Lemdro.id

1 point

7 months ago

Man, I feel like we reached an agreement and now you’re trying to walk it back. :P

And while I don’t necessarily disagree with the point you’re making, it feels like a setup to goal shift. Like, any example that gets brought up to counter the narrative can now just be dismissed as, “oh, but he’s not enough of a billionaire.”

And let’s be real, a billion dollars, right now, is almost certainly beyond that arbitrary dollar amount X you speak of. There’s only 3000 of them in the world! The *world! There’s 8 trillion of us. How much more selective do we need to be??

report

[ - ]

teawrecks@sopuli.xyz

1 point

7 months ago

Yeah, I know it sounds like a goal post movement, but I didn’t make the original claim, and in fact thought the original claim was oversimplified, but that there was a truth to it. I think that in order to best illustrate that truth, “billion” had to be removed as it was a red herring.

And yeah the first half of it sounds like I’m setting a variable X, where X makes me right, but the fact that such an X exists is the point I’m making. If you agree then we’re on the same page. The alternate claim would be that it’s possible in our late stage capitalist society to be the richest person using purely ethical, non-exploitative means, which I don’t believe is possible. And for a value of X=a billion, I think it’s just very unlikely.

report

[ - ]

1 point

7 months ago

I mean, I certainly think it’s possible to become the richest man on earth through purely ethical means. It’s wildly, incredibly unlikely, but strictly possible.

You could become a recording artist that self publishes your own music, only distribute online, and become unprecedented levels of popular. Sell each mp3 for $5 and sell a few trillion of them.

Is that likely? Absolutely not. Exceedingly unlikely. But becoming a muliti-billionaire in general is exceedingly unlikely. This is one of the lesser likely ways for sure, but it’s fathomable, at least in the sense that it’s a coherent narrative that strictly could occur.

What about that scenario is strictly impossible? Not vanishingly unlikely, but literally could not happen?

report

[ - ]

teawrecks@sopuli.xyz

1 point

7 months ago

I certainly think it’s possible to become the richest man on earth through purely ethical means.

Maybe in general, but it’s impossible in our current late-stage capitalist society.

What about that scenario is strictly impossible?

Because anyone who tries to do it would be quickly usurped by someone else willing to be unethical.

report

[ - ]

1 point

7 months ago

How do you unethically usurp a popular musician’s fame in a way that lets you earn more money than them, given the parameters of my above example?

report

[ - ]

teawrecks@sopuli.xyz

1 point

7 months ago

I assume you’re going for the “is it impossible, or just highly improbable” route again. Is the musician example intended to be something that is possible? Do you think that example is possible? I think that even healthy, sustainable competition would prevent that example from ever happening. Which is part of the point: if you only have ethically run businesses, you’ll always have healthy competition, and thus none of them can ever reach such an absurd amount of wealth over the others.

But let’s say you’re an unethical multi billion dollar corporation in the music industry whose bottom line is being impacted, and you’re willing to do whatever to get part of that. Let me ask you, what would you do to get your piece of the pie? Feel free to just look around for inspiration :(. You’d likely start by offering to buy them out. If they refuse you have several options: creating a copycat that sounds similar, but pump out 10x more tracks to flood the market, pay off all “radio stations” (whatever companies you pay to stream music in random stores and clubs, etc) to prioritize your music, pay SEO professionals to ensure your products appear before yours, pay lawyers to find something to litigate over to stun your ability to make any more music. Someone who is actually in the music industry could probably come up with better ideas than me, but the point is, a company willing and allowed to play unethically will always beat out the ones that aren’t.

report

[ - ]

1 point

7 months ago

I mean, artistry is inherently popularity driven, and we can see how knock offs rarely impact the demand for the original.

Damn, how many Minecraft or Minecraft adjacent games have come out in the last 15yrs? Have any of them made any dent in it’s sales?

Look, you’ve set up a motte and bailey here. If I point to any example that concretely exists in real life, like Minecraft, you’ll just say that the “X” wealth value is too low. If I say a hypothetical that doesn’t exist, you’ll say it’s an impossibility. You’re effectively asking me to prove a negative here.

If you truly, in your wildest imagination, can’t think of a single way, no matter how extremely and unbelievably unlikely, that someone could become the wealthiest person on earth without exploiting the labor of others, I’m happy to agree to disagree on the issue. But it seems like that’s more a lack of imagination on your part than anything.

Hell, here’s a simple one. Elon Musk decides to will his entire fortune to a random stranger drawn by lottery, you end up winning, and then he dies. Congrats, you’re now the richest person on earth. Did you exploit someone’s labor to get that money?
All money on earth has at some point belonged to someone who did, and I’m not culpable because the $20 bill in my wallet was once probably owned by Jeff Bezos (or, you know, someone who’s dead and evil). Are you now responsible for every ill thing that Elon Musk has done because you won his death lottery? Did you commit some evil acts on your path to becoming the richest person on earth?

report