politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
She's a billionaire. She's no more left leaning than Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. She just flies socially progressive flags.
She made a billion by selling tickets to huge venues all over the world where she performed.
She actually did work to get rich, unlike Bezos, who steals his wealth from his workers.
I guarantee she exploits people like any other capitalist, but there are different types of billionaires.
Rowling used to seem like a "good billionaire" too. Then she went all TERF-y.
Swift may seem cool for now, but let's not put away the guillotines just yet.
Not if you read her work, she didn’t. It was filled with racist tropes.
I am just starting to see that, after having grown up on it. Any recommendations on good analysis's?
I'm a fan of Alton Brown and Kenji López-Alt
Americas test kitchen/cooks country is great. Internet shaquille is also excellent.
I love you.
I'm fine with that. The guillotine can always stay our regardless of who it is and.how much we currently like them.
Okay? Everyone seems fine until they don't seem fine. That's not unique to billionaires or particularly insightful.
No one's canonizing anyone here. Saying there's a difference between "one of the most popular musicians ever" having a lot of money and "exploitative businessman notable for particularly exploitative working situations" who has two orders of magnitude more isn't some preening hero worship.
I'd say that her bonus payout to her tour staff shows that isn't the case.
I'd argue there's a pretty big difference between someone like Bezos and someone like swift. Specifically, it's almost impossible to make a billion dollar business without exploiting people, and Bezos definitely exploited the hell out of people.
In contrast, I don't think it would be accurate to say that Swift made her money by exploiting people. Of the ethical ways to make money, I would think selling albums that you wrote and performed, and tickets to concerts that you're performing would rank pretty highly.
Additionally, a significant portion of her wealth is the valuation of her music catalog being extremely high on account of being a very popular musician.
I'm not saying she's the most left person in the world or anything, but not aggressively exploiting people, giving a lot of money to charities, and actively championing progressive causes definitely classifies someone as "left leaning" in my book.
Billionaires should not exist, full stop. They literally cannot spend that amount of money.
She could lower the cost of her music, her tour tickets, merchandise...
I love Taylor Swift too but just because she has progressive views doesn't mean she didn't extract wealth from people and is hoarding it for herself.
I'm willing to eat my hat if she donates 2/3 of her wealth right now and promises to never have more than a few million in total assets.
But she isn't. And that makes her a bad billionaire.
If she lowered the price of her tour tickets it would just increase demand (without a commensurate increase in supply, since concert venue size and the number of shows she has time to put on both have limits) and thus further enable scalpers.
Lowering the prices of music sales or merch would be more feasible, but would be relatively complicated due to messing with supply/demand/product quality/employee & supplier compensation, etc. (For example, it could arguably be better to keep the merch prices the same or even raise them, but have the manufacturer increase worker wages or something like that.)
Rather than sit around hoping that she more fairly allocates profits of her own accord, if the societal goal is to prevent billionaires then the easiest way to ensure that would be via government policy, by increasing her income tax.
So, two things: I never said people should be billionaires, I said there's a difference between her and Bezos. You can't pretend that a $12 album, or Spotify streaming costs are the same as making people pee in jugs for minimum wage. One of them is actually doing things that people like in exchange for money, and people are saying "yes, I would like to spend my disposable income on this luxury good" often enough that she has more wealth than she can ever spend. Extracting wealth isn't the same as exploitation.
Second, if you exclude the value of her music catalog, she's not a billionaire. If she sold every piece of real property she owned, and gave away every last penny, he net worth would still be in excess of $500M on account of that. It doesn't seem quite fair to say that someone is terrible because the things they made are worth more than an arbitrary line of "a few million". Saying that someone is hoarding by just owning something they made that people say is worth a lot of money is judging someone for something largely out of their control.
None of this has anything to do with someone being "left leaning" in any case. Left leaning isn't some short hand for ethical purity of being a member of the proletariat or even the working class. Saying that someone who publicly and materially supports progressive causes is "left leaning" seems pretty fair and reasonable.
I don't particularly care about swift being some bastion of goodness. I also don't actually care if someone has a billion dollars. I do care if they exploited people to get it. I care if they exploited people to get less than a billion. So lumping people together by the number without focusing on the conduct misses the point.
Very well put
Edit: downvotes for agreeing with an upvoted comment is interesting