I don’t mean doctor-making-150k-a-year rich, I mean properly rich with millions to billions of dollars.

I think many will say yes, they can be, though it may be rare. I was tempted to. I thought more about it and I wondered, are you really a good person if you’re hoarding enough money you and your family couldn’t spend in 10 lifetimes?

I thought, if you’re a good person, you wouldn’t be rich. And if you’re properly rich you’re probably not a good person.

I don’t know if it’s fair or naive to say, but that’s what I thought. Whether it’s what I believe requires more thought.

There are a handful of ex-millionaires who are no longer millionaires because they cared for others in a way they couldn’t care for themselves. Only a handful of course, I would say they are good people.

And in order to stay rich, you have to play your role and participate in a society that oppresses the poor which in turn maintains your wealth. Are you really still capable of being a good person?

Very curious about people’s thoughts on this.

  • Anomandaris@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t mean doctor-making-150k-a-year rich, I mean properly rich with millions to billions of dollars.

    I firmly believe there are no ways to become “properly” rich that don’t require you to be a bad person.

    To get out of that “doctor-making-150k-a-year” category you need some combination of greed, exploitative practices, manipulating broken capitalist systems, nepotism, ruthlessness, corruption, bribery, and outright lying.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      idk, you probably have a small number of artists and genuinely lucky-sons-of-bitches who get proper rich without being bad people. Or at least with their wealth not coming from being a bad person.

      • Anomandaris@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, fair enough, I’m not too arrogant to admit there are exceptions to every rule.

        And more power to artists and exotic chefs and others, who are able to get sociopath billionaires to fork out crazy amounts of money for their work.

      • sadreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They still benefit from regime in place to maintain their wealth and many are by default daddy’s lap dogs.

        People love putting up singers or athletes as they earned their money “fair” etc but these people end shilling for the benefit of the same rich daddies

        Their art literally supports the status quo.

        For example NBA players and China, rappers shilling “prosperity rap” and many singers putting out generic catchy music. Wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds them, ay?

        They mostly never take a stand but to be fair those that do get punished and removed from public eye.

        George Carlin was an OG about it, said shit that was so true when most of us were still shitting diapers.

        You can turn any of his content on today. 100% on point and relavent. It is a bit uncanny.

        I am sure he made good money but at least he didn’t lie about how it works. Most celebs are more worried about other celebs accepting them into rich daddy club… Not their audiences

      • HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think I can 100% get behind the direct link that being an artist makes you a virtuous person, though I understand your bigger point.

        I think we are overlooking tremendously how the art world is often a method in which the ultra wealthy wash their money. I don’t think that artists that rise to the level of success of becoming a household name are blind to this.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I meant more that art isn’t an inherently morally problematic way of making a large amount of money, unlike, say, crushing surplus value out of the working class at the expense of their health and happiness.

          • HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I get your larger point, but if an artist makes bank off someone who is crushing surplus value out of the working class, then isn’t that still evil but with extra steps?

            • PugJesus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, we’re getting to ‘there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’ level abstraction there, and it’s a bit early in the morning for me to be arguing for or against that. XD

    • minnieo@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree totally, which is why I made that distinction. And my last point about participating in the system that oppresses the poor just to maintain your own wealth. I can’t see how someone like that could be considered good.

        • minnieo@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not like we have a choice, especially those of us in poverty. You’re dealt your hand and thats that. Born poor, die poor. Born rich, enjoy life. Shouldn’t be that way but it is

        • sadreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not much choice but no doubt we are both victims and enablers of the regime.

          People first need to accept this dichotomy before we can move forward. Daddies spend good money on PR to keep us bickering among our selves while they cashing in on our labour and taxes

    • Brkdncr@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can be born into it.

      I’d say you’re a bad person if you’re born into it and don’t actively try to get rid of it.

      I think the point of being a rich asshole is 1 billion dollars usd. Even 999mm is too much, but over 1 bil is an easy demarcation of excessive wealth.

      • minnieo@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        1 billion? I think rich asshole starts much lower than that or 999 million, thats a fuck ton of money. Rich asshole begins at 1-3 million and up.

      • Bibibis@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        999 million what? 999 million net worth? What happens when the market goes on a 15% hike like in 2020? Do you become the bad guy? Or is that 999 million in liquid assets (spoiler alert billionaires don’t have 1 billion in the bank). Thinking you have a point shows how ignorant you are about wealth except the fact you hate people who have more than you

        • Brkdncr@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dang dude pretty hardcore response.

          I think 999 net worth or 999 gold coins doesn’t matter. It’s a level that everyone can say is too much. You have to draw a line somewhere to start. Once it’s drawn you can go back and adjust but it seems people get hung up on where to start really easily.

      • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was going to be my response. If you’re obscenely wealthy but you’re in the process of trying to get rid of that wealth via philanthropy, I think you get a pass.

        And not just “pledges”. Actual donations.

        So like, almost no multimillionaires.