• teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    You’re right that the claim that “being a billionaire requires exploitation” is massively oversimplified. But the situation you’ve described is essentially winning the lottery. Yeah, you put the time into think of, and execute on an idea, but everything else, from having the time to work on a possible flop, to it being a hit with 300 million people is ultra luck-based. 1000 people could do the exact same thing, and 1 might hit it big. It’s gambling.

    A more accurate phrasing of the original statement is: the only way to reliably amass billions of dollars in wealth is to exploit a supply/demand gap to the point of unsustainability.

    A small business that operates with integrity, prioritizes the wellbeing of their society over their profits, doesn’t price gouge, and doesn’t discourage healthy competition will never become worth billions. They will always lose to competition that is willing and allowed to forego ethics for profits.

    So 100 people could try your strategy of making a game that goes viral, and none of them are going to do it, most probably won’t even make a profit. But then 100 people could try the strategy of exploitation, and they’re going to reliably turn a profit. We allow a society where exploitation is a good investment.

    Regardless of what people think of Peter Thiel he says out loud exactly what is wrong with late-stage capitalism: competition is for losers.

    • testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Firstly, it’s no more luck based than any other method. There are less than 3000 billionaires in the world. If there was an even pseudo-reliable system to become a billionaire, there would be more than 0.00004% of the population who’ve managed it.

      And selling a popular video game is just as much “exploiting a supply/demand gap” as any other method. You have an effective monopoly on an asset that people want.

      All that to say, I’m pushing back on the “massively oversimplified,” because it’s not, it’s just counterfactual.
      I wouldn’t have minded if the OP had said “the overwhelming majority of billionaires got there by exploiting the working class.” That’s just as “massively oversimplified” as what they did say, but isn’t objectively false.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re not describing a situation where your made a series of investments with a high ROI, you’re describing a “one-hit-wonder” scenario. Ask any successful game developer and they’ll all (sorry, the overwhelming majority will) tell you that making a viral game as you’ve described is hugely luck-based.

        Similarly, all (sorry, the overwhelming majority) of those 3000 billionaires would agree that you don’t amass their amount of wealth via a one-hit-wonder. Yes, it involves the fortune of having the opportunity to exploit others (usually born to already wealthy families), but then also requires a pattern of exploitation (I think they’ll be less willing to admit that one. Maybe Theil would.)

        If you’d like to adjust your hypothetical scenario to not be based off of a one-hit-wonder, and instead model a sustainable pattern of good investments, go for it. But I believe I’ve already addressed that possibility with my “small business” example in the previous post. It simply doesn’t happen.

        Yes, anything that turns a profit is based on a supply/demand gap, the key word I used was “unsustainablely”. I’m not talking about selling a video game for $100 when players want to pay $20, I’m talking about selling the cure for a disease for $10000 when it costs $1 to make. Price gouging. Exploitation.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          So, I just looked at the list of the top ten billionaires. It includes: Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook (one hit wonder) Jeff Bezos: Amazon (one hit wonder) Bill Gates: Microsoft (one hit wonder) Larry Page: Google (one hit wonder)

          There are several other examples in the top ten list that are lesser known but also one hit wonders, but even if there weren’t, that’s 40% right there.

          I suppose you could argue that those companies do more than one thing, especially Google, but the vast majority of the cash flow for each is behind one product or line of products.

          The only differentiator between any of them and Notch is that Notch was a one man team, and therefore wasn’t “exploiting the capital generated by his employees.”

          And let’s be real here. You say that a small business can’t grow to be a multi-billion dollar business? Tell that to literally any of the above. Microsoft started in Gates garage. Facebook was a college project. Almost all businesses start as small mom-and-pop shops. Some do in fact become multi-billion dollar businesses. Just not the vast majority because, again, it’s based on luck.

          And look, you keep circling back to try and paint what I’m saying as “it’s fine for billionaires to price gouge medicine and stomp homeless people to death” or something. That’s not what I’m saying no matter how many times you circle back to it.
          To repeat ad nauseum, the only point I’m making is that it’s in fact possible to become a billionaire without exploiting other people’s labor. Full stop. No other point beside that. If we agree on that point, then we are fully in agreement. That is, again, the only point I’m arguing.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            I just looked at the list of the top ten billionaires. It includes: Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook (one hit wonder) Jeff Bezos: Amazon (one hit wonder) Bill Gates: Microsoft (one hit wonder) Larry Page: Google (one hit wonder)

            Not a single one of these hit billionaire status via a one-hit-wonder. Every single one of them did so via a pattern of exploitation.

            Sure, some of them might have had a one-hit-wonder that resulted in their first few million. But to keep climbing past a billion required steady, consistent, methodical, unethical exploitation and anti-competative practices. These are the poster-children for exploitative billionaires in our society.

            You say that a small business can’t grow to be a multi-billion dollar business? Tell that to literally any of the above.

            I didn’t say that. I said that (the overwhelming majority of) small businesses cannot become a billionaire company without a pattern of exploitation.

            the only point I’m making is that it’s in fact possible to become a billionaire without exploiting other people’s labor…If we agree on that point, then we are fully in agreement.

            Sure, it’s theoretically possible. But that might account for less than 1% of currently living billionaires, if any at all. Do we agree?

            • lemmyreader@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Sure, it’s theoretically possible. But that might account for less than 1% of currently living billionaires, if any at all.

              Tempting to agree on the less than 1%.

              Regarding millionaires, not billionaires, I can only think of one who sold a business and then started a Linux distribution : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth

              • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Heh Canonical is a funny example, considering most Linux users steer clear of it because of it’s arguably exploitative practices in an effort to remain profitable.

                I do think most, if not all billionaires have convinced themselves the ends justify their means. Zuck thinks he’s “connecting the world”. Bezos probably thinks the same thing Sam Walton did. Musk thinks he’s ushering in the next stage of humanity. On some level I’m sympathetic to Ubuntu’s cause; all tech companies harvest your data for profit, why not leverage that technique in order to bootstrap the prevalence of a FOSS platform.

                But the point is, that’s just what has to happen to amass that level of wealth in the society we live in. You can be as noble as you want, you can get lucky and find yourself in a pile of cash, but to steadily climb that ladder to the billion+ territory will require you to exploit or be exploited.

            • testfactor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Absolutely I’m willing to agree to that.
              I am only pushing back on the statement, “it is impossible to amass a billion dollars without exploiting the labor of the working class.”

              I certainly don’t think that’s the majority of billionaires. If your definition of exploiting the labor of the working class includes “having any employees that aren’t part owners of the business,” then of course the number of billionaires who can say that is vanishingly small.

              But they do in fact exist, and I think the majority of people are aware of that. Therefore, making statements like “all billionaires exploited labor” makes the average person think your position is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst.

              • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I think there is a slightly different claim we’re each making, and it’s confused by the term “billion”. I think we both agree that it’s an arbitrary value that was used in the interest of an oversimplified claim above, but I think we can disambiguate the points we’re making if we generalize it.

                Your statement that “it is possible to be an X-aire without exploitation of the working class” is technically correct for the value of X=billion.

                But I think the claim I’m making (and the oversimplified claim that was originally made) is that: for any given point in time, in any given capitalist society, there is a value X beyond which you cannot reliably amass and retain wealth without unethical exploitation.

                The post above set X at a billion, maybe it’s not a billion, maybe it’s 100 billion. 100 years ago maybe it was 100 million, and in 100 years it’ll be 100 trillion. But the point is that there exists a value beyond which ONLY exploitative practices can get you; or in other words, you will never be the richest man in our late-stage capitalist society by winning the lottery or through steady, ethical investments.

                • testfactor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Man, I feel like we reached an agreement and now you’re trying to walk it back. :P

                  And while I don’t necessarily disagree with the point you’re making, it feels like a setup to goal shift. Like, any example that gets brought up to counter the narrative can now just be dismissed as, “oh, but he’s not enough of a billionaire.”

                  And let’s be real, a billion dollars, right now, is almost certainly beyond that arbitrary dollar amount X you speak of. There’s only 3000 of them in the world! The *world! There’s 8 trillion of us. How much more selective do we need to be??

                  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Yeah, I know it sounds like a goal post movement, but I didn’t make the original claim, and in fact thought the original claim was oversimplified, but that there was a truth to it. I think that in order to best illustrate that truth, “billion” had to be removed as it was a red herring.

                    And yeah the first half of it sounds like I’m setting a variable X, where X makes me right, but the fact that such an X exists is the point I’m making. If you agree then we’re on the same page. The alternate claim would be that it’s possible in our late stage capitalist society to be the richest person using purely ethical, non-exploitative means, which I don’t believe is possible. And for a value of X=a billion, I think it’s just very unlikely.