I was gonna include a third option about how money is easier to achieve without considering the morality of your actions but that’s not really a philosophy as much as it is an objective fact.
This is a very moral framing, maybe even a Christian-adjacent one, which I don’t think is helpful. Historical materialism, which other commenters are working from, is an amoral framing.
Speaking of morality & philosophy, here’s prof. Hans-Georg Moeller:
Both but I believe to a certain degree a person can have a certain amount without it corrupting them. Beyond that point, everyone is corrupted. There are no truly benevolent billionaires because a person must engage in various questionable practices to keep growing their wealth at such an exponential rate. Basic market economics dictates that a business entity competing for a limited market share must repeatedly find new ways to make more profit by using strategies their competitors aren’t. This includes but is not limited to skirting around regulations and laws, and somebody unquestionably runs those companies.
I also think most people massively underestimate the impact that conditioning puts on a person’s outward demeanor, but that leads into a deeper tangentially related discussion. Regardless, people are complex creatures.
—To put it simply, to become a billionaire or even a typical* megamillionaire a person must invariably step on someone else.
*The only exception I can think of are SOME lottery jackpot winners.
Lotteries are no different than stepping on people. They have to buy into the process, but the amounts allocated from lotteries for education or other grants is outpaced by what is given up in prizes. And many lotteries engage in games and mechanisms to keep people in the feedback loop of pouring money in. It’s a tax on the stupid and the poor.
I can’t say that I agree. If lotteries don’t bring in more money to fund public services than they pay out, then that’s a failing of a political nature. That means it could be a failing of an entire state population if that state represents a democracy, or it could be a failing of a states corrupt political class if that state isn’t a democracy. Regardless, it’s not necessarily a corruption of the winner which I was referring to earlier. Additionally, I’ve heard the “tax on the stupid and the poor” concept multiple times before, and the level of condescension towards the lower class in a discussion about financial ethics has never sat right with me. It also ignores the entertainment aspect of playing the lottery. If we really want to do away with a tax on the poor as well as the foolish, then perhaps it’s more important to end excise (AKA sin) taxes, but that’s also beside the subject.
Nah, it’s all a lottery. If being an asshole was enough there’d be way more rich people.
Nah, being an asshole is just a minimum requirement to becoming megawealthy with regards to anything but the lottery. —I didn’t say that immense luck still wasn’t required. That’s a given and the fact that most megarich people don’t recognize this feeds back into them being assholes.
I really don’t think so. If you went back in time and bought a bunch of Apple stock you too could be a billionaire, no obviously antisocial behavior required.
There are examples of billionaires that were helped along the way by being an asshole, and it might improve your chances slightly, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient.
That’s a given and the fact that most megarich people don’t recognize this feeds back into them being assholes.
Unambiguously agree. They actually prefer being called evil to being called lucky.
Money=power. Power corrupts. Absolute power, absolutely corrupts.
Money doesn’t equal power. They will have correlated retaltionships but correlation doesn’t equal causation. For instances where there is an initial absence of both, the introduction or money is more common to follow the person’s pursuit of power. Most people who weren’t born to generational wealth won’t achieve a wealthy enough accumulation until later in life and it well it may be hard to teach an old dog new tricks, it’s nothing compared to motivating some one who has reached a point of enought financial security to retire.
I would argue that there is a bidirectional casual relationship. Having more money gives you more power because you can directly spend that money to do things. More power means you can better influence people to give you their money.
Lol what are you fuckin 12? Power isn’t your mom telling you to clean your room. Get the fuck outta here with this bidirectional casual relationship shit 🤣 you can’t argue logical reasoning with made up shit🤣
Anything in where there is a motive for competition, will attract questionable people, especially if competition would not benefit the general populace.
Money creates competition by having something to rank others by. How much they earn or own. Whoever creates the source of wealth, has the power to hoard it.
It is thus necessary, that for example landowners should be unable to monetise their land; instead, what they produce, should be a public good for everyone.
