Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_isq0v21 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in World's Second Richest Man Sells Jet So People on Twitter Won't Track Him Anymore by VedantGogia

[deleted]

−23

nillerwafer t1_isq7183 wrote

He’s the second richest man in the world. You don’t get there and stay there without being absolutely batshit and doing some evil stuff. It comes with the territory of being that obscenely rich.

30

BobbertFandango t1_isqdao4 wrote

Your logic severely flawed. I’m seeing black and white, for sure, and possibly…. …no true Scotsman…?

−26

BobbertFandango t1_isqda4t wrote

Your logic severely flawed. I’m seeing black and white, for sure, and possibly…. …no true Scotsman…?

−28

Whiskeywiskerbiscuit t1_isrgb07 wrote

There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire.

9

Hank___Scorpio t1_iss0q28 wrote

What is the net worth where it becomes impossible to be ethical?

−2

Whiskeywiskerbiscuit t1_issvy6i wrote

Who’s to say? I’d probably argue that a majority of athletes and musicians are ethically rich because their value is a direct result of their personal labor and talents. That goes out the window for a lot of athletes when they start signing brand deals with companies like Nike that use sweat shop labor. You’d really have to take it case by case, analyze what is making them their money and whether it’s dependent on exploitation at any point along the supply chain.

A large factor in the “no ethical billionaires” ideology is that purposely avoiding paying an equal share of taxes is inherently unethical, despite being legal and encouraged in our current system. Warren Buffett and the Waltons pay a lower actual tax rate than a McDonald’s drive through worker, despite their businesses depending on numerous public services like roads to transport their goods, GPS that runs their logistics, public schools that educate its workforce and so many others.

3

Hank___Scorpio t1_isswagz wrote

You are to say. You said that people with billions in networth can not be ethical. So then, where is the line? Is it in the hundreds of millions? Tens of millions? Or just in the billions?

−1

Whiskeywiskerbiscuit t1_issxcfu wrote

You’re being intentionally obtuse. People like you have a hard time grasping the concept of a spectrum. You take something with rolling variables and demand an exact, fixed metric with which to measure, when there simply isn’t one. The number at which people themselves become unethical is incredibly individualistic and is determined by their actions, not an arbitrary number they reach along the way to a billion.

4

Hank___Scorpio t1_issxip4 wrote

Just ball park it man.

−1

nillerwafer t1_istquxz wrote

It doesn’t work like that, you would do so poorly in an economics course that you would fail out.

3

BobbertFandango t1_isslx0s wrote

Just because it sounds true or feels right doesn’t make it logically sound.

Wow -25. Lmao. There’s a lotta ppl butt hurt about their appropriate dislike of greedy assholes.

Listen, I agree that to be an ethical billionaire is a NEAR impossibility. But to say there are NONE. That’s flawed af. And I don’t give a rats ass if a bunch of overly-emotional simpletons on Reddit agree or not.

−2

Whiskeywiskerbiscuit t1_issrqpc wrote

It’s fact buddy. The closest we have to ethical billionaires are musicians and athletes where their value is created directly be their own individual labor, but even then they sign brand deals with companies that operate on sweat shops and exploitative labor.

2

vercertorix t1_isrc4xz wrote

I agree with your comment about the picture, might as well catch him mid-sneeze really looking like a goblin, but second richest man still reads as second most selfish man to me.

1