Maybe we collectively need to recognize billionaires like they recognize their workers. I propose the following:
“Becoming a billionaire” is still a thing that the most aggressive, ambitious sociopaths among us can aspire to. Because they and the broken people that idolize them will insist that great things cannot happen without the promise of great rewards. And obviously the only “reward” of any meaning to them is money.
Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.
Assets and earnings in excess of 1 billion are seized and given to charity, or infrastructure, or healthcare or whatever. Used for the betterment of society. It should be done responsibly in a way that won’t ruin the assets, for example not liquidating billions in stock all at once.
The government publishes a leaderboard every year that shows which Champions of the Economy™️ gave the most back to society that year in the form of excess earnings. And we all pretend that we’re REALLY impressed.
They can have their on-paper status and their superficial adoration they hunger for. And they can even be stupidly rich by ANY standard.
Can anyone argue this is not a great idea? Even by being devil’s advocate, I genuinely can’t see any reasons why this would be worse than it currently is for anyone. 1 Billion still grants you A LOT of luxury and influence, just about as much as any single human should reasonably ever need or desire. And the best part is that we wouldn’t even need to pretend to be impressed! Imagine a parallel universe where Nole Ksum “contributed” 400 fucking billions to improving infrastructure, healthcare, and research. Wouldn’t you actually like the guy who has made the world, or at least your side of it, measurably better?
Yep. I didn’t want to make the post much longer, but I almost went on about how this could easily be a win-win scenario.
The one speed bump I wonder about is that loss of shares means loss of control of the company and its board, which your “founder & CEO” types will not like.
…but I guess reasonable people may consider that a feature, not a bug.
Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.
No, you’ve won the game so you start over with zero dollars on level 2 (someone breaks one of your legs to make it harder).
It might be neat to have the rich lean into their new admirable roles and directly support the schools and hospitals publicly. If they keep their net worth down, the government does not need to seize anything.
But then we run the risk of them pulling the shit where they donate to their own charities they control. But if we’re writing regulations to limit net worth like this, then writing the regulations about where they can send the money seems simple in comparison.
Maybe we collectively need to recognize billionaires like they recognize their workers. I propose the following:
“Becoming a billionaire” is still a thing that the most aggressive, ambitious sociopaths among us can aspire to. Because they and the broken people that idolize them will insist that great things cannot happen without the promise of great rewards. And obviously the only “reward” of any meaning to them is money.
Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.
Assets and earnings in excess of 1 billion are seized and given to charity, or infrastructure, or healthcare or whatever. Used for the betterment of society. It should be done responsibly in a way that won’t ruin the assets, for example not liquidating billions in stock all at once.
The government publishes a leaderboard every year that shows which Champions of the Economy™️ gave the most back to society that year in the form of excess earnings. And we all pretend that we’re REALLY impressed.
They can have their on-paper status and their superficial adoration they hunger for. And they can even be stupidly rich by ANY standard.
Can anyone argue this is not a great idea? Even by being devil’s advocate, I genuinely can’t see any reasons why this would be worse than it currently is for anyone. 1 Billion still grants you A LOT of luxury and influence, just about as much as any single human should reasonably ever need or desire. And the best part is that we wouldn’t even need to pretend to be impressed! Imagine a parallel universe where Nole Ksum “contributed” 400 fucking billions to improving infrastructure, healthcare, and research. Wouldn’t you actually like the guy who has made the world, or at least your side of it, measurably better?
Yep. I didn’t want to make the post much longer, but I almost went on about how this could easily be a win-win scenario.
The one speed bump I wonder about is that loss of shares means loss of control of the company and its board, which your “founder & CEO” types will not like.
…but I guess reasonable people may consider that a feature, not a bug.
And btw, thanks!
But I wanted to buy my own B2 Spirit Stealth Bomberrrrr! Mommmmmmmm!
No, you’ve won the game so you start over with zero dollars on level 2 (someone breaks one of your legs to make it harder).
The more you donate the more you’re celebrated. Our heros should be the people building schools and hospitals, not the people robbing them.
Hack yeah, rule #4!
It might be neat to have the rich lean into their new admirable roles and directly support the schools and hospitals publicly. If they keep their net worth down, the government does not need to seize anything.
But then we run the risk of them pulling the shit where they donate to their own charities they control. But if we’re writing regulations to limit net worth like this, then writing the regulations about where they can send the money seems simple in comparison.