It all sounds well and good but I have a hard time swallowing any Billionaire advocating for ethics.
They're all pretty shitty, but Cuban is at least one of the less shitty ones. His work on reduced cost pharmaceuticals has been life-changing for some people, and is a really nice break from big pharma constantly trying to fuck you as hard as they can.
Yeah he's probably dying in the revolution, but towards the end. Assholes like Musk or Shkreli are far, far worse.
I'm staying neutral. I want to like him, but the last rich as fuck guy I thought was funny and was going to change the world for the better turned into one the biggest assholes on the planet.
Musk (assuming that's who you're referring to) was never funny. He was always a fucking loser with the level of humour of an edgy, dumb, tryhard teenager. Almost everything about him is a lie, he just managed to keep it under wraps while his PR machine painted him as a quirky genius.
Nah super villains are cool and successful. Musk is somehow the world's richest man and still a loser whose kid hates him.
still a loser whose kid hates him.
Just one? He has 12 of them. Because he thinks the world is under-populated. I wish I was making that up.
Compared to the other Uber wealthy, he at least seems to have some sort of a code of ethics from what i can see, which is obviously limited. He's still in it to make money (obviously), but his actions seem to suggest that he won't go to the extreme of hurting everyone else just for money.
I started liking Mark more when he opened cost plus drugs. It's a pretty decent endeavor to try to reduce pharmaceutical costs for the consumer
General rule of thumb is that if you posted a comment, even if Lemmy tries to tell you it failed it probably went through so don't try and recomment
I wonder if there's any value to considering the point he makes on its own merits.
And billionaires are also bad.
He isn't the most conservative of billionaires, but hell yes he's a greeeeedy fuck face.
Has helped folks a bit tho. And profited
People who think a business making profit is by definition unethical aren't to be trusted to define ethics.
Businesses can't make a profit without exploiting their workers. That's how capitalism works.
Businesses can’t make a profit without exploiting their workers.
Literally false, even using your absurd definition of "exploit". If workers were an overall source of profit, businesses would never downsize--by your logic, since every worker creates more value than they're getting paid, laying anyone off would be equivalent to throwing money down the toilet.
But in the real world, downsizing happens all the time. And in the real world, labor is a cost, not a source of profit.
You can really tell when someone has no experience running a business. I'd love to see you try to open and run a small restaurant for longer than a year with this mindset, lmao.
God I hate the circle jerking of Cuban. There is no “good one.” His PR team is working OT to paint this completely BS image. Fuck him.
Absolutely came here to say this. There are no ethical, innocent, or good billionaires. None. You cannot make that much money without disregarding or hurting people.
We need to stop blocking for and idolizing these fucks.
Billionaire evil is a sliding scale from normal rich guy evil to comic book villain evil. He’s less bad than his peers, even if the stuff he does (like the cost plus drugs thing) are maybe just for PR.
We eat him later than others. But we do eat him.
There are no ethical, innocent, or good billionaires. None.
Costco is a company that is famous both for how it treats its customers, and how it treats its employees. Its founder, who was its CEO until a few years ago, is a billionaire.
The creator of Minecraft sold the explosively-popular game he created to Microsoft, for $2 billion, making him a billionaire.
Your black and white thinking is as out of place as black and white TV is. The nuance-allergic are disgusting.
And you thinking that these entities are innocent just because they started out doing a thing is myopic. You seem to be the one unable to see nuance. Truly. Or you misunderstand its meaning, because Costco is definitely not innocent.
I live near the headquarters. They're an awful employer and exploit their staff, prevent upward movement of talented folk. My close friend is a highly talented developer for them and has been passed up for raises and promotions multiple times for less talented people in the org. Furthermore, he felt his race played into these decisions.
I can't understand for one moment why people block for or make excuses for billionaires. You're never gonna get anything from it. Everyone on this side of the divide is on the same team in that match up.
You seem to be the one unable to see nuance.
Yeah, I'm not the one who declared that every single person who has more than X wealth is evil, lmao.
Anyone can cherry-pick a few incidents here and there, any business large enough will have them, but aggregate data is more honest:
Its employee turnover rate of 8% is less than one seventh of the [60%] average for retailers.
Clearly their workers are MUCH happier there than just about anywhere else in the same industry.
That's not what nuance means. I'm done with this. You're choosing to misunderstand or just cannot do so.
I'll pretend I'm surprised you avoided addressing that single digit turnover rate, lol.
You're choosing to generalize people based on their net worth, and choosing to cherry pick data points to support a narrative about Costco easily debunked by looking at aggregate data.
You think she's ethical, innocent, or good? Yikes. She works hard to present a non-offensive to either side persona, that doesn't make her ethical, innocent, or good.
Sounds like you think all people are terrible. What a sad way to go through life. I feel sorry for you
There was more than one link in my comment. Also, that's just a sampling of the search results; you're sure to find more compelling stuff out there if you put more effort into looking than I did.
You cant say shes a “good” billionaire and then dismiss it as everyone is imperfect.
Look i like swift and i believe its possible for there to be a “good” billionaire but swift is definitely not it
Yep as expected you're just trolling. What a sad way to go through life. I feel sorry for you
Cost Plus Drugs is a real thing, not a PR statement, that's saved many people a fuckton of money, and I'm one of them. And not only that, it set a fantastic example of cost transparency for others to follow.
"Completely BS"? Definitely not.
See, I, like millions upon tens of millions of others, were not fooled for even one nanosecond by that Orange Fuck's obvious horseshit so, you're kind of undercutting your own credibility there, champ.
The only way to become a billionaire is to solely work in your own best interest, and steal the value produced by the labour of your employees.
Fuck off, cuban. youre one of them
The only way to become a billionaire is to solely work in your own best interest, and steal the value produced by the labour of your employees.
How exactly did Cuban do that? All he did was be on the winning end of an incredibly bad transaction by Yahoo, and parlayed that into being on TV a lot.
Do you think he just magicked up an investment? He built a company bought by yahoo. How do you think he created the company broadcast up to that point? By himself? Or did he perhaps have employees who did the hard work?
Building the company isn't what made him a billionaire. Yahoo grossly overpaying for it is what made him a billionaire.
•
And who profited, disproportionately, from the company's acquisition by Yahoo? The employees who worked to build it into what it was?
Did they get their fair share of that 'grossly overpaying' by Yahoo?
They didn't? <Shocked Pikachu>
Did they get their fair share of that ‘grossly overpaying’ by Yahoo?
If they owned shares, yes. If they didn't, then why should they? The owners of the company sold the company at a massively overinflated valuation, so the shares were "worth" a lot of money. This really isn't a complicated situation.
Work and ownership are not the same. If I hire a plumber to fix something in my house, does he become a part owner of it?
•
Because the only ethical kind of company is a worker-owned co-op. It should not have been possible for employees to not own shares, but it was, and that's bad.
I personally try to avoid absolutes. I would have probably said, "a more ethical kind of company...", but totally agree. Also really wish more people understood and supported co-ops.
So you believe that workers should pay to work at a company that is operating at a loss, right?
I sort of agree with you that you can only become a billionaire by stealing someone else's money, but in this case I think your argument is kind of bad.
If Yahoo overpaid, it's not the employees of his own company that Cuban took the money from, but rather indirectly from Yahoo's employees (former and current up to that point).
I also have to say, as far as ethics goes, there is enough indirection there that unless you were a dyed in the wool communist you would have problems finding fault with it. The shell game sufficiently blurred where the capital originally came from and it looks more like winning the lottery than exploiting your employees to the people receiving the big paychecks.
Similar things can be said about venture capital recipients. They get money, and obviously it's money that the people who gave it to them did not do sufficient work for them to have gotten it themselves, but the source of that money is so convoluted that it might as well be gambling profits.
I'm not actually saying it's ethical, and I referred to it being a shell game. I wasn't talking about shell companies. Awesome meme though great job! 👍
And those employees also made a shitload of money. GTFO with this communist agenda propaganda
http://mixenergy.com/interviews/chris-jaeb-broadcast-interview/
Interview with Broadcast.com's original founder who made bank, his brother who invested $2,500 made $850M and mentions his girlfriend, who also invested, made millions as well. Any employee who had shares in the company which is often the case (you really need citations for how this works?) also would have made a lot of money.
None of those investors were employees. I know exactly how it works.
Beyond a vague “any employees who had shares..” which, yeah, obviously. Which they would have had to purchase. Which anyone could do, regardless of being an employee
TLDR: NastyButtler fails to support their specious argument and Breadsmasher refutes each point reasonably. Argument won by the latter
Bro is just now getting around to critical thinking? MANY people were of this mindset 8 years ago...
Oh he wanted to make more money first. Now he’s worried us poors won’t be able to buy his shit. Fuck this guy.
I get the frustration people feel, but I'm kind of getting tired of the reductive takes people just casually throw out in social media. I guess that's my fault for expecting anything different. Maybe I should go outside for a while.
There is a reason he is able to keep grifting. There are a lot idiots who think they're the exception. These people need to touch the hot stove before they understand why we don't do that.
Perhaps it's because they've touched the stove many times but never when it was at its hottest and develop this idea that they are special, but the reality is they are just really really dumb and don't understand the basic mechanics of life.
I could vaguely understand the allure of Trump the first time around (outside of the racist anti-immigrant stuff). There was actually something slightly refreshing in the first Primary debate he had against other Republicans that year (~2016), when he was still just a joke. He was saying things that politicians in general don't normally say, he wasn't following "the script". It only took him opening his mouth and his stupid policies after that though for that feeling to turn to disgust, but for a brief shining moment it seemed like he might've been a semi-positive influence that could've shaken up US politics for the better. Instead, he's just shown himself to be the absolute worst person possible for the position.
And considering how the average person doesn't pay that much attention and often needs to see the person in action, it's why I don't fault people for voting for him in 2016
After that, however, there was no excuse
I also wanted a non politician to take the presidency, but when it turned out it was Trump who would get the nomination for 2016 my reaction was
I'm about to throw a word salad out here about how I can sympathize (never thought I would say that) with Trump supporters in a sense. Hopefully someone chimes in and can challenge a couple of my views here, because i think they could probably be honed a bit, or explained further, but...
It's very easy to blame his allure all on racism, all on stupidity, all on nationalism, because certainly Trump espouses all of that. But his populism is also due largely to working-class people seeing (rightly) the Democratic party as corrupt. They see people like Gates and Soros, Hollywood elites like Clooney hanging out with Pelosi and, understandably, get upset seeing all these ultra rich people walking in and out of the private/public sector. They see political dynasties like the Clintons and the Obamas and Bidens as antithetical to the idea that anyone can serve their country in politics, and rightly so. Even Harris -- it was essentially "her turn" for the nomination -- and they see that as undemocratic and bullshit, which -- can I blame them?
Now, where they go wrong (and, ironically, where hardcore Democrats also go wrong) is thinking that their party isn't also participating in the same bullshit. Trump isn't anti-establishment, he's literally a billionaire property magnate. He is part of the ruling class in America that consists of landlords, bankers, and company shareholders. Both parties would uphold our current system of rule by the few, and back up that rule with the monopolization of violence by the police.
This isn't to say the two parties are completely the same. In terms of willingness to uphold capitalism (ultimately the extraction of money from labor), the military-industrial complex (see, Palestinian genocide), and American hegemony internationally (again, genocide), and police violence, they are similar. But then you also have Republicans trying to ban books, surveil women's bodies, control what people do in the bedroom, or medical care they receive, espouse various forms of hate, etc. So I do see them as worse, but think you'd be hard pressed to find a person in the US, democrat or republican, who didn't agree with the statement that "all politicians are corrupt." It's just the nature of our political system, which has essentially legalized bribery.
Being able to say to my conservative-ass family, "Yeah, dude, Obama bombed Syria and bailed out the banks -- I feel what you're saying," gives us that little bit of common ground to start a conversation about the drastic change that needs to happen in the US.
Hilary Clinton, ok sure I guess, but how are the Biden's and Obama's political dynasties? That's just one guy in politics.
In those cases, maybe dynasties isn't the right word -- although I do sort of see Michelle Obama as a bit of a politician, herself, even though she hasn't held office. She at least has more power than, say, you or me. Still, I'm more thinking about Obama and Biden in the sense that I am thinking of Biden and Kamala -- it was sort of Joe Biden's turn. Conservatives see that sorta stuff -- they rightly see these people as elites, and it gives them more reason to think the Democratic party is corrupt. The reality is it would be difficult to find a politician who isn't corrupt in a system that has legalized bribery and has necessitated the solicitation of those bribes by our "leaders."
Youre completely right and this should be the essential example of two group of idiots fighting for the same cause but too brainwashed to realized theyve become tribal and dogmatic with their differing ideologies.
Do you understand what the word "dynasty" means? It isn't "famous family". Definitely not "famous because dad got elected to high office".
Hey, no need to be rude. I'm using the word colloquially, not in the technical sense. Besides, in another comment I admitted maybe dynasty wasn't the right word, at least for Obamas and Biden. It's more appropriate (though, you're right in that it is still not technically accurate) for people like the Clintons and Bushes.
All of the conservatives who are coming out against Trump now are just bad liars. Everyone knew, at least for the last decade, how bad of a human being the man was and is.
I understand that sometimes you have to make tactical alliances for politics, but to come along later and say that you don't know a certified scumbag is in fact a scumbag, that's just unbelievable. I would prefer if they come up with a plausible lie. For example, they could say that they knew he was bad personally but they thought his policies were constructive, or they believed that he would try to clean up the swamp, or they thought Hillary was going to be a disaster so they needed to oppose her by any means necessary, or anything that might have a grain of truth to it. Those things might also be lies, but at least give us something. Show some decency.
Ikr? Like as soon as he started running people knew all his dirty laundry.
I talked to a few people and they would just look me in the eye and say no.
Cons don't care about facts.
Yeah so here is a question...
We knew all that BEFORE he was elected the first time, yet you -aparently- voted for him anyway. You knew he was dumb, that was obvious. You knew he was a self centered serial liar, that was pretty much his call sign. You knew he was a disaster of a human being, that he was petty, unstable, narcissistic and a sociopath. Yet you voted for him.
Why?
Mark Cuban is a classic Dumb Guy Who Got Rich Fucking Over Others. If he fell for Trump's shtick, it's likely because he saw an older and more crotchety version of himself.
Also, Republicans cut taxes for rich people. And after that, very little else actually matters.
He voted for him because he thought that would make him richer and more powerful. We don't need to look into it further than that.
Because they are dumb, self-centered, lying human disasters. They're petty, unstable, narcissistic sociopaths. And they vote.
The ones that only meet a few of those criteria are going RFK.
A dozen countries have tried this, it fails every time (either it gets repealed after it literally results in less tax revenue, or it gets changed into a tax that is no longer 'aimed' at the wealthy, making it now yet another tax that is primarily the burden of the middle and lower classes). Stop demanding we repeat others' mistakes, and learn some history.
A dozen other countries have tried it and it's worked great. Stop demanding we keep making the same mistakes.
Literally false. Several countries even literally ruled them unconstitutional, lol.
The only countries that still have a "wealth tax" do not have a tax that's aimed at the wealthiest individuals, which is what you guys want, and what you think it'll accomplish--instead, they're broadened so much that they're just 'ordinary' taxes that are no more 'focused' on the wealthiest than any other, making the whole thing redundant/pointless.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/wealth-tax-impact/
"They are primarily funded by corporate interests such as the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobil...this is a right-leaning Libertarian think tank" mediabiasfactcheck.com
OK, I see the weird place you're coming from. Carry on, I guess. I'll just block and move on.
Oh no, this website won't confirm my biases, better find an excuse to ignore even the most easily-verifiable facts it states, instead of even beginning to allow the possibility that I was ever wrong about anything!
Ideologues and their fragile egos just can't handle being proven wrong.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out the fact that wealth taxes demonstrably don't work--they cause an overall loss in tax revenue. That's why all those countries have either repealed their wealth taxes, or changed them so that they're no different than 'normal' taxes, and become primarily the burden of the middle class, not the wealthy.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/wealth-tax-impact/
To steal a line from Jon Oliver:
He's like if a real boy wished upon a star to become a wooden puppet.
•
we should stop giving a shit what billionaires say. if they have anything important to say they should save it for the inevitable guillotines as their last defense.
You quasi-leftist internet nerds and "the guillotines." It's the new Guy Fawkes mask. So cringe. 🙄
Hate to break it to you, but most guillotines won't fit in your mom's basement. You'll have to go outside.
•
i mean I'm open to alternatives but it's just easier than the hassle of implementing taxes over 100%
also the guy fawkes man never did anything. guillotines famously did. so I'm suggesting tried and true policy here.
Yeah I mean it’s all over lemmy and I am fine with it. it’s harmless shut ins and I have seen much worse 4chan stuff. It’s still a cozy place compared to watch people die tv.
After all there’s no shortage of extremists and ted-pilled righteous cucks online. We have the mildest formations here. Usually other reddit alternatives are much worse and not so easy on the eyes.
It's a picture of Mark Cuban with an inspirational quote on it. That's literally not a meme.
Google the definition of a meme. Memes are pretty much anything.
It literally definitionally is a meme.
Mark Cuban has definitely made a life of getting his end over others (through his long career in business). Like any billionaire he made his riches off the backs of others. The Yahoo deal is Mark receiving the fruit of the labour of the workers at Yahoo, with Yahoo management squandering it to him and his crew for cheap.
I still can say Cuban is a bit different than the bunch of billionaires who inherited generational wealth or political power and above-average opportunity (Trump, Musk, Gates, Jobs, etc.). He might have the capability of understanding what it's like to be a lower to middle class person even if he is insulated from it now.
Like him or not, even the worst person you know can make a thoughful quip once in a blue moon.
You want somebody that has hired
In other words - a capitalist
You want somebody who's first inclination is not to do what's in their own best personal interest.
In other words - not a capitalist.
Can't have both, and we know which one we have.
Would you hire somebody that has a long history of stealing from people - of being unethical?
So - a capitalist, just like you (Cuban).
This is the kind of bullshit billionaires say to try and legitimise their existence to us, but mostly to themselves. He really believes he is an ultra ethical person who looks out for the interests of others before his own, because he works hard at telling himself he is. Harder than at most things I would wager.
Whether or not he believes hes ethical, hes capitalist, a piece of shit, whatever; you cant dismiss the point hes giving.
Everything he mentions is something that we need to value as a society because all this blind animosity leads us away from the truth and results in repetition of a cycle.
Now if only we could actually hold on to the sentiment and apply it to our decision making.
Of course I can dismiss his point, because there is no value to it, he's full of shit and is only looking out for his own interests while criticising others who do exactly the same. Fuck "Stepfords", fuck "job creators" fuck make believe "ethical capitalists", none of the things he values are things I value, nor should society at large.
Aren't all billionaires conservative? I don't think about them for my own sanity's sake, but I cannot imagine a progressive billionaire.
Aren't all billionaires conservative? I don't think about them for my own sanity's sake, but I cannot imagine a progressive billionaire.
Maybe there's at least one progressive billionaire. :
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/23/austrian-heiress-marlene-engelhorn-who-is-giving-away-90-per-cent-of-her-wealth-im-creating-the-tax-i-would-want-to-pay
While we're at it, please sign the Tax The Rich petition for the EU :
https://www.tax-the-rich.eu/ Same petition but in Italian for Italians : https://tax-the-rich.it/
For US citizens : https://www.oxfamamerica.org/take-action/action-alert-tax-the-rich/
Doesn’t matter what a scumbag the president is as long as he doesn’t steal money from this guy or his friends and keeps making them money.
That’s pretty much what he seems concerned with. “Dude stole money from my friend, presidents are supposed to be smart and make us money with a good economy, I don’t want a president that isn’t using money how I think they should.”
This snippet just makes this look like another billionaire protecting his money whith no other concern.
I wish conservatives billionaires would say less. I don't care if they're anti-Trump. Being anti Trump is below the bare minimum. Stopped clock behavior
I don't know where this "conservative" thing comes from, at worst he's a libertarian but voted Obama twice, Biden once and went on record that he would vote Biden again no matter what his health was (before Biden dropped out).
Eat the rich and all that, but I wouldn't label him a conservative.
Mark Cuban has that classic billionaire Ayn Rand libertarian thing but he has voted for/endorsed every Democrat since Obama.
I don't know what I'd call him but I don't think Conservative is near the top of the list.