1 billionaire or 1,000 millionaires
Discussion
Which of these is a better target for a country to aim for?
My instinct is that one ultra-wealthy person is bad for society overall because lots of quite-wealthy people means more local businesses, more productivity and a wider distribution of wealth in a geographic and societal sense.
What do you think?
My instinct is that one ultra-wealthy person is bad for society overall because lots of quite-wealthy people means more local businesses, more productivity and a wider distribution of wealth in a geographic and societal sense.
What do you think?
durbster said:
Which of these is a better target for a country to aim for?
My instinct is that one ultra-wealthy person is bad for society overall because lots of quite-wealthy people means more local businesses, more productivity and a wider distribution of wealth in a geographic and societal sense.
What do you think?
I'd say the multiple option, simply because if you have a single wealthy person who is a cock, they tend to let their ego run away with them so can do more damage.My instinct is that one ultra-wealthy person is bad for society overall because lots of quite-wealthy people means more local businesses, more productivity and a wider distribution of wealth in a geographic and societal sense.
What do you think?
Greenmantle said:
The problem is you are comparing apples and pears.
Undeniably a billionaire is a rich person whilst a person with £1 million quid could be considered as not that wealthy.
Yeah but the question is "one apple, or lots of pears". The difference between an apple and a pear is half the point of the question.Undeniably a billionaire is a rich person whilst a person with £1 million quid could be considered as not that wealthy.
Nobody should need to be a billionaire.
Try the podcast “Good Billionaire, Bad Billionaire“. They do find some as good, but that is largely on their philanthropic nature & signing up to a pledge to share their wealth. The reality is that getting to a billion invariably involves some bad behaviours (or an immense amount of market driven luck!).
Imagine if that wealth WAS shared.
Imagine how much real poverty and disease across the planet they could have helped!
As someone said, a millionaire might not actually be that wealthy, especially if it includes property in some areas…..
In summary, 1,000 millionaires every day of the week!
Try the podcast “Good Billionaire, Bad Billionaire“. They do find some as good, but that is largely on their philanthropic nature & signing up to a pledge to share their wealth. The reality is that getting to a billion invariably involves some bad behaviours (or an immense amount of market driven luck!).
Imagine if that wealth WAS shared.
Imagine how much real poverty and disease across the planet they could have helped!
As someone said, a millionaire might not actually be that wealthy, especially if it includes property in some areas…..
In summary, 1,000 millionaires every day of the week!
1 Billionaire. Every time.
I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
Zaichik said:
1 Billionaire. Every time.
I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
And I can't think of a billionaire who hasn't exploited people or the planet's limited natural resources to get there. I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
wyson said:
Type R Tom said:
And I can't think of a billionaire who hasn't exploited people or the planet's limited natural resources to get there.
Cough, you know that's how capitalism works right?!mikeiow said:
Imagine if that wealth WAS shared.
Imagine how much real poverty and disease across the planet they could have helped!
Starmer's just committed 21.7Bn to 'carbon capture technology'. Imagine how much real poverty and disease across the planet they could have helped! (Obviously those billions are a different sort of billions from the 22 he spent the first three months of his reign whingeing about.)Imagine how much real poverty and disease across the planet they could have helped!
But I'm going to be a population ecologist and say that by fixing world poverty and disease, you'll get an even bigger global population that then has to be fed etc.
Zaichik said:
1 Billionaire. Every time.
I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
I'd go the millionaires - or even multi-millionaires. Often the Billionaires have either done something very dodgy, or really screwed their workforce relatively to pull out loads of money from them to their own pockets. Or both. Of course there is exceptions to the rules with someone who was in the right place at the right time for a new important technology where there is enough to go around for the entire company workers.I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
Even if a billionaire has improved things via their company/companies often it can be worse for society as a whole in many ways. Having inefficiencies and paying people for those is probably actually a good thing in many ways - more jobs, help people feel like they're doing something with their life and so on. Hence the big questions coming up about how society might deal with the future with AI development. What happens if we have enough breakthroughs that basically mean most people don't have to work? Ideally this would mean a life of comfort. The way our society works so far is most likely a load of people in poverty and all the power with a few people who own/run those AI.
Zaichik said:
1 Billionaire. Every time.
I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
They don’t become billionaires by making others rich. I can not think of any billionaire who didnt become one by creating or leading a company that has benefitted millions of people by providing value to them in some way.
Yes, they themselves might be a total cock, but what they lead or create is valued by so many people and in most cases creating value for so many more people than just 1000 millionaires.
Evolved said:
They don’t become billionaires by making others rich.
That's not the intent but it happens. Extreme example I used to work for Microsoft, at the time 2 employees owned Ferrari 250GTOs. There were a lot of lesser millionaires due to Microsoft stock, even long-serving secretaries got rich. One of the first employees also became a billionaire himself and is one of the richest men in America.
You'd also assume plenty of employees left Microsoft and started their own businesses creating more wealth.
That 1 billionaire created a lot of millionaires
jonsp said:
Evolved said:
They don’t become billionaires by making others rich.
That's not the intent but it happens. Extreme example I used to work for Microsoft, at the time 2 employees owned Ferrari 250GTOs. There were a lot of lesser millionaires due to Microsoft stock, even long-serving secretaries got rich. One of the first employees also became a billionaire himself and is one of the richest men in America.
You'd also assume plenty of employees left Microsoft and started their own businesses creating more wealth.
That 1 billionaire created a lot of millionaires
A person with a million has more in common with somebody who has nothing than they do with a billionaire. Which is why it's bloody stupid to just talk about 'billionaires or millionaires'. If we're considering where to pin the tail on 'the rich' then the point of entry it must be, where? It must be people not with one million but with... five million? ten?
Hustle_ said:
But being a millionaire ain't what it used to be.
Agreed. I think these days we use millionaire to mean moderately rich/successful rather than a million net worth. Plenty of middle aged people with mortgage paid and decent pension pots who have £1m net worth. I bet if you ran the numbers even Jeremy Corbyn is a millionaire.If we wanted to put a number on it we'd probably say £5m
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff