Comment by noisy_boy

I don't agree. They didn't get rich by creating value. They might have created value, but they got rich by keeping that value to themselves.

I would also argue that they don't create the value themselves, but their workers do. Just like that joke: a worker is admiring the boss's Ferrari, and the boss tells him "if you continue working hard, next year I'll have 2"

Remember Forbes list is a marketing device

Do not treat it like the real list of world's richest people

I also create value but am not as rich. Maybe they extracted value from society by unethical means to acquire that much of it?

This is a breach of the guidelines (“please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community”), but it is also inaccurate. Most regular participants on HN are employees, not wannabe billionaires.

You're saying this because you actually don't understand a huge part of what I'm talking about: The tragedy of the commons. You didn't look it up, so your answer here is completely mistaken. MY entire ARGUMENT is based on that, and that is EXACTLY what theory Y is. It is the negative consequence of theory Y. You need to understand my argument before responding. Perhaps it's my fault for expecting most people to know what the tragedy of the commons is:

The tragedy of the commons is a paradox in which individually rational behavior leads to a collectively irrational and destructive outcome. It is not a story about bad people doing bad things. It is a story about good people doing exactly what makes sense—and still destroying something vital in the process.

Imagine a shared resource: a pasture open to all local herders. Each herder faces a choice:

  1. Add another animal and gain the full benefit of that animal’s growth.

  2. The cost? Slightly more wear on the pasture, but that cost is shared by everyone.

But now every herder thinks this way. They all add more animals. Soon, the pasture is overgrazed. The grass dies. The system collapses. Everyone loses—including the ones who were just “doing what made sense.”

Let’s be crystal clear:

  1. Individually: Adding another animal is logical. The gain is personal.

  2. Collectively: If everyone does it, the shared resource is destroyed.

  3. Result: Rational behavior by all leads to a guaranteed catastrophe.

The tragedy of the commons is not a flaw in people. It is a flaw in unregulated systems.

It is inescapable unless external mechanisms change the incentives. And that is what makes it truly tragic: it unfolds from reason itself.

That external MECHANISM is what I mean by AUTHORITY. You need some law to control it. The tragedy of the commons is the reason to almost all the environmental problems we face on earth today. Overfishing, global warming, pollution. Why do you drive a car when you know it harms the earth? What exactly is being DONE to make it so you don't harm the earth. Is it your individual choice, or are people in positions of AUTHORITY pushing for it and trying to save the earth by changing the law and changing the underlying infrastructure. I assure you, if authority wasn't part of the equation there's no hope of stopping global warming.

You and I are exactly talking about theory Y.

Now. That being said. What happens when you let theory Y run rampant? That's pre-civilization anarchy. Hunter-Gatherer groups because of: No authority. Make sense? I mean think about it. What group in all of human civilization has Zero authority? Hunter-Gather groups. Groups that were NEVER part of civilization in the first place.

If you have authority you can start controlling people and making people build things that kick start civilization. Canals, public works, all things that they wouldn't build on their own because of the tragedy of the commons.

This isn't even a personal opinion I'm talking about here. This is academic opinion. People who study these things say what I'm saying and all I'm doing is regurgitating it. But, of course arm chair expert marcus_holmes knows best and can trump all of academia with theory Y.

The theory I'm regurgitating is from academia. The opposite of wealth.

I hate billionaires. I think it's unfair. But I'm also scientific. That means if unfair and unequal distribution of wealth is what resulted in civilization we need to admit it.

But that doesn't mean we need to worship billionaires. Civilization is built off of blood and corruption. That doesn't make the blood and corruption justified.

If you want to deal with wealth inequality then why don't we just fight for communism? Communism is the ideal theory for fair wealth distribution. But what happens when we go for the ideal? Reality hits. Communism works in theory BUT not in reality. It's an idealist fantasy concept.

The big question here is that how do we meet our ideals WHILE NOT ignoring REALITY. Like ok, so a billionaire loves what I'm saying. I don't give a shit. To hell with him. We need to attack problems with the truth. Not some fantasy witch hunt bs trying to build a utopia that isn't inline with reality.

So maybe something in between works right? Not communism, you need a bit of inequality. But maybe not too much. What system like that has worked? Do we have examples? I mean Elon is a billionaire ass hole, that much is true, but the allowance of the existence of such billionaire ass holes in the United States has also allowed the existence of rocket catching technology never seen before by the likes of mankind. What's the tradeoff? Do we know? Are we examining the full reality of it? Maybe if we taxed billionaires like crazy and reduced them to millionaires... maybe the rocket catching technology would've still existed... Do we know? No. We don't But let's not blind ourselves to reality before we know.

One thing is for sure: wealth inequality is RESPONSIBLE for civilization. Are you rational enough to be impartial about this or are you so against wealth inequality that you can't even look at the good parts of it.

History is full of people with extreme wealth and power. I would say our current political structures are keeping them somewhat under control.

Edit: So in that sense, I'm also on the side that billionaires are created naturally. When you already have a lot of wealth, the odds are in your favor to create even more wealth. So if you would just keep the system running without much interference, wealth will naturally accumulate to those who already have a lot. Therefore, we need political structures to keep that under control.

Billionaires are the definition of unfairness. And therefore they are natural.

Only From the perspective of civilization, of course, which is only a small fraction of human existence.

From the perspective humanity overall, not only are billionaires unnatural, but civilization in itself is unnatural. Hence all the declining birth rates we see today.