Should Gaga be a billionaire?

[elegidadedios 2,170]

1 minute ago, RudraCNG said:

Just because you think nobody, including her, should hoard that amount of money doesn't mean you love Gaga's art any less. Yeah, there are other billionaries who don't deserve their wealth, that doesn't mean it's ok for Gaga to become a billionaire. What kind of argument is that? If anything, we should want a better redistribution of wealth, not that another already-rich person joins the billionaire club just because she is our favorite artist and we think that gives her a special status above others.

Yeah cause do i want her to be seen as the next MJ for the new generations to come? Yes I want that for her

Do I want her to reach his wealth? Damn no lmao

[Bronco 11,844]

1 minute ago, lastpopicon said:

I don't subscribe to the notion we are at world war 3 and I find laughable that you actually think that lol We have proxies wars like we always had since 1945,

Politically, the world was far far more unstable in the 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's and we didn't have any world wars lol With far more incendiary proxies wars...

And doesn't china have +800 billionaires? How is Neoliberalism on its deathbead if the Chineses sphere of influence is calling? Seems like you are contradicting yourself ngl. China is just another side of the same coin.

The proxy war is the new format for a world war.

Since the advent of nuclear weaponry, we'll never see a world war between super powers ever again. Because now they're guaranteed to lose. 

Instead, superpower conflicts are carried out via proxy regional war and continuous cold wars. 

The third world war, was initiated by the invasion of Crimea and Donetsk in 2014. And has seen America pushed back in every global region except for the Middle East - and holding onto that regional sphere has caused considerable damage to the European sphere of American influence and helped prevent America maintain or establish sphere of influences in south east Asia and Africa. 

Central and Southern Africa has been carved up between Russia & China. 

Eastern Asian has been financially assimilated by China with the exclusion of Japan. Taiwan is insignificant and if China moved in to take it tomorrow the world would let it without any defensive action. Hong Kong has been near entirely consumed by the Chinese state and Western powers have been powerless to enforce the 1 Country, 2 systems deal they brokered with China. India has been forced into China's alliance by Trump tarrifs. 

Most south American nations were already closer allies of Russia & China - its only Argentina where America has ever been truly successful (thanks to the Nazi links). 

Russian and Chinese espionage has been superior for at least a decade to American efforts. And it is firmly planted within every major western political system now. Its successfully won numerous elections in America since it established the Tea party. 

America has been completely emasculated on the global stage. Its seen globally as a failed superpower slowly collapsing in on itself. And its only remaining allies are the failed superpowers of the imperial age. 

That is the third world war. A long running shadow conflict between the political elites of the 2 post war spheres of influence. Both knew they could never engage in actual war with one another, but only one side recognised there's more to conquest than direct traditional conflict and as a result they have ended up the clear victor. 

Also China isn't neoliberal in the slightest and it speaks to your ignorance on the topic if you think it is. China's a prime example of a state led market economy, state intervention/ownership/management is fundamentally incompatible with neoliberalism. Even the private entities within the Chinese market are managed via the state through proxy. The Chinese financial institutions have zero political independence and are directly controlled. When private companies cause political issues, their executive leadership is directly removed and replaced by the state. 

[lastpopicon 32,081]

 

3 minutes ago, Bronco said:

The proxy war is the new format for a world war.

Since the advent of nuclear weaponry, we'll never see a world war between super powers ever again. Because now they're guaranteed to lose. 

Instead, superpower conflicts are carried out via proxy regional war and continuous cold wars. 

The third world war, was initiated by the invasion of Crimea and Donetsk in 2014. And has seen America pushed back in every global region except for the Middle East - and holding onto that regional sphere has caused considerable damage to the European sphere of American influence and helped prevent America maintain or establish sphere of influences in south east Asia and Africa. 

Central and Southern Africa has been carved up between Russia & China. 

Eastern Asian has been financially assimilated by China with the exclusion of Japan. Taiwan is insignificant and if China moved in to take it tomorrow the world would let it without any defensive action. Hong Kong has been near entirely consumed by the Chinese state and Western powers have been powerless to enforce the 1 Country, 2 systems deal they brokered with China. India has been forced into China's alliance by Trump tarrifs. 

Most south American nations were already closer allies of Russia & China - its only Argentina where America has ever been truly successful (thanks to the Nazi links). 

Russian and Chinese espionage has been superior for at least a decade to American efforts. And it is firmly planted within every major western political system now. Its successfully won numerous elections in America since it established the Tea party. 

America has been completely emasculated on the global stage. Its seen globally as a failed superpower slowly collapsing in on itself. And its only remaining allies are the failed superpowers of the imperial age. 

That is the third world war. A long running shadow conflict between the political elites of the 2 post war spheres of influence. Both knew they could never engage in actual war with one another, but only one side recognised there's more to conquest than direct traditional conflict and as a result they have ended up the clear victor. 

 

This is fascinating, we start talking about wealth and end up with geopolitics and world affairs, I love ggd.

But I want to point out I could build a narrative about how many conflicts in the 60's, 70's and 80's were also a greater plot for WW3. Maybe you are talking about WW4 already. 

3 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Also China isn't neoliberal in the slightest and it speaks to your ignorance on the topic if you think it is. China's a prime example of a state led market economy, state intervention/ownership/management is fundamentally incompatible with neoliberalism. Even the private entities within the Chinese market are managed via the state through proxy. The Chinese financial institutions have zero political independence and are directly controlled. When private companies cause political issues, their executive leadership is directly removed and replaced by the state. 

Sure they are not neo liberal  they are neoliberal-looking 

[faysalaaa 4,700]

I wouldnt care much but I would lose respect for her. Anyone that wants to reach being a billionaire is looking for status., not money.

Edited Tuesday at 03:53 PM by faysalaaa

[lastpopicon 32,081]

Just now, faysalaaa said:

I wouldnt care much but I would lose respect for her. Anyone that wants to reach being a billionaire is looking for status., not money.

idk, if haus labs reaches that arbitrary 1B number, what is she supposed to do? sell her company? Doesn't seem fair to her. 

[GerMonsterNotta 1,461]

Strange thread / never thought… anyway I dunno, I’m just dancing until I’m dead 💀🕺🏻✨

Edited Tuesday at 04:07 PM by GerMonsterNotta

[The Fame Monster 4,372]

3 hours ago, elegidadedios said:

I fully know you're saying this from a genuine and kind point of view but let me tell you that that's not how economy (specially under the current capitalist system) works. Billionaires exists and increase their wealth year by year because of the so called poor people. Money circulates over the same resources (doesn't grow out of nowhere in an exponential and simplistic way), a few selected ppl around the globe get richer and that happens because the vast majority of us get to have less and less economic resources as time goes by (and it gets even harder for those in underdeveloped countries). So for them "to give back" to us makes no sense, it shouldn't happen in the first place. It's just a marketed illusion from capitalism to implant the following narrative: 1. rich people can be kind while being rich 2. if you work hard enough you can potentially become one of them (plot twist: that's unlikely)

An example for this: I paid 330€ for a single ticket to see her (glad I did, don't get me wrong). 330 euros I could've spent in being less worried about taxes and rent during the week I spent that amount of. Shall I go on?

I don’t know which country you live in, but I’m sure we’re looking at this from somewhat different perspectives. In my country, according to a quick Google search, there are only seven billionaires in total, and thanks to our progressive tax system income inequality remains relatively small. I also feel that young people here have fairly equal opportunities to succeed in life through education. Of course, there are also many who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and don’t receive the same support – and that’s exactly where more effort should be put.

Your example about Gaga’s tickets is understandable. I didn’t buy tickets myself because they were too expensive for my current situation. Still, I’m not quite sure what exactly you would want Gaga to do. If the tickets cost, say, only €50 (making them affordable to a much larger audience) the tour would probably no longer be financially viable, nor would it meet the fans’ expectations for production quality. On top of that, the tickets would sell out in seconds, and many of them would end up in the hands of people who don’t even intend to attend, but just want to resell them at a higher price (though this may vary depending on the country).

I too wish we could all live in societies where everyone is guaranteed a basic livelihood and the means for a good life. I just don’t know how that would truly be possible or realistic.

And besides, in a reality where everyone is automatically given all the wealth and resources they need, what would motivate anyone to strive for something greater? For many people, money and profit are still a major source of motivation in life – not just doing things for the fun of it. Honestly, when I think about it, I wouldn’t even know what to do with myself if I no longer had to earn a living. It feels unnatural – and frankly, boring.

[Economy 49,932]

I mean $1B or $300M imo doesnt make much of a difference in principal so imo Billionaire status changes nothing. Its just a threshold category with math numbers we invented

 

For all intents and purposes shes already richer than anyone should be

 

But I dont hate her for it. Its the economic system that allows this. The vast majority of human beings once they have a lot of wealth the natural instinct is to keep most of it to themselves even if they donate here and there.

 

I dont think shes a bad person. Human instinct is to put yourself first (especially if it involves strangers u dont know) and the economic system makes it possible for a few to hoard a lot

 

We cant realistically expect many of them will give up their status. Really the system needs to change

 

Really i question any personal networth (excluding business networth like equipment, tools and machinery that u need to produce your goods, land for farmers, or other assets to run your business whatever it may be) above $2M to $4M. Anything above that is kinda like... why?

[crushedlemonice 1,348]

Why would anyone lose respect for Gaga when she becomes a billionaire based on this arbitrary number? There's no real difference between 900 million vs 1 billion. If you would lose respect and stop supporting her, that should have already happened many years ago when she reached let's say 100 or 200 million as that's still more money than anyone would ever need. 

[Illundressyou 447]

Noone should be

[FreedomInTheMusic 600]

Came in here only to find y’all are already preaching the same sermon. Tax the billionaires out of existence! 

[tlittlemonster 1,682]

12 hours ago, elegidadedios said:

No one should be a billionaire, not even by their own merits. We as a society need to normalize the fact that wealth should be distributed

And I'll stop there

This sounds like an amazing idea but it doesn't work in reality.

When you live in a society where most of the wealth is distributed, people get unmotivated to work and innovate, which reduces massively the total wealth produced by a given country. In the end, there is way less to "distribute" and poverty actually increases.

Communist countries are some of the poorest and with the worst standards of living.

Of course, some countries should increase taxes on the wealthy to a certain degree, absolutely. But, it is way more complex than it looks because you also don't want to increase taxes so much that it drives the wealthy away from your country, which ultimately results in less investment, fewer jobs, worse economy etc.

[lastpopicon 32,081]

23 minutes ago, tlittlemonster said:

This sounds like an amazing idea but it doesn't work in reality.

When you live in a society where most of the wealth is distributed, people get unmotivated to work and innovate, which reduces massively the total wealth produced by a given country. In the end, there is way less to "distribute" and poverty actually increases.

Communist countries are some of the poorest and with the worst standards of living.

Of course, some countries should increase taxes on the wealthy to a certain degree, absolutely. But, it is way more complex than it looks because you also don't want to increase taxes so much that it drives the wealthy away from your country, which ultimately results in less investment, fewer jobs, worse economy etc.

People are the problem, in theory we could build an ethopia, but in practice humans will always screw everything up, its human nature to want more and more, at least we have a system that somewhat allows everyone the same chances, and it's not perfect but it's the best we have.

In soviet russia the Apparatchik controlled everything, the translation is "agent of the apparatus", and that's essentially what a communist system is, it's just looks, optics and vibes, and while a very few live like kings, 99% of the population lives very poor lives, and many times under the fear of prosecution.

Not to mention that in the soviet union if you were not apart of the nomenklatura, you were a third class citizen, so much for "workers of the world, unite".

And I mention the soviet union because it was a superpower , but the same can be said for any country with the same economic policy, it brews misery for the many and the wealth for the few, in proportions that would make the billionaires people complain about seem like child play in comparison.

And I'm scared we actually have to have this conversation, we will repeat the same mistakes if people don't actually learn history, and more importantly, human nature. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:50 PM by lastpopicon

[lastpopicon 32,081]

And seeing people who I deem very intelligent saying how countries like china are doing a good things by controlling the economy and everything by the state apparatus, it worries me deeply.

The state is not your friend, and an absolutist state that controls private enterprise and most aspects of business is not democracy, it's tyranny.

Maybe I'm out of touch but we are in for wild times if even the intelligent people are swayed by propaganda, and admittedly very bad propaganda. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:58 PM by lastpopicon

[PartySick 160,904]

13 hours ago, NUTELLA said:

@PartySick will close down this website

Billionaires shouldn't exist