Samsung chair imprisoned and 24 others found guilty in union-busting case

That's a good point... Making changes quickly and dramatically does have some effects that might be negative. However, it's usually very difficult for such changes to happen slowly and progressively.

Those kind of changes tend to come when a large percent of the population is fed up with the way things are and start to agitate for changes. At that point, it's unlikely to happen progressively... So it's a bit of a catch 22, as long as the people who benefit from the current state of society are in power (or control those who are in power), change are unlikely to come progressively since it would be disadvantageous to them but, once they lose the reigns (as they inevitably do), change happen so fast that it's both potentially bad for the society at large and worse for the ones who used to be at the top.

I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole.

>I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole.

Bill Gates' charitable work comes to mind. I wouldn't call him really a robber baron as the term implies wealth gained unfairly or from others involuntarily. The Fed is printing almost another half trillion in cash to inject, subsidize Wall St., for example. I also don't know if the term applies fairly to Samsung, as while the Korean history of chaebol companies was fueled by crony capitalism, their wealth does primarily come from their export-driven business where they compete globally. It's not like a JP Morgan (the person) or JP Morgan (the Wall St bank today) who really rely on borderline slavery from captive labor markets, or welfare from taxpayers.

Gosh, Carnegie's reputation laundering was truly his greatist innovation. That knock-off Gates should give him more credit.

Well many people think Microsoft's behavior was monopolistic, so yes, unfair, and exploiting monopolies is a robber baron motif. They're also known for exploiting their workers but I don't think Bill did that (so far as I know he didn't actively suppress wages like Jobs). In any case he was much maligned at a certain point in history and his charitable work is a little too over-publicized and under-delivering for me to take seriously.

Even if Bill is sincere, gp made the claim that robber barons don't work against their own interest, and I don't see where in the Gates example a man is working against himself.

> > I'm not sure there are many examples of enlightened robber barons who allowed progressive changes that were counter to their interests but improved society as a whole.

> Bill Gates' charitable work comes to mind. I wouldn't call him really a robber baron as the term implies wealth gained unfairly or from others involuntarily.

And yet, even Elizabeth Warren crippled social democratic policies are going too far. Paying taxes should be the litmus test for Bill Gates (and other billionaires), not throwing some scraps into unspecified charity.

Bill Gates is just a smarter Rockefeller that saw the writing on the wall and cashed out early. Call it an "ex-robber baron".

This is just a statement of opinions without any reasoning or substantiation.

I get it that social media is extremely biased to the left and people agree with this kind of thing, but it's disconcerting that people cannot respond to the discussion which follows from first principles and logical reasoning. For example, by responding to the reasoning I gave. Not just saying "I disagree, and Elizabeth Warren isn't even socialist enough for me." It's so unconvincing.

The quality of your argument is low, I suppose that is why you didn't get your expected kind of answer. You just posted opinions, and none of them are facts.

* Bill Gates like philanthropy: Taxes always would be way higher than the sum of all philanthropy. All of philanthropy in the US was $400 billion last year. Trump's tax cut for the rich was $1.5 trillion. Only the last tax cut.

* Taxes are spent democratically, which, in a Democracy, is always preferable to a single rich person following his/her personal agenda, because that, by definition, is not democratic.

* JP Morgan et al. are indeed getting welfare from taxpayers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-tim... If the person fixing your toilet pays more in taxes than a person like Bill Gates, what else would you call that but welfare for the rich?

Ok well the insulting really convinced me that you are right.

Where did I insult you?

Uh, the very first sentence is an insult.

That was no insult. "You are dumb for disagreeing with me" would be an insult, and if I posted that you would have every right to feel insulted. But I didn't.

But the quality of your argument was low: You just put chained unsubstantiated opinions together, the majority of which are objectively wrong.

You write that "The Fed is printing almost another half trillion in cash to inject, subsidize Wall St." which a) isn't how QE works, and b) The rate of growth of e.g. S&P500 is the same as before QE started.

You write that "social media is extremely biased to the left" which is an alt right conspiracy with oodles of studies showing that this is wrong.

The philanthropy vs. taxation debate is decades old and the results are clear. You are of course free to reopen it with new arguments, but chose to omit those.

Saying the quality of your argumentation is not up to the standard of the person in question is not a personal insult. People can make mistakes and you can too. Pointing them out is not an insult, it is an opportunity for you to improve.

I didn't say it was a personal insult. I said it was an insult. And by the way, insulting without giving a reason why is exactly what my comment said it was: not an argument, just an insult. I can't believe I'm actually writing this to someone who ostensibly is an adult.