The questionable value of billionaires
Explanation: why would an ordinary scientist blog about billionaires? I claim relevance because I reckon that the world would be a lot better off if we valued careful investments of society’s hard-won wealth on behalf of all citizens and life on this planet more that feathering the nests of a tiny fraction of humanity who use their extreme wealth to pursue their own agendas.
An idea: Some of the billions that might be harvested from the super wealthy could be spent on supporting public education, trustworthy science, transparency, the communication of objective facts and the creation of efficient public agencies which help insulate society from those with vested interests.
Why are there any billionaires? What is their value to any society? Do they exert undue influence in our world?
What is money anyway? It is not important to whales, elephants, ants, plants or any other species on the planet! Money is just a human construct to help convey the value of things among humans. So, I invite you to join me in questioning the value of systems which allow a few to accumulate billions of dollars and, in doing so, prevent better collective decisions being made on behalf of ALL living organisms on this precious planet.
Here I outline some of my objections to just a few of the billionaires I have heard of - in approximate decreasing order of my disapproval of them. Of course, it is not a complete listing.
Reading the recent article in The Economist titled ‘Messiah, menace or both?’ - on the 2023 biography of Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson - I ask myself: how and why would any society permit such extraordinary wealth to be accumulated by any one person?
I have written elsewhere about my decision to leave Twitter - due to the enormous conflict of interest the new owner has on what was once described as a virtual global town square. Since I left Twitter I cannot read any tweets on that platform, but it seems from other commentary that Musk’s continuing mismanagement of X vindicates my decision to leave.
Do most of us on this planet want our world to be greatly impacted by one man who - according to the Economist article - is “impulsive, pugnacious and self-destructive”?
I, for one, do NOT want any individual to unilaterally decide humanity’s choice to populate other planets. Nor do I want any unelected person to hold sway in the conduct of wars, as has been suggested regarding the impact of Starlink internet services over Ukraine and Russia. And my concern about billionaires is not limited to this richest one of all.
I have similar concerns about other billionaires flying into space on their personal ego trips such as Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin or Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic. In my view, these adventures should be subject to sufficient oversight from international bodies authorised to franchise any activities that have the potential to impact life on our planet.
Allow me to mention a few negative attributes of a few more billionaires before I conclude that we should ban them entirely!
A recent article in the NY Times disclosed that the USA’s national security may have been compromised by one supposed billionaire, ex-president Donald Trump, possibly disclosing secrets to another billionaire, an Australian, Anthony Pratt, whose family made their fortune from packaging.
May I mention another billionaire, Rupert Murdoch, who got his start in Australia from his dad when he inherited the family publishing empire? He went on to become a US citizen and continued to expand his media empire to become so powerful that Prime Ministers and Presidents across the world pay homage to him when they visit New York. No doubt readers are aware of the negative consequences of some of the tentacles of his News Limited octopus so I won’t expand on that here.
Another billionaire who gets lots of press is Warren Buffett who, according to Wikipedia, has a net worth of $117 bn. He has been such a successful investor, reaping huge rewards for all shareholders of his holding company Berkshire Hathaway. I choose not to drink Coca Cola nor do I use Apple devices; but that is not because he owns a lots of shares in those companies. The thing I like most about Warren Buffett is that he has promised to give most of his many billions away to philanthropic causes via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Then, there is a billionaire who is doing his best to use his money for laudable objectives: Bill Gates, together with his former wife, have been giving away lots of their money over more than a decade to a wide range of beneficial projects. According to Wikipedia, they have focused their philanthropic efforts on “climate change, global health and development, and education”. I, along with much of the world, have benefited so much from his creative development of personal computing and Microsoft software. Since stepping down from his Microsoft responsibilities, I have great admiration for his commitment to society at large and I enjoy reading his thoughts on so many subjects through his Gates Notes blog. In spite of my approval of many of the actions of this billionaire, I still have residual concerns.
Whilst Gates’ philanthropic efforts are admirable, I would still ask: “isn’t all that money still going to causes chosen primarily by those two billionaires, albeit assisted by their support teams?” Isn’t that just another, perhaps more noble way, of an individual exerting their influence beyond what should be permitted within a representative liberal democracy?
(I acknowledge that many of today’s governments around the world could not be trusted to allocate billions better than organisations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - due to lobbying, corruption, etc. But that doesn’t mean that we should not aspire to elect good representative democratic governments that ARE capable of and committed to making better collective decisions on behalf of all their citizens than do philanthropic organisations).
If there were no billionaires, more billions would be collected by democratic governments. If they governed in the interests of all of their citizens, perhaps we would see better collective decisions about the future of the planet, global heath, climate change, education and rocket trips to other planets than is the case when individual billionaires indulge their fantasies. Many will no doubt think that I am just tilting at windmills; I would counter that, if they could vote, all species which inhabit our planet would prefer better collective decisions over the choices made by individual billionaires.
Not only do I oppose the accumulation of billions by individuals, I also oppose the transfer of those billions to subsequent generations. Inherited wealth transferred from Keith Murdoch set Rupert on his way. Likewise, Fred Trump’s wealth got Donald Trump started. Visy’s Richard Pratt passed his wealth on to Anthony. And Australia’s richest woman, billionaire Gina Rhinehart got her wealth from her dad, Lang Hancock. Does anyone else see any trends here? My hypothesis is that inherited wealth may result in delusions of grandeur in the offspring, encouraging them to make investment decisions soaked in self-interest.
The over-riding concern for me is that billionaires exert influence far beyond their value as individual humans. When they use their wealth to further their own interests, they corrode the fabric of societies.
Ideas
Some of the billions that might be harvested from the super wealthy could, for example, be spent on supporting public education, trustworthy science, transparency, the communication of objective facts and the creation of efficient public agencies which help insulate society from those with vested interests.
Governments across the world should employ their most creative people, assisted by artificial intelligence, to simplify and coordinate the tax codes of each democratic nation to limit the accumulation of excessive wealth by any individuals. (Warning for accountants and investment consultancies: your business models may be negatively impacted by these changes!).
Once the above impossible dream is realised, it would be wonderful if all of the world’s economies adopted the same strategies and coordinated actions to prevent unintended consequences such as trans-national avoidance of wealth taxes.
Of course, upon achieving the impossible, wealth ceilings may need to be lowered even below the level of ‘billionaire’!
PS. If any of the above billionaires feel wrongly maligned by what I have written, please let me know via the comments section below and I will attempt to remedy any errors or omissions.
Addendum (April 10, 2024)
After reading my blog above, a friend recently loaned me a book that has forced me to re-consider some of my words, especially about two of the billionaires mentioned - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
Rather than correct my original blog, I have chosen to note my change of heart via this addendum.
The book is 'The Bill Gates Problem; Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire' by Tim Schwab (2023) (Penguin Random House UK).
It is a fascinating read, presenting vast evidence to make the case that the philanthropy of billionaires is not what it might seem to those of us who read about these matters in the media.
As the author concludes (p 350): " When we allow one person - any person, no matter how benevolent or well intentioned - to acquire extreme wealth, we're giving that person extreme power. The question, then, is not how Gates's money could be better spent, but why we allow anyone to have this much money and power in the first place".
And a little later he writes (p 356): "Even with our best billionaire philanthropists, we have to reckon with the damage, greed, or tax avoidance that fuels their charitable giving. And we have to consider the idea that if we really care about equity and want the world to be a more equitable place, we should reorganize our economy and society in a way that doesn't allow the accumulation of such extreme wealth by a very small group of people". Alarmingly, Warren Buffett reportedly had a "true tax rate" in recent years of just “one tenth of 1 percent” (p 88).
So, whilst some of my comments in my original blog were overly naive, I nevertheless feel vindicated in choosing to question the value of billionaires.