, that is also a separate decision from whether you like the art or whether you like the artist.
Anyone trying to tie these things together is generally not someone I would want to associate with.
Oh, yeah, I kinda mixed together liking and supporting in the ‘appreciate’.
I do agree with separating the artist from the art, but I also understand choosing to not support people whose values you disagree with. Because your money will end up being used to support those values.
So yes, I won’t say that I don’t like certain songs/books/paintings/etc. because of the artist, but I can refuse to pay for them or other related merchandise.
That’s fair. You can like something but refuse to support it.
I’m mainly taking issue with anyone who says that if you don’t like the artist, you can’t appreciate the art. I’ve heard it a few times (or some variation of it), and IMO, that’s far too common already.
Thanks for this
If the entire human population was just 100 people stranded on an island in the Pacific, would we allow
1% (which in this case would just be 1 person ) to own 95% of all the resources? Hell No!It’s nice to say no, but across history there have been so so many societies that have allowed exactly that at similar scales.
Empire is devaluing its currency so fast that we’ll all be billionaires soon.
Zimbabwe style
I wouldn’t call her a good billionaire, but I think she’s as benign as billionaires get. At least she does things like pay her employees a good wage and gets people involved in the political process.
And, as far as I know, she isn’t responsible for anyone’s deaths.
I’m sure she still stepped on a lot of necks up the pyramid, but compared to a shit ton of other billionaires out there…
The thing with TS is that she is not supposed to be like other billionaires. Other billionaires, most of them, have a different motivation, this is, to make more money. They are supposed to be entrepreneurs but at that level they are more like gamblers. TS is supposed to be an artist and her motivation is supposed to provoke a reaction in people’s emotions through her craft, which is making songs. Hell, at this point she could be singing and composing for free and giving away money. She could just license her next album to some cause, like fighting against cancer, and just let them use the gainings to fight cancer. That’s why I don’t even give her words my attention, she demonstrated that her motivation seems to become richer and richer, as any other billionaire she has all the attention she wants and more, because in the end she is like any other billionaire, a hoarder forgetting about the importance of other people’s lives.
You are not talking to someone who thinks there is such a thing as a good billionaire.
No, I know. I guess, instead of replying I was using your comment to reflect on the idea of the billionaire-artist.
I don’t disagree.
I’d settle for “less bad”. If Musk is a 10/10, she’s an easy 4/10, with the ranking based entirely on arbitrary numbers and few actual facts.
Billionaires can’t be benign. It’s impossible to make a billion dollars in a lifetime without taking more than you deserve. Someone overpaid for the product or someone was underpaid for the work (probably both). Billionaires prey on that loss, and it’s not as if they are Robin Hood giving back to the poor. If that’s not malignant, I don’t know what is.
“As benign as billionaires get” and “benign” are not the same thing. See also the “I’m sure she still stepped on a lot of necks up the pyramid” part.
Why do you think I said benign and not what I actually said?
I wasn’t arguing with you. I was supporting you. Weird of you to assume the worst?
Weird of you to assume the worst?
Welcome to the internet. First time?
Critical Role may not be billionaires but they are proof you can make a fuck ton of money without being shitty. Yes it’s one example but your language was pretty absolute.
I totally agree, but also the pop star billionaires are the least offensive type. If you’re targeting them before the other billionaires, you got played and are doing it wrong. The richest most politically powerful billionaires are the biggest threat to freedom.
strat is to target all billionaires equally
To me this is the silliest possible counter propaganda. They want to get people fired up about a super popular billionaire that actually works really hard and over pays her people. So then they can paint a picture of radicals who’d have everyone living in the slums no matter what they were able to do with their talents. They won’t even wait to see the real responses. They’ll put their own in, grab the screen cap and deride us all as anarchists.
Idk, when you move from normal wealth to exorbitant wealth AND you’re a international pop star who very clearly has THOUSANDS of workers supporting each show it seems kinda hard to ignore the people who’s work is providing your stage to excess.
They all are a symptom of the same disease, some of them are the disease as well.
See that picture of the homeless man on top? Bill Gates has literally saved hundreds of thousands of men like him through his charitable foundations. It depends on the person not the size of the bank account.
You know what would help them?
A house.
That wouldn’t help, as they wouldn’t have the means to furnish it or maintain it or pay the taxes on it. What they need is medical care for the sizeable portion that have mental illness keeping them down. And all of them need an economic system that doesn’t let hard luck cases get thrown under the bus.
You wouldn’t believe how many of them have jobs and just need a house. It’s the majority actually.
Agreed. Any downvotes you got/get are simple shills of the mindsets “rich people bad” and “Windows bad”, both of which are very prevalent here. Multiple people here (not all) throwing those downvotes around would be doing the same shit if they were billionaires, or worse.
Wish we could all be like Pepe.
^ This right here.
I’m so tired of “leftists” focusing on inoffensive targets in the middle of the spectrum when the real problem is far to the right of it.
Pop stars are just the pretty faces in front of the behemoths that are the music labels. These labels are absolutely very politically powerful. Do you think Taylor Swift for rich by paying her staff fair salaries? The cleaning people from the concert venues, the bartenders, the people taking your tickets, etc, they all earned little crumbs while Swift, the venue, and the label made the big bucks.
No one becomes a billionaire by paying fair wages.
Most of those people work for the venue though, the performer doesn’t control their wages.
Taylor Swift has the power to demand basically anything from the venue.
Expecting a performer to go to lengths like that just isn’t realistic, they’ve got their own job to do.
You can say the same about mega corp CEOs. Poor them, they are so busy with their own job.
Taylor Swift has the power to demand basically anything from the venue.
I know how to fix the economy!
After 1 million, you win at life so you can stop working and get a basic income with food included, housing, etc. You won, you don’t get to play anymore. No w2 forms or banking or anything. If you buy something, the government just makes the funny money to pay for that which then means more jobs for those still playing the games. Big projects and big companies all public owned and only players get to work there and decide. Anyone who reaches the 1 Million mark gets kicked out into permanent retirement. Once you reach this level you get a party and you can invite anyone you want.
One benefit of winning is that you can be completely naked the entire time. Because why not. At your party you can request everyone to be naked too.
You can be married to a winner but you must keep working until you reach the 1million mark.
That’s it!
What if I want to build a rocket or iPhone or supercomputer or cancer therapy and I need more than $1 million for parts and labor?
I understand why Queen B or T Swift aren’t doing it, but the only moral activity (beyond survival tasks) that a “good billionaire” can be engaged in is redistributing their wealth to marginalized workers.
You can figure out your next album / tour or how to benefit your friends and family once you get to 999M USD.
Why do you understand why Swift and Queen B arent doing it?
I don’t know about other people, but I tend to drift toward doing things that are fun, comfortable, and familiar, unless I do some “internal parenting”. Even if they found a way to make redistributing their wealth fun, they are shaped by capitalism even more than myself, so I doubt they’d find it comfortable or familiar.
That’s how I understand it.
I’m going to get comfortable and familiar with community investment of my own resources well before I reach 1B, by intention.
They aren’t doing it? Everyone’s doing it!
Everyones at it.
