this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
121 points (96.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44123 readers
512 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
121
Does money corrupt, or is money attractive to questionable people? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was gonna include a third option about how money is easier to achieve without considering the morality of your actions but that's not really a philosophy as much as it is an objective fact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Both but I believe to a certain degree a person can have a certain amount without it corrupting them. Beyond that point, everyone is corrupted. There are no truly benevolent billionaires because a person must engage in various questionable practices to keep growing their wealth at such an exponential rate. Basic market economics dictates that a business entity competing for a limited market share must repeatedly find new ways to make more profit by using strategies their competitors aren't. This includes but is not limited to skirting around regulations and laws, and somebody unquestionably runs those companies.

I also think most people massively underestimate the impact that conditioning puts on a person's outward demeanor, but that leads into a deeper tangentially related discussion. Regardless, people are complex creatures.

β€”To put it simply, to become a billionaire or even a typical* megamillionaire a person must invariably step on someone else.

*The only exception I can think of are SOME lottery jackpot winners.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Lotteries are no different than stepping on people. They have to buy into the process, but the amounts allocated from lotteries for education or other grants is outpaced by what is given up in prizes. And many lotteries engage in games and mechanisms to keep people in the feedback loop of pouring money in. It's a tax on the stupid and the poor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I can't say that I agree. If lotteries don't bring in more money to fund public services than they pay out, then that's a failing of a political nature. That means it could be a failing of an entire state population if that state represents a democracy, or it could be a failing of a states corrupt political class if that state isn't a democracy. Regardless, it's not necessarily a corruption of the winner which I was referring to earlier. Additionally, I've heard the "tax on the stupid and the poor" concept multiple times before, and the level of condescension towards the lower class in a discussion about financial ethics has never sat right with me. It also ignores the entertainment aspect of playing the lottery. If we really want to do away with a tax on the poor as well as the foolish, then perhaps it's more important to end excise (AKA sin) taxes, but that's also beside the subject.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

True, but I wouldn't really hold the people that buy in responsible for each other's misery. They're doing it to themselves just as much.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Nah, it's all a lottery. If being an asshole was enough there'd be way more rich people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Nah, being an asshole is just a minimum requirement to becoming megawealthy with regards to anything but the lottery. β€”I didn't say that immense luck still wasn't required. That's a given and the fact that most megarich people don't recognize this feeds back into them being assholes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I really don't think so. If you went back in time and bought a bunch of Apple stock you too could be a billionaire, no obviously antisocial behavior required.

There are examples of billionaires that were helped along the way by being an asshole, and it might improve your chances slightly, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient.

That’s a given and the fact that most megarich people don’t recognize this feeds back into them being assholes.

Unambiguously agree. They actually prefer being called evil to being called lucky.