Reich or Right | TheaterFire

[-]

kerodon@reddit

Him and people like him who hoard wealth are the reason we have poverty. You dkt make a billion dollars without exploiting every possible resource and person you can along the way.

[-]

SwissNationalist48@reddit

We had poverty long before billionaires existed.

[-]

Zsalmut@reddit

Yeah they were called lords and kings and shit. The point is huge wealth inequality is not healthy for society.

[-]

684beach@reddit

And long as some humans are better than others its bound to happen

[-]

Define better. Psychophats are tend to have more success and higher paying jobs. Are they better than the average joe? If lack of empathy and remorse makes humans better why didn't evolution do its thing?

[-]

684beach@reddit

Better defined to me in this circumstance? The quality of being a good swimmer in rough seas. Those humans which can adapt the most. You cant ask for a definition and then use it in a question like that, it doesn’t make sense. Thats like programming with values that are not set.

[-]

Zsalmut@reddit

The quality of being a good swimmer in rough seas.

Psychopats will screw everyone and do anything for their own interest. So are they better than the average joe who doesn't lack empathy and remorse?

[-]

684beach@reddit

So you think the Norman Bates and Batemans of the world are “adaptable”? What data supports this? Even when the media that portrays them shows an ending with self destruction? I would not call a person with a lack of empathy, or most mental illnesses, adaptable. Willing to show remorse and cruelty is essential to healthy people and populations.

Most “psychopaths” are in fact in jail or on the streets, not yuppies btw.

You seem to have very strong views of the term psychopath, which is not a real term used by any organization. The DSM definitions change all the time.

[-]

Psychast@reddit

ah_harrow@reddit

You're regarded if you don't understand how pricing power parity works. It's not how much the pie cost, it's how much that cost in relation to an hours work

[-]

demon-storm@reddit

We also didn't have extremely efficient food chain supplies and machinery in the distant past. There's no excuse for hunger to exist in today's society.

[-]

Ottoblock@reddit

Start making food and giving it away.

[-]

HexiMaster@reddit

40% of America is obese. And if want to bring third world countries into this, just know that you are a direct consumer of the cobalt that is so inhumanly mine in Congo, you drive the car that runs on oil which is mined by war lords and literal monarchs.

Billionaires aren't product of one man's greed it's the product of society which turns a blind eye as soon as anything takes away from their comfort, otherwise they pretend to act righteously but continue to feed the machine. All for comfort.

[-]

ElectroMagnetsYo@reddit

Adjusted for inflation?

[-]

While-Asleep@reddit

Never wealth inequality to this extent tho

[-]

Fleming1924@reddit

Lol, lmao even.

For Thousands of years people have been slaves, meanwhile the God-kings that rule over them had wealth way beyond what anyone has today. Jeff has a lot of money and owns a very large company, but there's been people in history to literally own nations.

Its not good that we have the wealth inequality that we have, it's certainly got worse in recent history, but this is by no means the worst it has ever been.

[-]

RudkinEUW@reddit

literally own nations

While you're not wrong, and its not the same as literal ownership, people have noted in the past that Jeff's net worth is vaster than the GDP of Luxembourg, Ukraine and many other nations. In 2018 it was cited that if his wealth was a country, that country would be the 56th richest in the world and richer than the 48 poorest countries combined. And that was 6 years ago, with his net worth being $31B higher than it was then.

These are all overly simplistic ways of looking at it, but what I'm trying to say is that its still fairly comparative wealth inequality. By comparison, 712 million people (roughly 10% of the world) lives on less than $2.15 a day.

[-]

Fleming1924@reddit

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth.

GDP isn't a net worth, it's more akin to annual income.

If he's made 31B in 6 years then his "GDP" is 5.1B, 16x lower than Luxembourg. Sure that still makes his annual earnings higher than a lot of nations, but not at the scale you can imply by misrepresenting what that GDP is.

I'm unaware of an easy way of getting net worth data for entire countries, likely because it's probably not really that useful a metric for running a nation. But, luxembourg is 5 trillion dollars in debt, it's likely fair to assume the total worth of the nation is higher than that.

Their 2025 budget expects to spend 30.9 billion euros (33.66B usd) which by your own account is around what took Jeff bezos 6 years to gain as wealth.

I'm not claiming there's no wealth disparities, nor am I claiming it's moral. But let's not pretend it's never been this bad.

For reference, if you compare him to the nation he presently lives in, the US government spending in 2023 was 6.13 trillion dollars, so the gain Jeff made in 6 years would run the 2023 USA for ≈ 2 days. He's absurdly rich from the perspective of an individual, he's not that rich from the perspective of nations.

By comparison, 712 million people (roughly 10% of the world) lives on less than $2.15 a day.

Comparing across nations is also not really in good faith of the discussion, ignoring the fact that not all countries have the same level of wealth disparity, it also ignores the fact that living on $5 a day in some counties gives you a pretty good life and $5 a day in the US is likely less than some homeless people live on, yet you don't have people dreaming of going to the US to become part of the San Francisco homeless population just because it gives them more income on paper.

Again, I agree it's crazy that people have so much money while others suffer, but blowing it out of proportion and misrepresentating what it is doesn't do justice for anyone.

[-]

RudkinEUW@reddit

In regards to the fundamental misunderstanding, I did say its a very broadstrokes, overly simplified comparison which ignores the details. The statement itself is still fairly shocking even once its grounded in fact (which, in fairness, you've done by defining what his GDP would be).

The statement was still 'his net worth vs their GDP' which makes it correct, but relies on the concept that someone can't discern between what net worth IS in comparison to GDP. You're not wrong but I hope we can just agree that even when you compare a Bezos GDP vs other countries' GDPs, that is still quite shocking.

lets not pretend its never been this bad

I couldn't in good faith pretend this is the worst its been, but I think the point here is that its still completely out of whack.

On that last note about comparison between countries, I dont think in this age and level of globalisation location should be a key differentiator. Yes, saying that $5 has varied value depending on location is partially indicative of the problem, rather than an answer for it. Regardless of a dollar's value in a given place, third-world wealth inequality is absurd too. In first world countries, wealth inequality is still absurd.

I dont think we're really in disagreement here, to be fair. Really respect the informed and measured reply without picking at anything on a personal level. Rare to see on reddit.

[-]

Me when the lords and kings use their apparent godlike powers to cause droughts and bad harvests.

Do you hear yourself?

[-]

encrustingXacro@reddit

Billionaires and politicians are basically our modern-day monarchs and rulers, but they don't have the divine right of kings. They have no right to their throne.

Cuckservatives say that "billionaires create wealth for us"- let's see what that entails. They create the pornography that shackles your soul; they create the cigarettes, vape, caffeine, and sweets that they make you dependent on; they make the marijuana, amphetamines, opiates, hallucinogens, and other drugs that turn your brains to mush; they make the vaccines and medications that makes the human species forego the most important component of evolution (natural selection); and they create the vapid materialism that gnaws at the foundations of the eternal truth that is tradition.

The cuckservatives claim to be Christian, yet they fail to see that the wealth the billionaires create is the reason why next to none of us will ever get to see the kingdom of God. Jesus said that "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than it is a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." In today's age, the average middle-classman lives more luxuriously than the kings of Jesus's time; think about what that does to our spiritual life. The billionaires have shackled us--a slave to the worldly passions!

[-]

DireOmicron@reddit

Billionaires and politicians are basically our modern-day monarchs and rulers, but they don’t have the divine right of kings. They have no right to their throne.

Yeah they actually have to provide value to the general population. Bezos is rich cause Amazon is useful and used by many

Cuckservatives say that “billionaires create wealth for us”- let’s see what that entails. They create the pornography that shackles your soul;

And people choose to consume it

they create the cigarettes, vape, caffeine, and sweets that they make you dependent on;

And people choose to consume it

they make the marijuana, amphetamines, opiates, hallucinogens, and other drugs that turn your brains to mush;

And people choose to consume it

they make the vaccines and medications that makes the human species forego the most important component of evolution (natural selection);

Saving lives is bad now?!?

and they create the vapid materialism that gnaws at the foundations of the eternal truth that is tradition.

Or the tradition is outdated and people prefer the convenience of modern day life. For someone making fun of “Cuckservatives” your aspiration towards tradition is like by definition conservative. Pair that with your odd moral high ground about pornography and drugs, and your insane assertion that modern medicine is bad you sound like a loon.

[-]

encrustingXacro@reddit

Yeah they actually have to provide value to the general population. Bezos is rich cause Amazon is useful and used by many.

The only thing provided by Amazon is decadence and materialism.

Also is this implying kings and ”right to their throne” is a good thing??

Yes.

And people choose to consume it

The "people choose it so it's okay" argument I see you libertaritr--ns use fucking boils my buttons. Your actions affect other people. When you give people the freedom to choose, they will always choose the wrong thing; this is why democracy doesn't work.

Saving lives is bad now?!?

Modern society puts so much value on life that we leave our elderly to live the last of their days decrepit and alone. I would rather die with dignity than spend my final years incontinent and unable to move. We also keep those whose congenital/genetic defects would have gotten them killed on life support, and even allow them to reproduce, spreading their defects to future generations.

Or the tradition is outdated and people prefer the convenience of modern day life.

When given the choice, a rat will choose the red dopamine button over even food.

For someone making fun of “Cuckservatives” your aspiration towards tradition is like by definition conservative.

(American) conservatism is modernist and based on enlightenment values. I do not share those values. To quote Evola, "my principles are those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal."

Pair that with your odd moral high ground about pornography and drugs, and your insane assertion that modern medicine is bad you sound like a loon.

rddsknk89@reddit

When I search I find sources mostly from the sunday times from 2024 claiming she has a billion, and some article from 2016.

Non of my hits reference Forbes.

[-]

ItzYaBoyNewt@reddit

Too bad the supply chain exists otherwise you would have had a point there. Workers made the physical books, workers made the movies happen, workers made all the toys and merchandise. She gets royalties from all of that. Or are you implying she made all of those things she profits from with her bare hands by herself?

[-]

gr3gghy@reddit

Are you really implying that whoever employs another human being for whatever job is an exploiter? Cause I don't really see how someone working in the publishing or filmmaking industry could be defined as exploited, but please if you have evidence of that explain it to me

[-]

ItzYaBoyNewt@reddit

You're coming at this from an intentionally obtuse angle. "Oh so you think all labor is exploitation, a thing you very explicitly did not say? Huh?".

Cause I don't really see how someone working in the publishing or filmmaking industry could be defined as exploited,

We literally can't go a week without hearing about how some actor was molested by a director or how animation teams get shafted. They literally had a writers guild strike last year in America where people demanded better pay for their labor. Read the news sometime.

[-]

gr3gghy@reddit

Oh boy you said that, all the workers that made books, films, toys, merchandise. It's exactly what you said. Plus do you think that sexual harassment or the fact that people wants an higher salary means that they are exploited? Sexual harassment is an individual crime, and is committed by an individual towards another individual, it's not included in the contract. The fact that a worker wants a higher salary doesn't mean at all that they are exploited, it just means that they would like to make more money for their job, and being on strike means just that they are using the contractual power they have to gain it. Plus I really don't see how an actor being harassed or a screenwriter not being payed enough has anything to do with Rowling. She makes money by the royaltys because she wrote the HP books and has the IP for it, the contrition of work in Warner Bros or the company licencing that IP is a responsibility of the company's owners, not of Rowling

[-]

ItzYaBoyNewt@reddit

Yeah, because they likely are, that's not what you claimed tho. You assumed I think all labor is exploitation, which I objectively did not say. There's a difference you're too obtuse and unwilling to recognize. Do you know otherwise, that Rowling chose purely fresh organic non problematic worker co ops for companies that printed her books and made her merchandise? Or did she or whoever made these decisions go with the cheapest options?

You are responsible for exploitation happening under your name and brand. Just because you're not personally pulling the trigger on company deals doesn't absolve you.

People being paid less than they deserve and getting treated poorer than they deserve is the definition of exploitation. Don't like that? I don't care, cope.

[-]

saketho@reddit

You are responsible for exploitation happening under your name and brand.

This is the dumbest take ever. The day to day running of the business is the sole responsibility of the executives of that business. Even shareholders have no responsibility unless made aware of company wrongdoings. JK Rowling is the least liable person for this, and every court on planet earth agrees that this is the standard law. But no, all courts around the world are wrong and you are correct.

[-]

ItzYaBoyNewt@reddit

"The rich and powerful say the rich and powerful aren't doing anything wrong."

Well I'm happy that's settled then. I believe people have personal responsibility. If I plaster your face on a shirt and have my slaves make it and sell them, and then give you a cut of this profit, ideally you should not take it.

Realistically many people take it because they can't afford not to, they have bills to pay, but near-billionaires like JK have no such excuse, really.

[-]

saketho@reddit

Like I specified, the board has no liability unless they have knowledge of an executive’s wrongdoings. After that, it is the board’s responsibility to vote the executive out; but courts intervene before that, add jail time for the executive and disbar them from being a director for a number of years. So boards don’t even have to do that because the criminal and civil court proceedings are of a much higher importance and it’s the job of the board to not stand in the way. You clearly don’t get how courts and company law work.

Secondly, your slavery situation is not how business works in the real world. How your situation would be more accurate is, first you make your business look beautiful and nice and socially responsible, then you negotiate a deal with JK Rowling and buy publishing rights to her books. You pay her her millions at this stage.

Then you fire all your employees and keep slaves to run your business. And you just have to pay your minimal “royalties” which are just pennies sent as a quarterly cheque compared to the hundreds of millions you gave her in straight cash when you negotiated the deal. JK Rowling doesn’t wait at her mailbox every quarter to cash her cheque, the millions were paid at the time of settling the deal. Same goes for movie rights, for music publishing; it’s how all industries operate. You don’t understand how business deals work either.

Was JK Rowling deceived into believing this is a slave free business? Yes you can say that. Who is responsible? The executives of the business and nobody else (Limited Liability Company), because they were the sole perpetrators in this.

Furthermore, are any of these businesses committing slavery? We have modern slavery laws that prevent the functioning of sweatshops, etc. which are called “modern slavery.” Any website you go to, if their business makes 7 figures, they must publish an annual modern slavery statement, a legal document that states they are have taken extensive measures to prevent it. Go to any big business’s website right now and you will see this in place, and by law it must be on the front page and easy for anyone to find. We have laws as such, so that even if there are allegations of slavery, and the business tries to cover it up, this legal statement they make can be used against them in a court of law, thereby increasing the severity of the punishment they are served.

[-]

gr3gghy@reddit

Being paid less than they deserve for who, you? Every job is an accord between two parts, if you are not satisfied with the terms someone is offering you go take another job. If you are not skilled and have almost no contractual power there are thing like minimum wage and unions to support you. Been exploited means that you are not paid enough to make a decent living in relation to the amount of hours worked, not an arbitrary sum that you decide. That's been said I have a long day of study an exploited work ahead of me, so goodbye!

[-]

ItzYaBoyNewt@reddit

You know people use the whole "if you don't like it, move" talking point as a parody of a shit point and here you are making it unironically.

The workers in places like the film industry are being paid less than they deserve according to them. We went over this already when I dunked on you about the whole writers guild strikes that you ignored.

[-]

DefiantBalls@reddit

Every job is an accord between two parts, if you are not satisfied with the terms someone is offering you go take another job.

The other guy is not too bright, but this is a very stupid point to make as well. Most people can't afford to be without a job for a long time, and a lot of industries as a whole have standardized and "competitive" salaries so you can't really do much unless you change your job as a whole, which is not exactly an easy thing to do.

People should, at the very least, earn enough money to survive.

[-]

NotLunaris@reddit

Yes that is actually what they believe. Their communist utopia is one where they sit at home doing whatever they want and getting taken care of by big brother government. Any work is exploitative because they see work itself as something they shouldn't have to do.

Also hilarious that they say you're being intentionally obtuse when they are acting as if the "workers" along the way aren't being fairly compensated, even though everyone along the way willingly applied to be employed and entered into labor contracts. They are profiting from Rowlings's (amongst others') works. But that doesn't go along with their headcanon of "woman bad for saying men aren't women".

[-]

ArceusTheLegendary50@reddit

Their communist utopia is one where they sit at home doing whatever they want and getting taken care of by big brother government.

Communism, by definition, is a classless, moneyless, stateless society. There is no daddy government. There is a commune ready to help you meet your basic needs.

"workers" along the way aren't being fairly compensated, even though everyone along the way willingly applied to be employed and entered into labor contracts.

Well, yeah. When the alternative is homelessness and starvation, you don't really have a choice now, do you?

Said workers are profiting from Rowlings's (amongst others') works,

That's an extremely disingenuous phrasing. They're profiting from their labor, which they sell to survive. They would be profiting from her work if they owned part of the Harry Potter IP and received royalties from that.

[-]

Dennis_enzo@reddit

Working a job is not 'profiting off something'. You're working a job, you're earning your money.

Royalties are very much profiting off others.

[-]

NotLunaris@reddit

Ever heard of Henrietta Lacks? An African American woman who died of cervical cancer in 1951, her cancer cells, taken without permission by a doctor at Johns Hopkins, are one of the most important cell lines in medical research. Her family was never compensated.

Arguing against royalties is akin to saying the family should never be compensated, nor do they deserve it, as there were no laws broken regarding the doctor's actions.

Henrietta Lacks and her family did not contribute to the research and the numerous medical advances that were possible because of her cells, but everything that followed would have been delayed or outright impossible without said cells. Do they really deserve absolutely nothing?

[-]

Dennis_enzo@reddit

I mean, cool story but that's clearly a completely different type of 'royalties' (if you can even call them that) than what we're talking about here. And still, I don't believe that the family should be entitler to receive part of the profits of that research in perpertuity.

[-]

pioverpie@reddit

How is it a different type of royalty? It’s getting paid for something you provide

[-]

Dennis_enzo@reddit

Sounds more like pity payments. But all right, cool gotcha, well done.

[-]

komali_2@reddit

Any work is exploitative because they see work itself as something they shouldn't have to do.

Childish mischaracterization. What's got people frustrated is that there's no reason we should all have to work 40 hour weeks while the bossman gets a yacht. That's fucking stupid and you're cucked if you support that.

If someone says they don't want to work at all by all means call them a lazy piece of shit, but commies and anarchists have been accurately arguing that we could probably get away with everyone working at most 20 hour workweeks for centuries if wealth and work was more evenly distributed.

[-]

Kandarino@reddit

Last 2 centuries? Mental to suggest that averaging 20 hour workweeks in 1824 would have lead to good outcomes.

[-]

DefiantBalls@reddit

Actually, I think that people did work less on average before the industrialization. But that was because there really wasn't much work to do in the colder seasons, and summer would always have you doing backbreaking labor in order to secure food.

[-]

komali_2@reddit

Maybe 1.5 is better. Don't look at me man Krotopkin did the math in 1892 and looks pretty legit to me.

Our dependency on hard labor for the majority of our lives is capitalist propaganda bro. Check out "Bullshit Jobs" by David Graeber, half the shit they have us doing is literally pointless and worthless.

[-]

DevianPamplemousse@reddit

Well maybe not all but when you look into how a living wage in fact does not allows you to live decently, then yes it is exploitative in most of the case.

[-]

komali_2@reddit

Are you really implying that whoever employs another human being for whatever job is an exploiter?

Yes, to some degree.

They're not exploited in the same way a chattel slave is who has a gun pointed at their head while they pick cotton, obviously.

We get away with saying "it's not so bad" because of bread and circuses and iphones.

But at the end of the day, without the workers that pulp her paper, nobody knows who the fuck JK rowling is. If there was profit sharing, she wouldn't be a billionaire, but she'd certainly still be a multi millionaire, and the upside is a lot of people who helped her get to where she is would also be wealthy.

Actually, to come back to the chattel slave with a gun to his head, in reality, there probably were people like that involved in the supply chain that made her rich and famous. Foxconn type companies in the PRC or Southeast Asia.

[-]

pioverpie@reddit

But JK Rowling doesn’t own or operate the publishing company, or any of the companies the produce Harry Potter books. She simply has a contract with the publisher where she gets royalties.

If you’re saying that accepting money from those companies makes you morally wrong, then even the workers that receive a salary would be morally wrong

[-]

SnooPredictions3028@reddit

Do you believe that people who create a story should recieve no reward? Are you regarded?

[-]

ItzYaBoyNewt@reddit

Do you want the same response I gave the other bozo about implying I said something I obviously didn't?

[-]

I am hearing voices from very real idiots, sadly enough.

[-]

Idiot616@reddit

And regarding these voices you are hearing:

If you are rich, you are evil

If you work for the rich, you should be rich, and therefore evil

The only predatory thing I could think of is option to buy weapons in Mann Co. store. But that's a strech since you can get those weapons normaly and most default weapons are best anyway. You can't compare this to pulls in Gacha games..

All of these things (except the Mann Co. Store) make the game better. TF2 wouldnt be the same without the hats, taunts, dances etc. It's not just a way to squeeze out as much money as possible from it's player base, like the games you are refering to.

[-]

kerodon@reddit

I don't know a ton about his personal beleifs. He has a lot of simps and I like some of the things I've heard claimed. The one part I strongly dislike is that steam is a platform based on DRM and the fact that you do not own your games or your account, so it can be revoked from your possession at any time.

[-]

10-4Apricot@reddit

Yeah it might not be stealing to food out of the mouths of people but exploitation is exploitation.

[-]

Dark074@reddit

Is being a DRM and only selling licenses really exploitation? Just curious I'm not too familiar with the definition

[-]

10-4Apricot@reddit

Many people buying products off steam think they’re buying a game, they’re not they’re buying access to a game which can be revoked.

Steam knows this but (until recently due to change in laws mandating clarity) let people “buy games” with theses false impression that they own their games.

I’d say knowingly deceiving someone in a deal (even a good deal) is exploitative because they might not have agreed if they fully comprehended the terms.

[-]

Diex3@reddit

TBF, even if game is delisted from steam and it isn't an online game you can keep it and even download again, so it's not as bad most of the time.

[-]

10-4Apricot@reddit

Sure but the practice as a whole is not great and it’s never a good thing for the customer to rely on good graces of the business to honor their end of the deal when it stops making them money.

Look at the CREW or people who bought Anthem… or Concord… or RUSE…

Bunnies will always do what serve them best first, customer be damned.

[-]

teremaster@reddit

or RUSE…

I have this on steam, I downloaded it last week and play it any time I want

[-]

10-4Apricot@reddit

Yeah did you buy it last week? No you didn’t because it’s been delisted for years but you’re still protected by the old EULA that said you own that game.

New steam users can’t even search for that game.

[-]

teremaster@reddit

Old Eula has nothing to do with it. People who have bought a game that's delisted are always able to still download and play it.

I'm not sure what your point even is, you're acting like abandonware isn't a thing. Games got removed from sale before steam came along

[-]

SllortEvac@reddit

While I agree with your point, the games you listed aren’t great examples. They’re all failed live service games.

[-]

10-4Apricot@reddit

RUSE wasn’t a live service game? And the Crew had a single player campaign? Both games are now unavailable, not that those specific examples even matter by the letter of the EULA any one of your games you play of steam can just be yoinked from you by the desecration of steam or the games developer/publisher.

[-]

cell689@reddit

And the Crew had a single player campaign?

That's like saying the call of duty games have a single player campaign.

As for concord, didn't the 10 people that bought that game get their money back?

by the letter of the EULA any one of your games you play of steam can just be yoinked from you by the desecration of steam or the games developer/publisher.

You make it sound like it's a big deal, but it's just there for cases like the ones you've named. Concord and similar failed cases that need to be revoked.

Steam and the devs have very good reason not to randomly take games away from your library, and so they don't.

[-]

10-4Apricot@reddit

You whole comment is a nothing statement.

Yeah some games have single player campaigns and if I pay for them, I should be able to play them. Your comment about call of duty is redundant and stupid.

Yeah, I think a business being able to tell me “oh that thing that you bought we don’t think you should be able to use it anymore because it doesn’t serve us anymore” is bullshit and a big deal and you’re just normalising it.

The only reason they don’t just rip games away Willy billy is because it makes them money but should that change should Ubisoft or EA or Acrivision put pressure on storefronts to change how those deals work so they can rip games away from players once they’ve extracted maximum value from you.

Let’s not forget the pay to reload bullshit or pay to join a match. These companies are greedy and will nickel and dime you every chance they get.

[-]

cell689@reddit

Yeah some games have single player campaigns and if I pay for them, I should be able to play them. Your comment about call of duty is redundant and stupid.

I would just like to point out that just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's stupid or doesn't make sense. The other person said that the crew is a live action fail, to which you replied that it has a single player campaign. My point is that that's less relative than you made it out to be because it's a small campaign and it's not what people bought the game for. That means that the comment about the live action fail is still entirely valid.

I think it's important for you to understand that you're not as smart as you think and that other people might sometimes say something beyond the scope of your understanding, and that that's no reason to call it stupid. If you can't grasp that concept, I don't think there's a point in further speaking with you.

[-]

10-4Apricot@reddit

The size of a game (or its campaign for that matter) is redundant to wether or not it hold value to a player who bought it, I don’t care if you payed 50 bucks or 50 yen.

grandpa, it's fine if you have no idea about games on the market or about consumer tendencies, but don't come to me expecting a lesson in video games.

Also, you‘re the one that said it was a stupid question. Aren’t you the one saying something is stupid first?

Yes, that's exactly how that works. I know you're not the brightest, but which part here confused you? You said something stupid, I told you that it was stupid. You asked me what part of my comment was smart, I told you that it doesn't need to be smart to not be stupid. I cannot dumb it down any further than this.

[-]

BloodDancer@reddit

Really good job responding to my point about your somehow omniscience about the reasons others buy games! When you have to resort to name calling, your point probably sucks. You are aware in the most recent COD the completion rate of the campaign is 49.6%, and the completion of the first multiplayer trophy (rank 10) is 52.8%. So actually, you did make a stupid point. They’re played about equally. Also, the inverse of stupid is smart; I don’t know how you think words work, but if something is dry, it’s not wet. If something’s stupid, it’s not smart. Do you understand how basic words work?

[-]

RicoDC@reddit

I think the argument that he's making is the fact that they have the power to take it away from you and there's really nothing you can do about it. Sure, the examples are mid af games but the fact still stands that you don't necessarily "own" the game. The platforms basically just rent it to you indefinitely until they decide you can't have it anymore.

[-]

VengineerGER@reddit

Spec ops the line and Telltale’s entire roster of games are examples of single player games that are no longer available to buy but you can still download and play them if you own them. I can’t think of a single instance of Steam themselves removing a game from people’s library that wasn’t a scam like that one overhyped zombie game from last year and there they offered refunds for everyone who bought the game.

[-]

PM_ME_YOUR_STOMACHS@reddit

CREW is Ubisoft.

Anthem is EA.

Both of which have their own launchers. Steam would have been sued up the wazoo if it kept the games on its platform.

[-]

dankredmenace@reddit

I agree but to be fair to steam I can still download and play RUSE

[-]

ICBPeng1@reddit

Counter point, games like transformers: fall of cybertron have been removed from the steam store, but there if you own the game you cha still download and play the game.

It’s not that you don’t own the game, it’s just that unfortunately a lot of triple A games are moving towards an “always online” model, that way when the sequel comes out they can pull the plug and force everyone to pay for the next version

[-]

Soviet_Broski@reddit

Hypothetically, if steam went out of business and shut down their servers or started baning people for some reason, we would permanently lose access to all of those games we paid full market price for. Even the ones we had already downloaded would stop working due to the drm protection.

In those hypotheticals, steam COULD just release their drm protections so their customers could keep the games without steam being involved, but nothing in their tos obligates them to do that, so why would they?

In a less hypothetical example, you can't pass on your library when you die because it's not yours.

I feel like that's your friends issue, because buying licenses is always how it was, even at the very dawn of digital game markets! It was (and still is) the practice on places like the Xbox 360 etc

And the same kind of goes for CD's, you are given a licence to use that disc to play that game, if they have the ID of that CD, and the ability to update the device that plays that CD, they can revoke your licence to play that game (see what happened with the AACS encryption key controversy, this kinda happens to a load of movie dvds)

[-]

spaceguydudeman@reddit

Steam knows this but (until recently due to change in laws mandating clarity) let people “buy games” with theses false impression that they own their games.

Oh fuck off, it's not like they were ever being dodgy about it. It was clear that you buy games on your steam account from the getgo. You download the games from steam. If you thought you were buying a physical coly on a digital store, you are to blame, lol

The addendum they had to make is getting people riled up for absolutely no reason as literally nothing changed.

[-]

whousesgmail@reddit

This has to be the weakest, loosest version of exploitation I’ve ever seen lol

[-]

Boomah422@reddit

Is being a DRM and only selling licenses really exploitation? Just curious I'm not too familiar with the definition

People are upset that they agreed to the terms and conditions when buying from steam. Steam hasn't said they are explicitly deleting or pulling games at a certain time as Ubisoft did.

I dont want to seem like a shill, but i dont blame valve for selling licenses instead of games, since idk how they could sell a digital product in a permanent fashion. This may be ignorant of me though, since i think GOG actually just straight up sells you a "copy" of a game.

The problem is that 1) the knowledge on how to do it is kept secret by the few, very mentally ill people that have already done it and 2) it doesn't make money.

Bypassing anti-cheats like Vanguard or BattleEye is also hard, like top 0,1% hard, however there are ample ressources online to give you a lead. Also, you can sell cheat software if you use grey areas in jurisdictions.

Cracking Denuvo is entirely doable for the top 0,1% of programmers, however you'd have to do it from scratch and there's no payout unless you have ties with a government since it's full on piracy and therefore completely illegal.

[-]

Wayss37@reddit

2.1 "We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'license') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations"

3.3 "Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else" Do you really own something if you can't trade it?

8.2 "Trading Virtual Goods is prohibited (unless you are specifically permitted to do so). Your right to use any Virtual Goods is limited to a limited, nonexclusive, non-assignable, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, revocable license to use them solely for your personal entertainment and non-commercial use in the applicable GOG content. You have no property interest or right or title in any Virtual Goods, which remains the appropriate publisher’s property. Virtual Goods may be changed, amended or reversed if necessary, including to enforce this Agreement. If necessary, limits may be placed on the use of Virtual Goods (including transaction limits and balance amounts)."

11.1 "Regarding GOG services (which includes GOG software), unless you have prior GOG permission please don’t modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of them – unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country" Right, so you "own" something yet have to contact them for permission to do anything with it, like imagine if you had to contact Xiaomi if you wanted to repair your phone.

[-]

hails8n@reddit

Get massive hard drive. Install your entire steam library to PC. Unhook PC from internet. From my cold dead hands.

[-]

PaulieXP@reddit

Or just buy from GOG whenever possible

[-]

chainer3000@reddit

Especially for older games. They actually make sure their games are patched up and playable

[-]

ReikaTheGlaceon@reddit

Won't work forever, steam games will occasionally force you to launch games with an internet connection to verify ownership, and steam has officially stated that when you buy a game, all you're doing is purchasing a license to download and play the game, all stored digitally, and because of that, theoretically, steam could revoke access to a game, they're only going to do it if the payment was fraudulent in some way, like a stolen credit card.

TL/DR: Steam sells you licenses to play the games they host and won't revoke any license unless you bought the game with something like a stolen card.

[-]

Scorkami@reddit

I mean its not really possible to make a gamestore that lets you own your games. If Activision sells overwatch, no matter how i got it I'm just having a license. There is literally no way around it.

Steam is actually quite user friendly in those situations. It isnt a guarantee that a gamestore lets you play a game that you never installed that is delisted, yet i can play deadpool no problem. They also work on allowing you to share games among family

Complaining that i dont own my games on steam is like complaining at my local tech store that everything here needs electricity and they chose to sell me stuff that i have to charge someway

[-]

kerodon@reddit

Do people just not remember a time where purchasing something meant you owned it and assume that system never existed 😅? Or that you had a right to repair your own products you purchased. Having a digital distribution platform does not inherently mean you couldn't possibly retain ownership of a product with indefinite access. They are files that can be downloaded. For sure it's great that steam lets you access delisted products currently. All of these things are wonderful but the fact that they need to be praised rather than being the standard is already deplorable and that's the issue im primarily trying to point out is how abuse is a standard and not an exception.

[-]

Scorkami@reddit

no the problem is that you havent been owning your games since the halo times. you never owned those games in the first place. now steam tells people "by the way you dont own this" and people think "steam why would you do this to us" when they literally CANT FIX THIS. THIS IS A PUBLISHER AND DEVELOPER ISSUE.

right to repair is fine and all. and im all for preserving digital media. if the game can be played without a second person, then it should be playable offline or be programmed with an offline mode later on in mind. this shit happened for wayfinder. they literally said "fuck it its offline now and you can host parties on your own" so the game survives no matter what, and its disgusting that some games demand a connection, but for fucks sake people actually think steam has any control over this? or that this (which they dont control) is the reason why their platform is immoral?

literally shooting the messenger.

[-]

kerodon@reddit

I'm not calling you out specifically and that comment wasn't intended to be hostile. I'm sorry if it was received that way.

[-]

kerodon@reddit

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but it's because we've enabled them to do so for so long and consumers will not protest the practice. Now it's "standard" so companies and consumers are just going to keep pushing it as acceptable.

[-]

Additional-Flow7665@reddit

That's more of the publishers fault than steams tho

[-]

kerodon@reddit

Yea sort lf. They enable it though. GoG is a platform that doesn't have DRM. It's a choice.

[-]

Additional-Flow7665@reddit

GoG also lacks a lot of games because of that.

They also are a hub for piracy, which I'm not complaining about but investors and the devs whose games you are hosting very much might.

There's a reason GoG isn't as big as steam

[-]

NotAnNpc69@reddit

Pretty simple solution.

Become a fucking pirate

[-]

kerodon@reddit

It can work a lot of the time, but not for everything, and it relies on the goodwill of people doing the labor of making cracks for free (or being batshit insane like empress). Denuvo also makes it so you're waiting 1+ year for a crack to be felevoped sometimes.

And of course: if you're able to, always support the creators of gaves you loved!

[-]

Ajatshatru_II@reddit

Steam is just a little better than any other slop launcher.

I recently learned that Steam (not Valve, just Steam), makes several times more than Citadel Securities, a hedge fund that set the best single year returns of any institutional investor in the entire history of the stock market back in 2022.

Crazy shit.

[-]

cleverDonkey123@reddit

Lots of money made with gambling. Steam and Valve games are great as far as I can see but the economy of gambling is not ethical (chest opening and so on).

[-]

Rucs3@reddit

Is he a billionarie?

Honest question. Because someone can stupid rich and still not a billionarie.

[-]

Mavrickindigo@reddit

He ain't a billionaire

[-]

Cool_soy_uncle@reddit

The guy takes a 30% cut from every purchase on his steam store, that's explotive as fuck.

[-]

Aware_Psychology@reddit

No it's not, it's their cut for services they provide. And that service is obviously valuable. If it wasn't worth the cost people and developers/publishers would chose the alternatives like Epic Store where the cut is smaller.

[-]

rancidfart86@reddit

Steam should just exist for free

[-]

Foxehh4@reddit

Counter point: Gabe Newell

How many people put in significantly more work to help him and don't have 1/1000th of his wealth?

[-]

Aware_Psychology@reddit

This is a nonsensical argument.

Just because you work more doesn't mean your work is (more) valuable.

If I were to dig foudations for a building with a shovel, I would work WAYYYYY harder then a guy that would dig them by an excavator. Does that make my foudations more valuable? Of course not.

I find it so crazy that everyone's now decided DRM in PC games is a good thing.

LordPeebis@reddit

Is this the asshole that wouldn’t make half life 3?

[-]

cupnoodledoodle@reddit

Well you don't own the games..

[-]

OldJames47@reddit

30% of each purchase you make on Steam is kept by Valve. This is based on the retail model where stores have to build physical buildings for you to go to. Pay employees to stock shelves and interact with you. Build distribution centers to warehouse incoming goods and pay people to ship them to stores.

Gabe and Valve don’t incur any of that costs, yet charge that same commission. It makes Valve incredibly profitable. It makes your games cost more. It makes small game development less profitable and big publishers chase blockbusters like COD:MW:GR:BO 7.

Also, it means Valve doesn’t have to do much of anything to rake in money. Such as developing Half Life 3.

[-]

komali_2@reddit

CCCPenguin@reddit

Ok, but if it wasn’t for Steam sales there is no way I would bother buying most of these games (many of which I already own physical copies for various consoles), so the publishers would be getting zero dollars. I understand that Steam could take a smaller cut, but they aren’t exploiting me, I’m choosing to use their service.

[-]

komali_2@reddit

No, that's the exception that proves the rule. Gaben runs his company like a little anarchist syndicate, and makes his employees very rich, but he's still a billionaire because at the end of the day he profits off of their labor. He owns the means of their production.

It just goes to show that even if you're as good as is physically possible to be under capitalism - flat hierarchy, massive profit sharing, keep the company under private ownership, invest heavily in R&D... you STILL are profiting off of other people's labor and exploiting them.

But people get away with it because dumbasses will compare you to an 18th century Romanian peasant getting terrorized by aristocratic vampires and be like "well well well aren't you a whiny whinerton, with your iphone and your not-getting-eaten-by-vampires lifestyle." What we really should be comparing to is the absurd power wielded by even the "nice" billionaires like Gaben, a man who has a private fleet of 3 massive superyachts, one of which is an entire ass hospital ship dedicated to keeping him alive if he gets Covid.

That's madness, that's unnecessary, and nobody should be allowed to wield that level of power and wealth if there's kids in the same country that can't eat.

[-]

ComicBookFanatic97@reddit

I don’t think most people want to work at all. They work because they want to eat and keep a roof over their heads. This is nothing new. What’s your point?

[-]

Joaonetinhou@reddit

The point is that people need to be paid shit in order for billionaires to exist and that nobody should be paid shit, because being paid shit means having a difficult life. Not the ones already in the end of the chain nor the ones who will take their place should be underpaid.

Wrong. In a zero sum game, what’s good for you is bad for someone else. That’s not how a transaction works in a free market.

Just as an example, imagine a guy selling hot dogs out of a cart for $3 each. Now imagine that you want one. You want the hot dog more than you want the $3 and the vendor wants your $3 more than he wants the hot dog, so you trade. Both of you got what you wanted, so both of you are better off. That’s not zero sum.

That’s how companies like Amazon get so big and successful. They give a lot of people what they want for prices those people find acceptable. That’s not something to be mad about. That’s a net positive for all of us.

[-]

scorpionballs@reddit

Not totally true though is it? Surely there’s an argument to say that Amazon have aggressively pushed a generation of independent shop owners out of business and potentially into low paying distribution centres instead.

[-]

inm808@reddit

And as a result citizens save time and money, getting stuff cheaper on Amazon and having it delivered faster.

[-]

Res_Novae17@reddit

Yes, it is a very complicated argument. Redditors suck at appreciating complexities and weighing the benefits and costs of things. The reality is that you have to look at a company like Amazon holistically. They have forced what would have been many small business owners into lower paying jobs, and this is bad. They have also dramatically increased the convenience of shopping for billions of people around the world who no longer have to drive to several different stores to get stuff, which incidentally also reduces global carbon emissions, and this is good.

[-]

InquisitorMeow@reddit

I think there's quite a few steps missing between start a company and it being worth billions of dollars.

[-]

Joaonetinhou@reddit

Maybe they should try fixing this broken ass system.

And not by making donations that barely graze their net worth. By making politics. By supporting universal healthcare. By supporting empty land redistribution.

[-]

YupSuprise@reddit

Their ownership of the company should have been diluted by rewarding shares to the employees that built the company up in the first place. The issue herein is that we give the majority of rewards to the founder and never to the thousands of employees that also significantly contributed to the company.

[-]

Daysleeper1234@reddit

Will employees take loses if company fails?

[-]

Le3mine@reddit

Will the owner?

[-]

LevSmash@reddit

lekkek11@reddit

I feel there's a lot of steps between starting a company and becoming a billionaire.

Besides our economic system is very inherently competitive. Which means if you don't cut costs and invest more into your company someone else will, and what that often includes is being exploitative of your employees.

A fairly big percentage of operating costs of even companies with a few employees is the salaries. If the field is oversaturated with workers (or you don't need specialized workers) you can generally pay them pennies as there's always someone desperate enough to work.

So companies are naturally very prone to getting very exploitative.

kerodon@reddit

I talk about capitalism like the system of abuse and exploitation that it fundamentally is.

[-]

Deathbyseagulls2012@reddit

I can’t believe I cruelly exploited people by getting a degree and a job instead of sitting on my ass 😢

[-]

CursedKumquat@reddit

Le capitalism is bad. Please update your Reddit talking points. Capitalism isn’t inherently more exploitative than anything any socialist regime would implement, in fact it’s much less so.

Socialists won’t admit that nationalization of industries is more monopolistic than anything Jeff Bezos could ever dream of because everything would be owned by one single entity: the state. And it has its own army to force its will onto the populous. You just have to hope the regime is a friendly one that is willing to give citizens/workers any rights because if it isn’t you end up with a system like the Soviet Union where the only employer is the state and is extremely repressive, and there are no alternatives because private enterprise is outlawed.

[-]

Brilliant-Mountain57@reddit

You're very clearly confusing socialism with communism. In most interpretations of socialism I've been exposed to, the state does not own businesses. The people working at those businesses do.

[-]

Sanguinor-Exemplar@reddit

Don't forget the part where it's a classless society. Except for those people who are party members and control everything and all bought in 100% who definitely do not have any desire to own more than anyone else.

And then don't forget the dozen ultra elite in the selfless-happiness-of-the people-bureau-commitee that are not just kings in all but name.

I swear you name your party socialist and say it's for the people and people will goose-step with a smile and their arms raised. Marketing is the only thing that matters in the world

[-]

BSY_Reborn@reddit

Socialism’s a classless society, where all workers are equal. Except some workers are more equal than others.

[-]

komstock@reddit

As opposed to every other system that has been tried amongst humans? I mean, dude, 'Tombstone' by Yang Xisheng is a ~1000 page tome which is a testament to what our alternative is in practice. I recommend owning a copy but it is a tough read.

The answer to the bad things that you're seeing has to do with power consolidation, monopoly, and artificial interference in markets.

The moral decay of greed and consumerism has to do more with cultural change. It is not fiscal policy that enables people to have choices.

I can understand why you see these people with incredible wealth and look at them with (to be light) contempt. But redistribution, collectivism, centralization, and bureaucracy are the tools that those very people--or others who will take their place--use to subjugate the many.

If the rich and powerful are at each other's throats, they don't have time to put the boot on ours.

It's similar to why I love superyachts. Those stupid boats are like sacrificial anodes for people who would otherwise be horrible megalomaniacs channeling that energy onto us. Some horrible oil billionaire is out there arguing with some ship architect about what kind of candleabra they want on the bridge rather than arguing about how they want to fund some kind of subversion of a sovereign nation or some other insidious behavior.

[-]

XDDDSOFUNNEH@reddit

Amen. We don't need a remake of what we already have, just a retuning.

[-]

justpassingby3@reddit

Still better than communism, which is made to be abused.

gotbannedforsayingNi@reddit

no ethical way to become a billionaire distributing crack amongst black neighborhoods?

[-]

Zeljeza@reddit

depends on what you consider explotation. His working conditions are abhorant and I don’t know how much sway he has in governmental decision making but any tinkering with the democratic decision making should be harsly punished. However if one becomes a billioner by being a good buisnessman there’s nothing wrong with that. A person can creates wealth for himself

[-]

TurnYourHeadNCough@reddit

is this satire?

[-]

Better-Citron2281@reddit

Uh no.

Even in places qithout billionares there is still poverty. If anything there is more poverty.

Before the idea of capitalism and billionares there was still poverty.

We have poveert for a very simple reason, some people dont strive to better themselves, and some of the people that do strive for it, fail.

It's as simple as that.

[-]

kerodon@reddit

Yea before we had serfs and lords which was functionally the same system. A working class and a ruling class. Putting a different name on it changes nothing.

And it's pretty terrible to view poverty as an individual failing that you have complete agency over. It is a systemic issue. Poverty doesn't need to exist inherently and there silently of people who put in effort but can't dig themselves out of poverty.

There is a difference between everyone being wealthy with disposable income and everyone having their basic human needs met. Maybe your definition of poverty is the issue.

[-]

Better-Citron2281@reddit

Literally no system ever, since the dawn of man has had no poverty, the literal closest we have ever come, is the U.S. for the past few decades, Even the poorest people in the U.S. live better than a sizeable chunk of the rest of the world.

"We have plenty of evidence that fhese systems help people and lead to better outcomes"

We do? California is the premier state for programs to help the homeless, it's also the state with the most homelessness.

It's almost like if you develop a system, where people can reliably live off of it, whilst contributing absolutely nothing to society, people will flock to take advantage of it.

[-]

CucumberHojo@reddit

This is so braindead stupid it could only exist on reddit, yet, even still, it is shocking.

I mean is that completely true? What about people who have earned their wealth in a single generation through their own talents? Like her politics aside, did JK Rowling act unethically to earn the $1B that she’s made off of writing the Harry Potter franchise?

[-]

Iwubinvesting@reddit

You realize the government makes over 4 trillions of dollars through taxes? They spend around 6 trillion occurring debt and through money printing. The reason you have poverty is because

Poor people are dumb at financial education.
Poor people don't get the proper education opportunity.
Broken families.
Drugs and mental illness.
Stupid life choices. Going into art or feminist studies instead of money generating jobs.

It's not that hard to NOT be in poverty, most people in poverty aren't the most well adjusted people. And taxing 100% of Bezos will give you 3% of what the government spend yearly... Only once and will remove all investments out of the country.

Wealth tax has shown never to work and actually drives investments and wealth away from a country.

Money invested in the stock market is circulating in the economy. It funds businesses.

Nice strawman bucko

I’m just saying that people have the right to pwn property if it is properly taxed, no matter how much

[-]

Better-Citron2281@reddit

"No you don't get it, man having lots of money is bad, because i deserve the money. Why? Because i do, don't question it!"

[-]

Accommodate-pear3694@reddit

Liquid asserts are the money in hand. Assest like stock and bonds still circulate in the economy, investments made in a company pays the employees and company expenses that you can't just pull out. Ex- bezos invests 1b in a company, now he still is worth 1b but he can't just pull it out from there, or he purchases stock worth 1b and then its value increases to 1.5b, he is worth 1.5b but that doesn't mean he can just pull out 1.5b out of pockets.

[-]

SorosBuxlaundromat@reddit

If we have the political will to do a wealth cap, we can figure out some facility that allows for his wealth to be redistributed without hurting the productive sectors of Amazon.

No, I don't want him spending it on fixing world hunger, I want it circulating in the economy, so we can use it collectively and democratically to decide where we spend it. I don't want any 1 man having that kind of power.

He did a very good job getting rich, he can keep 2 mansions and a yacht.

[-]

Scorcher241@reddit

Your right i have a proposal of how we can implement this

[-]

SorosBuxlaundromat@reddit

I genuinely don't know how to respond to this.

But yeah IASIP is a good show

[-]

Scorcher241@reddit

Respond by watching sunny and having a good time and overall chillaxing

[-]

Except that in the case of Bezos that illiquid assets is stock in his company Amazon that is a major employer in the US employing tens of thousands never mind international employees, a major vendor that moves products that are not only theirs but also third party small businesses that they allow to sell on their platform, and a major tax revenue producer thanks to income tax from all their employees, states taxes, property taxes for their many many warehouses, etc. If you liquidated all bezos stock and put the money into idk what you'd collapse Amazon at the same time.

[-]

SorosBuxlaundromat@reddit

You're right, I completely forgot that if Bezos is forced to sell his shares he won't be incentivized to personally code the AWS infrastructure or load the boxes in his factory anymore.

[-]

Dr_Valen@reddit

Sorry my bad for assuming your more intelligent than average college age socialists.

Think of the stocks he owns like Amazons bank account.

He can't touch that money because Amazon needs it to run.

If Bezos takes all the money Amazon has no money.

Amazon having no money means Amazon can't work.

Amazon no work Amazon no pay employees they all go hungry. Amazon no work Amazon no pay for their warehouses, ships, planes, etc so all the taxes they generate go bye bye. Amazon no work everyone who has Amazon sell their stuff online no have online store no more so they go bye bye too.

So bezos can't take all the money in the bank account because that would be bad would hurt economy.

If that explanation doesn't work for you I suggest buying an economy for dummies or stock for dummies book. Have a good night kiddo.

[-]

SorosBuxlaundromat@reddit

Do you think that when you sell a stock the company gives you the money for the sale?

I'm not suggesting that Bezos be forced to drop 200B in Amazon stock on the open market (although barring some equity backed loans, tanking the stock price wouldn't affect the actual productive part of the business which actually employees people and produces things.)

If the political will existed to bring a multi billionaire down to earth, the facility by which their assets would be redistributed could be figured out.

Just because you're trying to explain something in a patronizing way doesn't make your analogy any less shit. Amazon does not use Bezo's stocks to run, that's an absolutely asinine way to describe what equity in a public company is.

[-]

SpookyHonky@reddit

when it lands in a billionaire's bank account it's essentially just sitting in a blood clot.

Jesus fucking Christ the financial illiteracy is insane on reddit. Holy fuck. People are beyond stupid.

[-]

Isphus@reddit

hen it lands in a billionaire's bank account it's essentially just sitting

Quite the opposite actually. Poor people have money. Rich people have assets.

Put 1000 bucks in a rich man's hands and he'll have it invested by the end of the day. Put it in a poor person's hands and they'll hide it in the mattress. There's a reason 20% of the world's printed US dollars are in Argentina.

Poor people with their limited access and knowledge of investments and applications are the ones that leave money idling by for a rainy day. The rich always invest.

This is also why inflation hits almost exclusively the poor. If i have 1% of a company that makes 100 cars a year, my income from that is 1 car a year. Doesn't matter if inflation makes everything cost double, because then the car will cost double as well.

[-]

SorosBuxlaundromat@reddit

https://youtu.be/LirsLXXMJiM?si=Cz3LcwGgAwjXMVtQ

Here's the inspiration for Gordon gekko explaining velocity of money while backing Sanders in 2016

[-]

rancidfart86@reddit

A lot of that money is in assets

[-]

PhilliamPlantington@reddit

Having billions of dollars in assets is borderline impossible. It's likely in stocks but that isn't different than holding assets in cash value other than for tax reasons.

[-]

svend_joergen@reddit

Stocks are assets

[-]

SnooWalruses3948@reddit

This is possibly one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read. It is literally impossible to hoard that level of wealth.

You have no idea how economics or basic finance works. Take some time and look into fractional reserve banking then take some time to learn what an asset is and how they function.

[-]

angry_snek@reddit

Commie

[-]

Literal employment and local infrastructure development.

[-]

InDaZoo@reddit

this is your brain on reddit

[-]

Responsible_Jury_415@reddit

Benzos isn’t the sole one holding the diamond ring over the baby crip though, a wealth like him is collectively agreed upon by his workers and hr. When you work at Amazon warehouse for 15 dollars you’re agreeing your labor is worth that because HR agrees you’re worth that. Your local store owner isn’t a millionaire because he pays what he can to get the help he does based on the value of his business. The long and short of it is manual labor jobs are gone in 30 years so why waste 26 of those working for peanuts?

[-]

saudiaramcoshill@reddit

Him and people like him who hoard wealth are the reason we have poverty.

They're not hoarding wealth. It is invested in the economy. Owning a business, or part of a business, contributes to the economy.
Innovation is the reason people like him are billionaires. Innovation causes the opposite of poverty, and is why the US is the richest nation on earth.

You dont make a billion dollars without exploiting every possible resource and person you can along the way

Absolutely not true. And don't give me the reddit bullshit of paying people a wage they agree to being exploitation. If I agree to trade my time for $100/hr and then you are able to make $200/hr from my time, that's not exploitation.

There's no ethical way to become a billionaire.

JK Rowling? Stephen Spielberg? Those are the easiest examples, but I could pretty easily make an argument for many billionaires, who simply are business owners at large scale. Owning a business is not inherently unethical.

People like Bezos hold it so people can’t exploit him and he can outcompete. He sees his business ventures as a way of solving some problems that governments can’t. E.g. revolutionising logistics.

[-]

Escenze@reddit

No its not. I wish we could try taking all their wealth and you'd see we would still have poverty. In fact we would have a lot more poverty.

[-]

CraftyInvestigator25@reddit

Larry Page.

But people like him aren’t why you have poverty. There is absolutely nothing that says if they didn’t exist the money would be spread out or “evened out”

still far from the initial 110 million in 11 hours figure, which I believe was his point

[-]

hein-e@reddit

Missing the point here

tens of millions (or whatever the amount is)

You're wrong about how much spending money he has yearly. Sure he only "officially" makes 1.5m a year(which is already exorbitant for how little he does compared to the people he exploits)

you can't do blah blah, "you don't know what you're talking about"

recent showing of the exact person in question doing more than 10k * what the hypothetical was

doubles down

smell my nuts

[-]

inspectoroverthemine@reddit

Ignoring for a second that he sold 3% of his net worth equivalent in Amazon stock recently- so you're straight up wrong- he doesn't actually need to sell anything to tap 0.01% of his net worth as cash. Banks will give a near 0% loan based on his 100B in assets.

[-]

Which of course will be both a regressive tax and cause a massive collapse of the markets

The reason to avoid regressive taxes is to avoid income/purchasing inequality. All tax code has a top tier, so you could argue that even income tax is regressive to people making more than 250k/year. A cap on unrealized gains over 100M (not 1M) isn't going to make a difference to that individual other than buying a smaller yacht.

cause a massive collapse of the markets

'Wealth' is moving out of the markets is a net positive. Its only there because crazy low capital gains tax and stock buybacks. Both of those things are a net negative to everyone but the top percent.

wealthy will then just book it to malta or ireland and buy citizenship to avoid taxes

coombuyah26@reddit

If I gave away half my money, I would not be able to survive til the end of the year. If Jeff Bezos gave away half his money, he would still be among the richest people on the planet, and would still have more money than I could ever amass in a dozen lifetimes.

[-]

Raider5151@reddit

Jeff Bezos could give away 99% of his money and it still wouldn't materially affect his life. He would still be worth over $2,000,000,000

[-]

llIlIIllIlllIIIlIIll@reddit

Who’s he supposed to give it to? His “money” is likely tied up in assets such as, oh idk… Amazon for starters.

You think Bezos has $11,000,000,000 cash on hand and proudly proclaim everything you say to be true.

Even by 4chan standards, you’re a fkn moron.

[-]

mysixthredditaccount@reddit

I think they meant liquid or almost liquid assets. Which is often called cash (but it's not literal cash, just quickly convertible to cash.)

[-]

Destroyer2118@reddit

cash on hand

cash on hand

You:

🙈

[-]

ZateoManone@reddit

Damn... That was such a dumb statement

[-]

llIlIIllIlllIIIlIIll@reddit

He already did give away half his money, he got divorced

[-]

PMMeYourBootyPics@reddit

And it would run the federal government for less than 2 weeks. Now we saved every American there taxes on one paycheck. Most people probably wouldn’t even save more than a few hundred dollars this way.

Government needs to spend on the right things, otherwise we’re just stealing from the rich to build more useless shit for the military industrial complex.

[-]

Chaotic_Narwhal@reddit

So you literally would be able to survive if you gave half your wealth away since you are in the top 5%. What a stupid way to ruin your own argument

[-]

Cringe

[-]

Edaimantis@reddit

I also reply cringe to comments I can’t adequately respond to, we have a lot in common!

[-]

TheBrickster420@reddit

So Amazon should sell off half the company?

Of course they’d still be too big, they should just liquidate everything to subsidize the cost of a mcchicken or something

[-]

The same way I can't know for sure what you would do if you were suddenly rich, you can't know for sure what you would do. Money and power corrupt

[-]

inspectoroverthemine@reddit

Look at Jeff Bezos wife.

[-]

Joaonetinhou@reddit

No, I'm not a billionaire, so I can't give away half my money and still have a good life.

What a stupid excuse.

[-]

ah_harrow@reddit

If half my money was enough to 50% end world hunger and I'd still be left with more than I could possibly spend in a lifetime then yes, I probably would.

Depends what I'd had to do to come into it, which is half the problem: if these fuckers have done even half the stuff they're frequently accused of I think I could see myself lacking the moral fortitude to kiss goodbye to my money.

"it is so damn easy to spend money that isn't yours...."

ok, and? doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

[-]

geckochiefocho@reddit

I’d give away about a third of my money… which I and most people do through taxes. Are these guys similarly “giving up” a third of their income? Or is it effectively substantially less because they’re able to game the system the way normal people can’t?

[-]

Wealth isn’t a linear scale. If Bezos gave away half of his money he would still be fine, i would be fucked.

[-]

makomirocket@reddit

That is WHAT TAXES DO. In the UK, everything you earn from a salary after your first 45kish, are taxed at 40%.

[-]

The original discussion was about paying taxes not giving half of your money to someone

[-]

Puncherfaust1@reddit

i do. i pay tax

billionaires dont pay half their money in tax

[-]

Salt-Powered@reddit

I mean, the money is ours because he is actually paying no taxes and receiving subsidies from tax-paying citizens. So yeah, he is robbing you too.

[-]

eip2yoxu@reddit

I mean the point of my comment was that people should pay the same relatively not nominally. And even then I am okay with having progressive tax brackets instead of a flat tax.

I am not saying it should be 50%, that's way too much.

it is so damn easy to spend money that isn't yours....

True. It sucks we can't hold politicians more accountable when they act irresponsible with tax payer money.

I think that can also be an issue, because it could cause politicians to stop investing because they are afraid of making mistakes, but I think between that and the status quo are a lot of things that can be done

[-]

TimeMasterpiece2563@reddit

No, the point of your comment was to make a classic right wing capitalistic argument.

“If a billionaire gives away $500m, it’s the same as a person with $100 giving away $50”

It’s a specious argument made to protect the ultra wealthy from being accountable for their greedy and hurtful behaviour. Nothing else. If you’re ok with carrying that can for them, then at least own it.

[-]

demon-storm@reddit

It's not like they use that money for anything, really. Other than buying social medias or showing off who has the biggest number.

Billionaires are extremely childish in that regard, they have zero imagination. They literally don't know how to be rich.

[-]

Sushi-DM@reddit

If I had 20 billion dollars, I would give more than 100 million dollars to charity.

[-]

PoliticallyIdiotic@reddit

Strong Shoulders need to carry more. Expecting everyone to give half is stupid, because when someone with average income gives half it is a giant impact on their livelihood, while if a billionaire were to give half he wouldnt actually notice any real difference

[-]

Munnin41@reddit

Cool,so will you give half of YOUR money?

You do get that someone who is 200 billion dollars giving away half their money doesn't feel the impact at all right? As opposed to someone who earns 100k a year?

so damn easy to spend money that isn't yours....

fewer billionaires hoarding all the wealth

You think people are poor because there's a limited amount of gold coins in the world and Jeff got them all in his piggy bank or something?

[-]

Ruby2312@reddit

No? Not because Amazon have monopoly on online shopping and therefore can do whatever tf he can in many sector, especially labour? Fucker help a lot more people implement actual labour protection in his company than few dozens of these fucking “charity” put together

[-]

kdhd4_@reddit

Economy is not a pie chart that where if one has more, others must have less. Sure, he could better help people that he employs, but surely wouldn't fix things by itself, especially for people that got nothing to do with his company. Said company that in fact generates wealth through products and services.

[-]

__El_Presidente__@reddit

billionaires hoarding wealth" is a stupid ass statement that doesn't correlate with how economy works in reality.

Then why the richest 1% owns almost half of the worlds' wealth and that percentage keeps growing?

When you pay for something you transfer your wealth to someone else; what do you think happens after years of inflation and stagnating wages? This wealth gets transfered into the hands of billionaires who, surprise, hoard that wealth and keep acumulating more.

[-]

kdhd4_@reddit

Then why the richest 1% owns almost half of the worlds' wealth and why does that percentage keep growing?

Because having more money creates additional methods of earning more.

This wealth gets transfered into the hands of billionaires who, surprise, hoard that wealth and keep acumulating more.

Them having money doesn't prevent you from earning money. There isn't a limited amount of money in the world. You can generate wealth.

[-]

__El_Presidente__@reddit

Because having more money creates additional methods of earning more.

And this money comes out of thin air?

Them having money doesn't prevent you from earning money. There isn't a limited amount of money in the world. You can generate wealth.

Them having more money allows them to own all the money making machines and leave you only able to sell your labor to them for money. That's why rent and house prices are always increasing, because rich people buy all the available land to rent it or sell it later at an inflated price, leaving you unable to buy a home. And that's why real wages have been stagnant since the 70's while production (and CEO pay) has grown by more than 300% and inflation has never stopped growing: because the rich literally siphon all the money they can find out of your pockets and into their bank accounts.

They may do it through increasing costs to the consumer, adding taxes on their economic activity onto the final price; they may do it through subpar housing; they may do it through exploiting you directly, enriching themselves off of your work and paying you pennies on the dollar, or directly stealing from your wage (which is a bigger portion of all the money stolen yearly in the US than robbery and breaking and entering combined); they may do it through massive state subsidies. But they are always stealing from you.

[-]

brainburger@reddit

When the rich take a bigger slice of the pie, the whole pie needs to grow to keep the ordinary and poor slices the same.

It's OK if the pie grows faster. However it's better for everyone if the pie grows and the proportions don't change to move more of that gain to the rich. Likewise if the pie stays the same or shrinks, more people benefit if the rich slice shrinks.

[-]

_phish_@reddit

The difference is that 326.61 can make or break someone’s budget at 59k a year. A single parent of 2 is struggling to make that work in most places.

By contrast Jeff Bezos has all his (basic) expenses fully paid for the next… I don’t know 3 decades?with his “11 hours of work”.

People retire on way less than 100 million and live the rest of their lives in comparable luxury. People do not retire on 326.61. This is the glaringly obvious fact you’ve missed.

Flat tax rates disproportionately benefit the rich because less of their income is taken up by needs.

And no I don’t care that it’s “his money” that he “worked for”. People are dying of fully preventable causes (see the Green brother’s fight against Tuberculosis) and Jeff is sitting on an unspendable pile of money. That is blatantly immoral, WAY more immoral than “stealing” his money if you want to frame it that way.

The average person can’t afford to help, the 1% can, and don’t because they don’t have to. Instead they donate what amounts to pennies to them to get tax write offs and a public perception boost and go on continuing to hoard money.

It’s funny because everyone seems to agree the morally just characters in Robin Hood, Aladdin, and Les Miserables are the ones stealing food to survive, but as soon as it’s about saving real people’s lives it suddenly flips…

[-]

StrawberryWide3983@reddit

$326 is enough for the average person to pay a major bill

For someone like Bezos, $100,000,000 will have absolutely zero impact to his lifestyle

[-]

Kilo353511@reddit

I think the difference is my 11 hours of pay covers my food for an entire month. If Jeff Bezos gave away 11 hours of pay, absolutely nothing about his life changes. His 1 hour of his pay is more money than I will ever have in my entire life.

"Man who beats women every day spends one afternoon helping women bandage their injuries"

That guy: why aren't they grateful??

[-]

maafinh3h3@reddit

His math are wayy off, maybe this Reich guy think net worth=income. Bruh just because my parent homes are now worth $100k doesn't mean my family have $100k as yearly income and think that $ 500 are cheap. Their income are just retirement and 500 are double their retirement monthly salary (i live in small income country).

[-]

captainfalconxiiii@reddit

This “Reich guy” was a Secretary Of Labor he’s not some random guy off the street

[-]

Xalterai@reddit

And for any fans of Dropout(formerly Collegehumor) and their various series(Dimension20, Gamechanger, etc.), is the father of Sam Reich

[-]

inspectoroverthemine@reddit

Reich guy

bongnandan@reddit

Unfortunately no. Most of charity money is gone in employee salaries which are preposterous amounts. 90% of it in fact. The rest is used for “charity”. At the end something like 1% reaches the people.

[-]

sippyfrog@reddit

Lmao wait until you find out what your taxes go to (spoiler alert, it's blowing up children in the Middle East).

I'll stick to the charities I picked myself.

[-]

If that is the case, I guess you can kiss goodbye all the public infrastructures and social welfare

[-]

Yes, roads, and not just roads. Buses, subways, postal service, justice system, congress, all the government branches, and even your local police officiers run on your tax money

[-]

MonkeManWPG@reddit

Are they wrong? Or does your view of Ancapistan include charities to build fucking roads too?

[-]

rlyfunny@reddit

Reminds me of these project cities in the US that tried to decouple from any government. Yeah usually went as expected. Shitty roads, shitty services and basically no institution above personal use.

What? The donation is not counted as income, but it’s not like you actually make money by donating.

Correct.

Charity write offs are not a cheat code and anyone who thinks that should spend the time educating themselves instead of angrily arguing on the internet.

Yeah, it's pretty cut and dry. Businesses pay taxes on their profit, which is their gross profit - expenses. Donating to charity is considered an expense for the business so they pay less taxes.

gets a 180k entry level job as a software engineer at Amazon fresh out of school

I agree with you about how hoarding this much wealth is usually made possible through exploitation, but this analogy is wrong, yeah he did donate a fraction of his wealth but it is still a substantial amount

[-]

Radaysha@reddit

he did donate a fraction of his wealth but it is still a substantial amount.

Yeah, that's....that's the exact problem. We need to change exactly this.

[-]

tigerbait92@reddit

I am not religious, but I grew up going to church. But this reminds me of some scripture; there's a part of the Bible I remember hearing as a kid. Some poor old lady goes to church, gives the only bit of money she has to her name as donation. Bunch of rich folks laugh at her and drop what amounts to be thousands of times the money she gave in the donation bin.

Jesus (or whoever told the story, probably Jesus) scolds the men and basically calls them out on their 'charity'. Yes, the sum is higher, but it means nothing to them. For the old lady, what she gave is all she had, and that makes it far more selfless and far more important. Sure, it won't feed people like the thousands will. But it's more noble.

Kinda stuck with me and resurfaced in my mind when reading this post. Bezos donating $100mil is cool and all, and I'm glad people will be helped by it. But it doesn't mean anything to him. He's still got a bajillion dollars, he sacrifices nothing, the status quo remains the same. If a man with $100 to his name gave it away to help others, he'd be a hero. If a man who makes more than the GDP of several countries gives away $100mil, it's nothing. He doesn't help solve the problem, just bandages on an open wound. He is the problem. Amazon is a great idea, and a great service for consumers. But he doesnt work 300x harder than the people in his warehouses, he doesn't need to pay them so little while he attends meetings and golfs all day. The middle class is dying and the poor shrivel into nothingness and this man waves $100mil as a pittance.

That's why folks hate billionaires. I'm glad he donated, and I don't expect total systemic revolution from a guy who became the wealthiest man on the planet. But you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[-]

inspectoroverthemine@reddit

But he doesnt work 300x harder than the people in his warehouses

>be me

>see twitter screenshot of frontpage of reddit for 100th time. Idea.jpg

>download screenshot

>post on 4chan with my own regarded ass bootlicking take

>take screencap

>post it on reddit because they love screencaps of better social media

>???

Gloamforest-Wizard@reddit

Yes let’s be grateful that someone donates next to none of the wealth they extract from the poor all the while he uses that donation to pay less taxes

DiegesisThesis@reddit

"Won't someone please think about the poor heckin' billionaires!"

Yeah, he's stupid

It's eat the rich

Jacko_Moto@reddit

Well you should spend some time in school and visit your maths classes

[-]

Anen-o-me@reddit

I did the math.

8760 hours in a year.

/ 11 = 796

796 x $100 million = $79 billion.

However he has not made that every year he's been in business. You'd find the average much lower across all the years he's been in business.

He's worth $170b / 30 years of operation =

$5.6 billion a year.

Which is $7.1 million every 11 hours, not $100 million.

Meanwhile the US government spends trillions it doesn't have, where do you think that money is coming from. You think value can be printed from thin air.

[-]

[-]

Worst-Panda@reddit

Simping for billionaires is some MAGA level regardation

[-]

Digiboy62@reddit

If I donated what I made in 11 hours, it would be about 220 dollars.

I can do that maybe once or twice month and not change my lifestyle all that much, and I'm not really a big spender.

If he stopped making any money whatsoever and all of his Net Worth was turned into cash, Jeff Bezos could donate 100 million dollars every single day for 5 years and still have multiple millions of dollars left over.

Stop sucking billionaire cocks like you will ever have any money even remotely comparable.

[-]

Aluminum_Tarkus@reddit

Another classic "net worth =/= income" moment. I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to realize that Bezos' net worth going up by $8 mil/hr doesn't mean he's earning $8 mil/hr in income. The value of my house and investment portfolio going up by around $10k/yr doesn't mean I'm getting that $10k/yr in cash.

That being said, it's still not as if $100 mil is a substantial amount of his available spending cash. We don't know exactly how much that is, but it's certainly not $8 mil/hr.

[-]

Dr-Fatdick@reddit

The top 1% in my country pay 30% of all tax bills, meanwhile the bottom 50% pay 10%.

This sounds really unfair, until you factor in that the 1% own over 70% of my countries wealth, and the bottom 50% less than 5%.

That means that the poor are taxed at double the rate they should be, and the richest taxed at less than half. This is reflected in the fact that the top 1% across the west had an enormous increase in wealth over the last 10 years whilst the poor had a further decrease.

Yet we're supposed to clap like fucking malnourished seals when one of them gives a fraction of their wealth to a charity that will do nothing to stop the trend that causes this poverty, especially when it's within their enormous political and economic power to actually do so? Fuck off

[-]