Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

>billionaire owned platforms

Do not refer to them as 'billionaires' since they're oligarchs. I have expunged the word 'billionaire' from my vocabulary.



sort by: page size:

> An oligarch is someone who...

That's how the word is/was used by the Russians, but isn't really how it's used by the western media. Any Russian billionaire is called an oligarch; it's used as a substitute for plutocrat.

Musk, Bezos, the Koch brothers, Soros, and a few other billionaires are plutocrats, ergo, they are oligarchs.


> That suggests people hand out equal hate to all billionaires

I don't think it suggests that, or at least I certainly didn't mean to communicate as such. I was responding narrowly to the parent's remarks (explicitly rationalizing targeting billionaires as a group) and not trying to imply anything broader.


>Billionaires should be banned from speaking on anything other than their areas of expertise.

Perhaps not even at that (since they can have undue influence on that area, just because they have more money, not because their ideas are better).

They should also be banned from owning media companies or contributing to campaigns in any way.


> So both Elon Musk or Trevor Milton are not billionaires? So I am not allowed to say they are billionaires? What wrong with that? It is a fact, not 'some political element'.

You're telling others to stay on point yet your pointing out that Musk and Milton are billionaires is just as much beside the point.


“Because those companies are inherently unhealthy monopolies.”

Yeah, I’m not a billionaire because that much money brings problems. I choose not to be one...but I definitely could be.


> I mean, there are plenty of billionaires who make ridiculous statements from time to time. Donald Trump being one of them, for example.

I think it was established during the election that he isn't a billionaire. He also makes ridiculous statements on a weekly if not hourly basis, so "from time to time" is misleading.


> Stop worshipping billionaires.

This is a vapid over-generalization designed to dismiss any statements by attaching them to the wealth, not the person. Don’t do this.

Nobody is talking about the Waltons, Buffet, Larry Ellison, etc. This is a discussion about Musk specifically and his history of operating companies.


>Name one billionaire that isn't on top.

Donald Trump.


> I can't think of a single billionaire who made their wealth while in politics, or after.

Common in extremely corrupt authoritarian regimes; Putin would be an obvious example. But yeah, less common in democracies; I'm struggling to think of a modern example.


> He's wrong to suggest that the billionaire class and founders

What? How did you get billionaire class and founders? He specifically says founder led companies and family owned businesses. Unless you reduce that group to the Waltons, how does family owned businesses equate to the billionaire class?

"Only founder led companies and family owned businesses can stand up to the immense pressure from the dogmas of modern finance."[1]

1: https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1453753942228160515


>I am not required to fund the billionaire.

Except, of course, when whatever elaborate mousetrap they used to gain their billions becomes a monopoly and also critical infrastructure.


>Billionaires should be banned from speaking on anything other than their areas of expertise.

Why draw the line at billionaires? BTW is your are of expertise to talk about Musk or what should and should not be banned?


> Today I learned that billionaires can be disingenuous lol

In what way does that make them different from non-billionaires?


> Billionaire is thrown about as an insult these days.

There are plenty that believe the very existence of billionaires suggests an obscene imbalance in our system of capital. (I happen to agree.)


> What do you call a billionaire who gives away their billions?

A generous billionaire.

Those that don't are just greedy billionaires.


> I find attacking the people and company that made you a billionaire, and went to an unprecedented extent to shield and accommodate you for years, low-class,

Facebook didn't make him a billionaire. He & co. made a 19 billion dollar business. Anything after that, facebook can take credit for. But everything right up to the contract signing/announcement can't be attributed to them.


> Relying on the goodwill of billionaires is a problem.

Isn't that part of my point? You're expecting billionaires to spend their money on what you think is most important. I'm not.


> What other reason could the billionaires possibly have for owning these companies?

Billionaires own companies. That's what they do.


>Do we need billionaires for our society to function?

Definitely not. They're exploiters, not producers.

next

Legal | privacy