Why the hyper-rich turn into crybabies when "one percent" is invoked

If you’re suggesting the billionaires actually seriously impact consumption of resources on a global basis, then please provide some figures on this, because I’m deeply sceptical.

Their main impact is the externalities they create and don’t pay for in order to collect their billions.

It’s not the money in the Koch brothers’ pockets that they hoard that decimates society (although that certainly doesn’t help), it’s the effects of their pollution they don’t pay for.

It’s the health care for workers they don’t cover and how they fund disinformation campaigns that keep a single payer system for health care at bay while keeping a draconian, wasteful privatized system in its place.

The list goes on and on and each part of that list goes into the hundreds of trillions and the human suffering is simply incalculable.

The externalities they thrust upon the rest of society are vast and the implications are downright evil.

2 Likes
That's kind of a broad brush, isn't it? I doubt we have very many actual sociopaths in the top fractional percent

I don’t think you understand. In order to be in that club, you have to be a sociopathic megalomaniac in the first place. One doesn’t happen without the other. I’m not talking about anyone and everyone who is wealthy, but the top fractional percent is another animal (see note) entirely.

Note: By the way, I meant “animal” in a figurative sense only. :wink:

There's nothing that can be done with THEM that's going to solve anything, other than getting them to cooperate or motivating them to help. . . and that option goes away if we don't treat them like people.

Nowhere have I said that I believe they shouldn’t be treated like people. They just need to be treated like sociopathic people because that’s exactly what they are.

I actually think one of the problems is that we don’t treat the rich like people, we treat them like some special entity that’s above the law, self-responsibility, morals and basic ethics. Screw that.

There's nothing that can be done with THEM that's going to solve anything, other than getting them to cooperate or motivating them to help
We don't need their help. That's just another illusion they propagate with their mass media outlets. Sociopaths aren't going to help society in meaningful ways anyway. They'll put on a show and little more in hopes that the core problems are never addressed that enable their megalomaniacal ambitions in the first place.
We're all being forced to play a big Monopoly game and everybody's complaining because a few people have all the properties and nobody else stands a chance.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m not complaining because of that. I’m complaining because of the real damage they are doing to society that goes far beyond upward mobility and owning a house in the suburbs.

4 Likes

Before Perkins opened his piehole, most people would have placed his achievements in the same class as Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. Megalomania is common among crazy-successful Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. If Musk lives to the age that Perkins is now, will he make equally stupid statements? He’s already more arrogant than Perkins.

To me, a person who makes money this way is far less evil than a vulture capitalist, who milks the wealth of an established company at the expense of its employees and other assets. Also less evil than the Jamie Dimons of the world, who gamble with the money of others, produce no good or service–and then get big raises to reward their failed efforts. Also less evil than people born into money who then use that money to make more money and then think they did it all on their own (the Kochs). All three of the above types are appropriate targets of distain from the Occupy movement because all three distort the concept of meritocracy.

Perkins, as was eloquently outlined in Josh Marshall’s recent essay, is a case of guy hearing how awesome he is for so long that it bred hubris. His lame apology and clarification (that we should not single out minority groups for criticism) is some sort of twisted version of the obvious. When one stereotypes any group, it is easier to hate them all. Duh. His statement about being rewarded for his “creativity” is especially troubling. Crooks and gangsters are experts at using creativity for ill will and personal benefit, while many artists use their exceptional creativity in wonderful ways but make little money from it.

Your point about giving back is the only redemption for these people. To paraphrase Jesus, this is the only way for the filthy-rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Paul Allen, and others are showing the way. Their causes are just, and the quantities given (as percent of income) are large. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, and others who give to propagate their political views and agendas. Those boys go straight to hell. I don’t know who Perkins gives to, or how much, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his money goes largely to evil Libertarian causes, rather than to do good.

In my last response, I forgot to disagree strongly with one of your points:[quote=“Cowicide, post:153, topic:20739”]
No one attains and creates the kind of ridiculously vast wealth that Perkins has today without profitably pushing aside vast externalities onto the rest of society to pay for it. It’s literally impossible.
[/quote]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game, and it IS possible to “create wealth” while at the same time not take it away from others. This is the premise behind Google’s “don’t be evil.”

Perkins’ wealth creation did good for a lot of people–and not just his lackeys and hangers-on. That’s why I was prepared to give him a Mulligan if his apology had been a bit more sincere than it turned out to be.

1 Like

If you’re talking about a club that consists of actual sociopaths then I can’t argue, since it’s in the definition.

But honestly, most of these guys aren’t sociopaths and they don’t lack empathy any more than you or I do, they just apply it to a different sort of person. The rest of us are no more to them than roving Somalian pirates, trust fund babies, rednecks, Muslims, geeks, hippies, jocks, Mexicans and so on are to various groups of us.

See?

Ahh, you miss my point.

Sure, we can change the wrold without them, but it’s faster if we can use them for good, right? They still have dreams, passions, concerns, people they love, quirks, and all the rest. They want things that money can’t buy that they can never experience without help.

Of course, a big problem is ‘THEM’ is a bit broad. Everyone’s an individual, right? Give me a few hours with any five of these ‘sociopaths’ and I’ll find dreams for four of them that most of us could get behind too, and they happen to have won the lottery that has one of the pieces of the puzzle (moneys) that can help those dreams come true the most quickly.

it IS possible to "create wealth" while at the same time not take it away from others.
Um, what?

Nowhere have I said that’s not possible. I suggest you go back and read my posts and steer away from fallacious arguments with me in the future if you want me to take you seriously.

This is the premise behind Google’s “don’t be evil.”

I don’t think you could have found a more laughable example considering all the evil Google has done.

Perkins’ wealth creation did good for a lot of people

Once again, nowhere have I said that didn’t happen for some people.

What you’re missing is that in order for him to become so vastly wealthy and the others he enabled to become billionaires, they had to shove the externalities they created onto the rest of society in order to garner such ridiculous amounts of money.

There’s no way in hell one can acquire that much ridiculous wealth without externalities being shoved aside for the rest of society to pick up. I’m sure you’d like examples and I don’t blame you (although you could look this up yourself if you’re so inclined), so here’s a sampling:


• Perkins partnered with Eugene Kleiner who started Fairchild Semiconductor which has created massive amounts of pollution issues that they thrust upon the rest of society.

Fairchild Semiconductor has leaked tens of thousands of gallons of toxic solvents into the ground which residents and even state officials strongly suspect caused a high rate of birth defects in the area.

Let me know when Perkins and his good buddy Eugene Kleiner are going to dip into their vast wealth to take care of all those people growing up with birth defects. Nah, just let the rest of society deal with it. Also, why put in pollution controls and cut into vast profits to do that when you can just be a bum who has others suffer the consequences?

Oh, and they’ve got a fucking superfund pollution site:

Guess who mostly pays for superfund sites? For the most part, everyone except the billionaires. Yep, society does in many more ways than one. The vast wealthy sure as hell never live anywhere near superfund sites, that’s for sure. That’s for the “others” to do.

Just pay some fines down the road and keep being a megalomaniac, right?


• Perkins seeded Genentech. Once again, they sure don’t want to cut into those profits they “earned” by not cutting corners.

Genentech overlooked 80,000 adverse reaction complaints including 15,000 tied to deaths.

Read the Reuters story.


There’s many more examples if you bother to look…

Unlike these filthy billionaires, I’ve got real work to do because I work hard for a living so you’re going to have to look up the many more examples yourself. I guess my work would be much slacker and more profitable if I lacked morals and ethics, but life’s a bitch for those of us who work for a living that doesn’t suck off society.

Perkins may live “the good life” with his 130 million dollar yacht and the whores that sail with him, but I’d rather “live a good life” where I give more to society than I take and be able to look myself in the mirror at the end of the day.

Tom Perkins and all his megalomaniacal buddies can rot in hell. They are bums who suck off society for their own gain and then want us to line up to kiss their asses. You can pucker up all you want, but the rest of us with more awareness and dignity will line up to give them a swift kick in their ass instead.

2 Likes

But honestly, most of these guys aren’t sociopaths and they don’t lack empathy any more than you or I do

That’s completely untrue.

Sure, we can change the wrold without them, but it’s faster if we can use them for good, right?

So, when do you think sociopaths are going to start being agents of good roots for society? Are they just waiting until they swindle their 3rd billion that they hoard from society before they jump up to sincerely help?

It’s never going to happen. I mean, maybe one of them will go senile, completely lose their mind and start trying, but their lackeys and associates would literally kill them before any real change could be implemented. These guys aren’t like the mafia, they are a mafia.

Of course, a big problem is ‘THEM’ is a bit broad.

It’s not a “THEM”, it’s sociopathic megalomaniacs that are trashing society and the environment for their own gain. I have their names, but I don’t have time to sit here and gather every one for you in a list.

But, if you want names, you can start at the top right here:

William, I’ve met some of these people back in the day and they’d just as soon willingly let good people (like you) suffer and die if it means more money for their bottom lines. They are that depraved and they’ve already proven it with their actions. It’s megalomania, it’s sociopathy… and it’s a sick illness that affects society while they live in the lap of luxury.

If you’ve got a plan to cleanse them against their own will of their sick addiction to wealth, then let me know. An intervention is long overdue.

I appreciate and truly respect your willingness to try to find the goodness in these evil people, but it’s a fruitless endeavor in this regard.

2 Likes

Really?

I’m guessing we’ve got a different perspective. So tell you what . . if we ever end up with a situation where any of these people are somehow at the mercy of society . . . I bet the world will be a better place if they’re put in the hands of people with my mindset rather than yours.

I know mine’s less common, but I can get useful things out of these people, just as I can get useful things out of a third world orphan. If somebody’s not willing to work with me, then we’ll talk.

You’re a very clever man, but in this particular situation you’re trapped and assigning too much value to the person and far too little to the role/training/circumstance. Real humans aren’t fixed points in time.

1 Like

I bet the world will be a better place if they’re put in the hands of people with my mindset rather than yours.

I think they should be tried for their crimes and put into prison like any other murderer or person who causes great harm to people. I don’t agree with the death penalty or torture, so they wouldn’t be subjected to that. If they were being chased by a mob, I’d grab them and take them to safety even if it risked my life.

But, justice? Yes, finally they’d be subjected to justice… I’m surprised you’d think I’d do anything different. I have no desire to kill rich assholes. But, I would enjoy a movie about it or something like that.

I know mine’s less common, but I can get useful things out of these people

Hey, I told you I’m against torture! :wink:

You’re a very clever man, but in this particular situation you’re trapped and assigning too much value to the person and far too little to the role/training/circumstance. Real humans aren’t fixed points in time

Well, I think you’re very clever too. :slight_smile:

I would agree with you that there’s perhaps some conditioning involved in the making of an extreme megalomaniac, but I’ve also known people who were the children and grandchildren of the excessively wealthy and they choose not to play into it and walk away from vast wealth because of their own ethics.

People called them crazy and some even end up disowned by their family members, but they can at least look themselves in the mirror at the end of the day with pride instead of paying people to fake it and look at them that way.

I don’t know Warren Buffet’s grand daughter, but she seems like a fairly good example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/21/us-wealth-buffett-idUSN2040437020080221

Being a megalomaniac who profits off the misery of others is a decision that people choose. Just like when someone decides on premeditated murder to collect insurance money. Human suffering and death caused with a gun in an alley or by a pen in an office is the same to me. I’m not sure why you find a disconnect there, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

2 Likes

Ooh, see there. . totally agreed!

That’s actually also where I get really cautious though. I’m pretty sure there are a few hundred thousand other similarly ‘qualified’ individuals that, were we to create a power vacuum, would just give us more of the same (if not worse).

Ahh! Yeah, see. My take is that we’ve got a whole lot of people in prisons who can be useful too, but you can’t get a lot of that benefit out without getting some intrinsic motivation out of them, which generally means not caging them up. I’m sure there are a few people who we just don’t want around other people, ever. . but at the very least we can get art, have them research cures, or just fight robot battles for our entertainment, right?

So I guess I see a lot of people who, given a different environment, can thrive in a positive way, and I’d rather hit things from the other direction. Of course there are some people who are so good at being assholes that we’ll never get them out of that comfort zone, but when you change the framework and take away their advantages they expose themselves pretty quickly

2 Likes

Philanthropy is often thought of as a creative endeavor-- an opportunity for the donor to apply his or her entrepreneurial spirit towards a particular social good.

I suppose you could call that vanity.

When it comes to billionaires it’s more like an excuse to funnel money to pet projects or things they like instead of the greater social good, complete with naming rights and gala balls. Yes it’s vain and suits the donors particular ideological interests vs. society at large.

1 Like

Show me some billionaires that put most their money towards cleaning up all the externalities they’ve created and thrust upon society in order to plunder their wealth and I’ll stop calling them vain when they throw a little shindig for their favorite pet charity and brag to everyone about it.

Actually, I’ll be the first in line to kiss their ass and ask if they want seconds.

1 Like

Though nobody pays for their externalities (rich or poor). I read somewhere a while ago that the every dollar a rich person spends contributes substantially less pollution than that spent by a poor person. That’s not an argument for inequality of wealth, but it does suggest that the externalities argument is a weak one the other way too.

I glanced through Carnegie’s Wealth essay, which is famous among Philanthropic circles, and one of his concerns that his wealth will be frittered away, either by heirs, taxes, probate, etc etc, without actually doing much of consequence. Thus, he suggests giving away large sums in ones own lifetime, actively managed by the donor.

If we consider what results flow from the Cooper Institute, for instance, to the best portion of the race in New York not possessed of means, and compare these with those which would have arisen for the good of the masses from an equal sum distributed by Mr. Cooper in his lifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest form of distribution, being for work done and not for charity, we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement of the race which lie embedded in the present law of the accumulation of wealth. Much of this sum if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use,that of adding to the comforts of the home, would have yielded results for the race, as a race, at all comparable to those which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute from generation to generation. Let the advocate of violent or radical change ponder well this thought.

We might even go so far as to take another instance, that of Mr. Tilden’s bequest of five millions of dollars for a free library in the city of New York, but in referring to this one cannot help saying involuntarily, how much better if Mr. Tilden had devoted the last years of his own life to the proper administration of this immense sum; in which case neither legal contest nor any other cause of delay could have interfered with his aims. But let us assume that Mr. Tilden’s millions finally become the means of giving to this city a noble public library, where the treasures of the world contained in books will be open to all forever, without money and without price. Considering the good of that part of the race which congregates in and around Manhattan Island, would its permanent benefit have been better promoted had these millions been allowed to circulate in small sums through the hands of the masses? Even the most strenuous advocate of Communism must entertain a doubt upon this subject. Most of those who think will probably entertain no doubt whatever.

And I thought of something I heard on This American Money

Planet Money reporters David Kestenbaum and Jacob Goldstein went to Kenya to see the work of a charity called GiveDirectly in action. Instead of funding schools or wells or livestock, GiveDirectly has decided to just give money directly to the poor people who need it, and let them decide how to spend it. David and Jacob explain whether this method of charity works, and why some people think it’s a terrible idea

Clearly, this is at odds with Carnegie’s idea of a well organized and well capitalized donor organization. Did all the towns need those libraries? Is international peace such a good thing? Perhaps with all those funds, we could have fought a decent war! But no. Mr Carnegie has to decide what’s best for us, and he only gets his way because his ideals, pipe dreams, and other fripperies are well capitalized.

1 Like

I read somewhere a while ago …

I read somewhere a while ago that Iraq had WMDs and we’d be greeted as “liberators” after invading Iraq. It didn’t quite work out that way.

How about providing your source? Let me guess, you don’t have one…? That’s ok, I have some sources below…

Though nobody pays for their externalities (rich or poor).

That’s an absolutely untrue statement based entirely on fiction.

Check this post (for starters) and educate yourself on who pays the costs:

Why the hyper-rich turn into crybabies when "one percent" is invoked - #161 by Cowicide?

Average American taxpayers and the poor (dearly) pay for externalities:

Fast food, poverty wages: The public cost of low-wage jobs in the fast-food industry:
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/publiccosts/fastfoodpovertywages.shtml

Airlines get $2.7 billion in taxpayer-backed loans while using poorly paid workers:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/22/epa-renew-polluters-pay-tax-to-fund-cleanups/

Taxpayers foot bill for cleanup of polluted site in south St. Louis:

Disparities in the Impact of Pollution on the Poor:
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/health-risks/health-risks-disparities.html

Pollution disproportionately affects the poor:

Low-Income, Minority Communities Disproportionately Exposed To Toxic Air Pollutants, Study Finds:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/148257.php

(This all just barely scratches the surface, by the way)

The poor (especially the poor) pay for externalities not just with their limited money, but with their time, suffering and even with their very own lives. Let me know when the billionaires start living next to the superfund sites they create (and start paying for them in earnest along with all the damage to the poor that live there).

For you to dismiss this is incredible.

I don’t now what libertarian think tank crack you’ve been smoking, but that’s so far from reality that it’d be laughable if it wasn’t so heartless and delusional to say such things.

6 Likes

I can’t think of a single example where vast wealth was created without vicious externalities.

Car manufacturers: consistent pattern of employee disenfranchisement and raw material pollution
Health insurance: collusion on a mass scale, depriving customers of their wealth and health
Hospitals: same thing, including runaway hospital acquired infection
Oil: pollution at all levels of production, distribution and consumption
Finance and banking: Enron 2001, Worldcom 2001, Lehman Brothers 2008, etc. Fraud and deception are a way of life for them.
Apple: poor working conditions and pollution in the USA and China
Microsoft: always leaving customers out in the cold. First with viruses in the late 90’s, and now with weak security and back doors for the NSA.
Google: massive energy consumption, which means downstream pollution
Warren Buffett: invests in all these crooks to make his buck
Koch brothers: same
Bilderberg Group: same

Is there any example of a billion-dollar industry, or a billion-dollar-industrialist who has not caused massive downstream externalities to “make” their money? Serious question. I’m pondering. What do you think?

2 Likes

That’s NOT what he said. There is a difference between being greedy, and being consumed with greed. Sometime, somewhere, everyone has seen SOMETHING, and said “I want this”. . .

Something toxic to water supplies and aquatic flora & fauna isn’t necessarily something it’s a bad idea to fertilise potatoes with.

Lovely analogy. Just being forced to play monopoly at all gives me the chills…